Subject:
|
Re: The JRFOLS
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 5 Aug 2000 04:05:15 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.STOPSPAMMERSnet
|
Viewed:
|
855 times
|
| |
|
|
Jonathan McKay wrote:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, John Neal writes:
> >
> >
>
> For the lego page subject:
> > > Is the experience any better for children? To be blunt, I don't see
> > > why it would be.
> Not in any way. I agree with your words exactly.
Whoa, a second. You have sniped Ian and my thoughts together as if they were all
mine. The above was Ian was talking about whether TLC's plan to try and create
an online community for kids was a good idea. *I* think it would be better for
kids to congregate under the auspices of TLC than in LUGNET.
> > Personally, I don't think LUGNET is for kids.
> Back up a bit!!! I've been on lugnet for a year now posting messages
> intermitently but mainly using the buy-sell-trade. I completely dissagree. The
> thing is , if I had known about lugnet when I was 9 I would have participated,
> After all, I've been collecting for 7 years.
That was my quotation:-) Jonathan, merely because you are into LEGO is no
qualification for participation in LUGNET. Speaking as a parent, I see
absolutely no compelling reason why a 9 year old should be reading or posting to
LUGNET NGs. And besides, if a lot of 10 year olds suddenly began posting in a
particular NG, I bet you would find that a lot of adults who normally hung out in
those NGs would go elsewhere. And in general, if a large influx of kids hit
LUGNET, adult participation would drop IMO. It's nothing against 10 year olds--
it's about adults wanting to hang with adults.
> > > In my mind, children become young adults when they can behave
> > > responsibly around adults, consider their actions, need little
> > > supervision, and can contribute relevant, interesting and meaningfully
> > > to conversations.
Ian's words.
> Then would you consider me a child? I suppose by that I wouldn't consider
> myself a child, but usually child referes to pre-teen (under 13)
Dunno-- how old are you?
Human age categories by me:
0 to 1 month -- infant
1 month to 1 year -- baby
1 year to 12 years -- child
13 to 17 -- teen
18 to 25 -- young adult
25 and up -- old fart
>
> > >
> > > I'm not a parent, so perhaps many of you who are, have a different
> > > view of this. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, and the
> > > above doesn't sound like a cranky single adult.
> I understand. But it seems as though many adults seem to "underestimate"
> children in their abilities.
That's Ian-- I *have* 2 kids.
> > >
> > > I think LUGNET and the many LEGO groups forming around the world
> > > should consider making the distinction as well. • Definitely.
> > >
> > > I know that one young woman was recently denied membership in a LEGO
> > > group. She has proven herself to be a responsible contributing member
> > > of LUGNET, so why should she be denied the support and comradeship of
> > > a local LEGO group?
Ian.
> I haven't proven myself, but I have been denied membership.
> > That situation is unfortunate, but she is the exception, not the rule. 99.5% • of
> > 14 year olds don't belong in adult groups, even if it is a LEGO club IMO.
> > Although it isn't an official policy, I'm sure most of the GMLTC would be • against
> > folk under 18 in the group. Too many issues.
Me.
> >
> > > I can't tell them how to run their group. But I think it is a bad
> > > policy, an unnecessary policy and short sighted. I want to point out
> > > the following. Ever individual who joins LUGNET or joins a LEGO group
> > > adds to our numbers. Each gives us further market leverage and buying
> > > power. Each contributes in his or her own way to the LEGO community.
Ian.
> yes yes
> > Numbers aren't everything.
Me.
> >
> > > Don't discourage them because they're young.
Ian.
> > Don't include them merely because they are "one more". This is a touchy • issue but
> > I look at it like this: We are adults playing with toys. That's fine • because we
> > are adults and that is our choice. Kids play with toys, too, but with other
> > kids. Let them be kids and when they are adults (and after having gone • through
> > their dark ages), they can decide to return to the fold.
Me.
> Another one of the places I agree with you.
>
> My 2 cents,
> >
> > -John
> >
> > >
> -Joathan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The JRFOLS
|
| . (...) Sorry about that, I was on a slow computer with a sparratic scrolling procedure. Don't worry, I'm on a different comp. now. For here, Ive snipped everything but your last comments. (...) Unfoutunately there is no place like that that I know (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | The JRFOLS
|
| (...) For the lego page subject: (...) Not in any way. I agree with your words exactly. (...) Back up a bit!!! I've been on lugnet for a year now posting messages intermitently but mainly using the buy-sell-trade. I completely dissagree. The thing (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.general)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
