Subject:
|
Re: The JRFOLS
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:05:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1476 times
|
| |
|
|
"John Neal" <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:398E663B.602A1E70@uswest.net...
> Tim Courtney wrote:
> > That's exactly the truth. Some opinions on the age issue offend, and • even
> > go so far as to hurt me. I've said it and I'll say it again - Lugnet • and
> > the AFOL community has been a key part of my personal growth during my • high
> > school years. If I were not allowed to participate as some views in • this
> > group show, where would I be now?
>
> lol Tim, I'm sure you would have turned out okay without LUGNET:-)
:) I'm not saying that I would wind up on the street all messed up without
Lugnet, now ;)
> You and kids like Bram and Shiri are the exceptions, not the rules. Todd • has
> not created hard and fast rules concerning age, but I foresee a potential
> conflict in the future if TLC tries to expand their website to include, • say, a
> chat room of sorts for kids. I see age as the main "overlap" issue • between TLC
> and LUGNET. There is no reason why kids can't take advantage of the • resources
> of LUGNET, but I just get a little concerned with kids in predominantly • adult
> NGs. As I mentioned before, I won't let *my* kids post in LUGNET.
I understand a little of what you mean by overlap. It may be a concern, but
as Todd said, overlap is OK. I also wish that TLC would be a little more
straightforward with us about what they are doing that could effect us
online (different subject - one that I very well could mention in Enfield in
2 weeks). Your kids posting to Lugnet is your individual choice, because
you are their parent. That's not to say that you're right or wrong, at
least you're doing what you believe is in their best interest. Other
parents may allow their kids to post and participate for what they feel is
the same reason.
As far as exceptions to the rules, I feel that there are a lot of them on
LUGNET today. I won't name a list for fear of leaving anyone out who slips
my mind at the time.
> > Ironic, the reason for their web project is because they were discluded • from
> > a LUG.
>
> You keep using that word....I do not think it means what you think it
> means...;-)
LUG? Or discluded? I think I know what both of those words mean.
> > As Todd said in his reply to your post, Lugnet never was intended for • just
> > adults.
>
> No, not "just", but just about. As I said before, I don't have any • problem
> with "the exceptions" participating in LUGNET, but if a couple hundred 12 • year
> olds were to join up and start posting everywhere, it would certainly • change
> the atmosphere of LUGNET. Heck, we've seen examples of how just one young
> individual can completely disrupt and change an NG.
Here I can agree with you. I wouldn't be comfortable with a huge influx
either. And yes, we've seen pretty negative effects of certain peoples'
particpation in LUGNET groups.
Does that 13 years of age privacy law apply to LUGNET too?
> > Quite frankly, its Todd's site. He can do with it what he wants.
> > And I commend him for including people who are under X age. I also • think
> > that his policies should be respected by members of the community.
>
> But of course! And I think he likes LUGNET as it is-- a few kids around, • but
> mostly adults, and no need for an age limit. But if there were some major
> upset of that balance, I think Todd would want to, for the overall good of
> LUGNET, do some hard thinking as to what course to follow.
Probably so. But I'm saying with the kids we have on LUGNET now, its mostly
a positive atmosphere. Yes, you can usually pick kids out from adults by
the mere content and format of their posts. That's probably a good thing.
But only every once in a while does one of these kids really upset things
here.
An interesting side note, and this would go with your side of the issue: I
was chatting last night in the infamous BrickLUG chat when a newbie who
claimed to be 16 years old came in. He complained to us that he couldn't
post to LUGNET, so I tried asking him about the confirmation email, etc. He
then went on to say that he posted to .pun once, but never was allowed to
again. He mentioned something about 4 letter words, then later on down the
line something came out that the message was full of 4 letter words (of the
type which aren't allowed on LUGNET). This immediately changed my opinion
for his seemed peril of not being able to participate, to one where he
should learn how to follow rules and interact properly in an online
discussion group.
That's something we don't need any of here on LUGNET.
...Not to say that people don't need grace for time to adjust to
communicating online, but the blatant disregard for order and disrespect for
others is not needed.
All of us have seen that there are exceptions both ways.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114
AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The JRFOLS
|
| (...) lol Tim, I'm sure you would have turned out okay without LUGNET:-) (...) You and kids like Bram and Shiri are the exceptions, not the rules. Todd has not created hard and fast rules concerning age, but I foresee a potential conflict in the (...) (24 years ago, 7-Aug-00, to lugnet.general)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
