| |
On 11/17/1999, at 10:51 AM, Lorbaat wrote:
> In lugnet.loc.us.me, Ryan Dennett writes:
>
> > Eric, I don't want this to sound like arguing, because that's not what I • want
> > it to be, but what happens if you get, say, a 18 or 19yo who acts up and • isn't
> > on the maturity level that the group would like. How is it any different • saying
> > to him "your maturity level is not up to our standard. Work on it and • come
> back
> > in a few months and we'll see about your being a member then", then it • would
> be
> > saying it to a minor or their parent.
>
> So, let me see if I'm following you here: Because there's a slight • chance it
> might happen if we keep things 18+, we should open ourselves up a • situation in
> which it's more likely to happen? Sorry, that doesn't follow. It's a • bit like
> saying "you might get into a car accident just because you're driving • your car,
> so you might as well drive on the wrong side of the road, too."
>
> Obviously, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but it follows the same
"logic".
No, that's not what I asked. I asked you how saying that(what I gave
as an example) would be any different whether it was directed at a
somewhat mature 14yo or a somewhat mature 19yo. I didn't say that
you should allow JrFOLs to be allowed to join even though you might
have to turn away a fair number who want to join. I fully realize that
you would have to turn away a greater % of JrFOLs than you would
AFOLs. Please don't jump to a conclusion that I'm badgering you to
allow JrFOLs into your meetings, because I'm not going to really
take sides on this issue, but I will provide more info on the JrFOL
side, since I am one.
> > If the parent has a problem with you
> > saying that about their child, then as I see it, you really wouldn't • want that
> > parent at your meetings anyway.
>
> No parent who thinks their child is mature enough to be in the group, but • gets
> asked nicely not to bring them anymore, is going to be happy to hear it.
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear on that. I meant something more along
the lines of:
NELUG: "I'm sorry Mr. Doe but although we would like to have your
son be part of our group, we don't feel that his maturity is up
to par with what we feel is needed in this group."
MR. DOE: "Well, if that's the way you feel about my son, then fine, you
don't have to worry about his being here ruining your group."
(Grabs son by shoulder, walks out the door, slams it behind him)
That was more of what I was thinking, when I wrote that, and I didn't
mean to imply that a parent would be happy that his child wasn't
accepted. Naturally, any parent would want their child to be accepted,
but I was thinking more along the lines of a parent who held the group
in contempt if their child was not accepted.
> > I'm not trying to turn your opinion to favor us JrFOLs
>
> I want to make one thing clear: I have no problem with JrFOLs. LEGO is • a toy,
> after all, so of course there are people of all ages who like it. I • encourage
> people to buy LEGO for their kids. I have no problem with NELUG running • events
> geared towards folks of younger ages, like the cookouts mentioned before, • or
> play days, or anything like that. But part of the reason I enjoy NELUG • thus
> far is that the atmosphere is, well, mature. And while you certainly • seem to
> be plenty mature, the next person your age might not be, and suddenly • NELUG is
> making judgement calls when we allow you and not someone else.
Again, I'm sorry if I mis-implied. I meant your feelings on the issue,
not your overall feelings toward us. I fully understand why you want
the meetings to be kept the way they are. If I were a part of the group
I wouldn't want people to act in immature ways either, ie. complaining,
whining, unconstructive criticism, etc. I know full well that there are
plenty of people that are either above or below the maturity lever for
their age, so I don't mean to say that, say all 15yos, are as mature as
an average 18yo. It all depends on their upbringing, social life, and all
those other things that effect people.
I guess the biggest thing that I ask of you and the rest of the NELUGgers
is that if you are involved in another event like the mindfest, or host
your
own event, don't make me sit by and watch you guys set up or other
things to that effect, let me help. Granted, I may not be able to do
things
as well as you, or any of the others, but I know for a fact that I sure
ain't
gonna hinda ya any. And if you were able to get admittance to the
Lego facility in Enfield, let me be a part, because I probably wouldn't
get another chance.
This may not be what another JrFOL would want, but if what they want
is to attend the meetings, I'd say "sorry, but the meetings are still only
for the AFOLs".
> > (because like I've said,
> > I'm not going to be able to attend meetings, so it doesn't affect me), I • just
> > want to see how you would solve a problem like I mentioned.
>
> How would I solve it? Well, frankly, I think it would solve itself. My • sense
> of a lot of social matters is that they self-correct. Who would keep • going to
> a place they were obviously not fitting in? If it became terribly • disruptive,
> to the point where it was being commented on by NELUGgers to one another
> constantly, then I would suggest we all sit down and speak to the person.
>
> But, as I said, just because it *might* happen as things stand doesn't • mean we
> should open ourselves up to the more likely possibility of it happening • with
> younger folks. And that's just one of *many* issues invloved with • allowing
> folks <18.
>
> eric
Hey, absolutly, if you know there are going to be problems, by all means
you are to avoid them before they start.
Since I had already started this before the new messages on this topic
came in, I'll just add some more on here.
First off, I'm in High School(duh) so I don't know all the legalities
involved,
but what I've gathered from various other messages is that if NELUG
doesn't register with the state as an official organization, then, NELUG,
which is really just a group, not an organization, is not responsible for
the actions of any of it's "members", so there really shouldn't be any
problem with that, and please if I'm mistaken on this correct me.
Personally, I'd consider myself responsible for any of my actions, not
a group of people that I'm there with or helping. Although I know there
are people who would say, "but he's here with that group, they're
responsible for his actions, not me", it sickens me because if they're
your child, you are totally responsible for their actions.
And although it might be nice to have a group if teen JrFOLs form a
group, I'd never be able to start it myself 'cause I'm not good at that
type of thing.
In closing I thanks you all for listening and I hope you understand what
I was trying to get at, and I hope you are still around in 2 1/3 years.
Ryan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
35 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
