| |
> I am posting this to debate once, I will not follow through to it here (And
> if you don't like it, too bad), so if you want to respond to specific
> MichLUG items, please place it there in orgs.michlug. Otherwise, please
> leave MichLUG's items where they belong, not here. If you don't, don't
> except me to follow through. I really could care less what people who are
> not part of our group have to say.
Then why reply to them?
> A week ago, my good friend Tony asked if we (MichLUG) would consider
> displaying a LEGO town or whatever at his church. I thought, cool, another
> place to display, and after the disappointing GATS announcement of a small
> setup, I thought this was ideal. After Chris posted this idea, most people
> were more than happy to do it, with no thought on issues, until Larry voiced
> his opinion about how it would make MichLUG "endorse" this religion (Look
> ath this thread at the beginning). I disagree with this assessment
> wholeheartedly,and I think it is a pretty funny thing to bring up since no
> one at MichLUG endorse anything, much less a pactcular religion or whatever.
> MichLUG is a PRIVATE group, who is not any government agency, not funded by
> any government or public funds, and is simply a place where people in
> greater Michigan can have a group to do things with. I think we can go where
> we please, and if some people in the group do not like it, like Larry, feel
> free to stay at home. This whole thing is stupid to argue about.
> Then, James Powell, which as far as I know, never was part of our club, puts
> it in debate, and start a whole debate on clubs endorsing religions or
> whatever. Then we get into dbating what a clubs purpose is, and how everyone
> seems to say that clubs should not participate in any activity that might be
> contrived at endorsing it. Well, how about this, since I disagree with GATS
> objectives, I feel all LTC's should not participate in them, because of
> their support of GATS ideals. Heh, pretty silly, huh?
>
> This is just another attempt to drown out any kind of religious tone
> anywhere, and MichLUG is comprised of people that really don't care for the
> most part one way or another. No one cared until Larry posted something
> about it, and someone else who is not even part of our group put it in debate.
-no, what I am _not_ in favor of is having a non religious group become
religious because of a minority opinion. I said,
> No, by being present, you _are_ endorsing one religion. As a _club_ member
> (admittedly not your club), would you then want to support my cause?
> Reasonablly, I doubt you would, and this is why _as a non political club_, one
> should not attend something that is political in nature
(from .debate 10087)
> I am extremely upset about this whole situation, and turned a little event
> which is a goodwill gesture simply to have fun and display our LEGO items
> into a political debate on the merits of doing anything as a group, with the
> potential of making someone upset. And the fact now MichLUG will have to do
> everyone's religious whatever because of it is not factual as far as I know
> or am concerned. It is a silly argument, and one that should be left for the
> group, not a bunch of people who have nothing to do with the group that
> still seem to think they can dictate what we will do, or not do.
What I wrote (I'm not sure you read it was:
> However, I think that it is _wrong_ to use your club's name to further a cause
> that some members of the club _do not_ associate themselves with. If you were
> the mich(catholic)LUG, then fine- you have identified yourselves as a
> religious
> group, and it becomes a take it or leave it situation for new members. You
> are _not_ (IIRC :) the mich(catholic)LUG, therefore, I would be steering clear
> of this venue _as a club_, again, as Larry said, feel free to organize a meet
> there if you want to, but don't religisize the club.
> (again, this is all _my_ view...feel free to ignore it!)
-please note that last line. If you don't like my view, then ignore it. But,
according to LUGNET:
> 1. (do not) Restrict or inhibit any other user from using the
> discussion groups.
From:
http://news.lugnet.com/org/us/michlug/?n=2
So, if you want it private, take it to a Email list, and then you won't have to
listen to the
"a bunch of people who have nothing to do with the group that
still seem to think they can dictate what we will do, or not do."
but, in what _you just posted_ you are admitting that it is supporting one
religion. If a minority (and I am unsure of the numbers here) of the members
support going to _any_ activity after MichLUG attends this show (if it attends
as MichLUG), then you would be forced to allow them to...no matter how bad the
political activity, if they wanted to do a lego show at the local KKK rally, or
the local May Day Rally, or the local Pedofile's R Us rally, you would now be
forced to allow them to use the MichLUG banner, because you have set a
precident that a minority (of x members), have the right to select a venue
against the will of the remaining members.
(that, or try to remove them from MichLUG, and become Mich_cath_LUG)
> This whole incident has turned into a big nightmare, and a lot oof MichLUG
> members are very concerned about the turnout of this. I will not mention
> names here, because I am concerned enough for our group.
In part, that is why I moved it to .debate, because I think it is not so much a
issue for MichLUG but for the wider community. You also realize that given
TLG's support (the baseplates & Trees) that you are "endorsing" TLG to this
particular religion? They may not appreciate that. (mind you, they may not
care either!)
> I want to personally thank each one of you that has turned this into what it
> is, a nightmare for MichLUG members, who simply wanted to display our stuff,
> using the group we formed. And a big thanks to you, Larry, for starting all
> this stuff, making it into a political discussion, and almost destroying
> what we want to do. I thought I had a low opinion of this debate to begin
> with, but I am finding it is deeper now than ever. Thank you all. > : (
<sarcasm>Why, you are welcome.</sarcasm>
James Powell
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: MichLUG Items in Debate not Appropriate
|
| To All, Well, since I am a laughing stock to the community now, I guess I will respond. (...) Because it was a MichLUG item, that's why, and it got dragged here. < Snipped rest of post > yes, I see. Well, after talking with Larry, and seeing some of (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.org.us.michlug)
|
Message is in Reply To:
36 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
|
|
|
|
