 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| I had an idea which might work for some groups (perhaps not NELUG) which would allow a group to have an age limitation in the 18-21 range but still allow younger AFOLs to attend meetings. That is, to set the age limit for *membership*, but to allow (...) (26 years ago, 6-Jul-00, to lugnet.org)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Which could be viewed as a weakness of the web interface - the generalized, higher-level groups get blasted with *all* the messages, not just the generalized, higher-level messages. Steve (26 years ago, 6-Jul-00, to lugnet.org)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) I perhaps should have gone into more depth on my thoughts. My thinking is that with trains as a catalyst for forming the group, the demographics may have been different. I can't enumerate the factors that lead me to this thought because it is (...) (26 years ago, 6-Jul-00, to lugnet.org)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| FUT lugnet.org (...) Well I don't know about the other "True" LUGs but I don't think being a LUG as opposed to an LTC had anything to do with it. I think it mostly came down to the demographics of our group at the begining. Like Todd pointed out I (...) (26 years ago, 6-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nclug, lugnet.org)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Thanks Bram, Obviously this should have read "I have heard some good arguments for changing the rule and some good arguments for NOT changing the rule". (...) Well no problem, I just wish the discussion had remained civil so my "Devil inside" (...) (26 years ago, 6-Jul-00, to lugnet.org, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
|
