| |
In lugnet.org.us, Shiri Dori writes:
> Hey all,
there's _always_ an exception to prove the rule. rules are'nt bad things,
but in _this case_ they are hurtful. shiri dori is an exceptional young
woman. her thoughts and desires expressed so well here are proof. credit is
due to shiri for the remarkable contributions she has brought to the lugnet
community in general (do i _really_ need to cite things like her stimulating
polls, and much needed acronym faq.?!?), and .castle in particular, where we
have become a family with shiri as our little sister/matriarch/shepardess.
personally, i'm as angry as she is about this, and if she were to travel
to georgia, i can assure you that a dixielug meeting would be held with her
as the guest of honor, and we would all bow down, laying our bricks before
her, worshiping her as the lego goddess she is!
but then, we're a strange group... exceptional, you might say. ;-)
later ~ craig~
> I'm posting here to explain my opinion(s) about the age limitation in NELUG.
> I've talked to many people about my stand on this, especially during and after
> the WAMALUG Brickfest. Many people there expressed their agreement with what I
> said, and some people encouraged me to post about it - so here I am.
>
> In case someone missed this, one of NELUG's conditions for membership is that
> a member must be over 18.
> NELUG has explained their reasons for this, mostly due to liability issues and
> the fact that "they don't want to baby-sit". That was over 7 months ago. See
> here.
> http://www.lugnet.com/loc/us/ma/?n=140
>
> Let me give you some background about me here, so you know why I'm attacking
> this decision.
> I recently turned 16. I've lived in Newton (a Boston suburb) for a year now.
> As much as I've tried, I do not fit in here. As much as this might seem
> unreasonable, my *only* friends at this point are people I'm corresponding
> with online and/or by phone. Some are friends of mine from Israel, others are
> AFOLs.
> At this point I'm craving for some human contact. The Brickfest was the best
> thing that happened to me all year in that I could talk to people who share
> the love to LEGO, and it was face to face.
>
> It was then when I realized that being kept out of NELUG, I'm missing out on
> something great. Earlier, I was just disappointed that they don't allow me to
> participate. But now I feel horrible that I'm missing out, and I'm getting
> more upset of it with every NELUG post.
>
> Up to here the background.
>
> 7 months ago, Eric Kingsley give a few reasons for the age limitations:
> > 1. Legalities - This has been discussed at length before and I don't want to
> > rehash that again.
>
> I have no interest in rehashing this either. My parents agreed to release
> NELUG from any liability issues in a written document, if neccessary.
>
> > 2. Our origional "Mission Statement" - NELUG was initially started with the
> > only goal to be to get AFOL's together in an environment that we could have
> > adult conversations about a hobby we share. Please don't harp on me for the
> > wording here. We know that you all share the same hobby and that most of you
> > are very mature and converse with Adults fine. For more explination please
> > see #3.
>
> Eric answered his own question here, I think. We all share the same hobby.
> Once you pass the "5-12" age recommendation on the box, most people are
> scorned or at least misunderstood for their hobby. Naturally this increases
> with age, but believe me at 16 I'm getting as much weird looks as I'm sure
> some of you are at 30.
> As for maturity, I don't see how this applies when coming from people who
> repeatedly declare their inner-children to be under 12 and some even younger.
> Personally I'm often told I'm mature for my age but that doesn't/shouldn't
> matter.
>
> > 3. The snowball effect - If you make one exception where does it stop. Say
> > we raised the age limit to 16+ well now we will have all of the 13+ people
> > wanting in and so on and so forth. For us 18 is the best cutoff mainly
> > because that is the age where by U.S. law we are all considered Adults and
> > responsible for our own actions. This is a relatively easy age cutoff for us
> > to defend because of that.
>
> OK, so you took the easy way out. That's real nice, and even slightly
> understandable, but very unreasonable. Think about it for a second. You're
> setting an age limit at the most comfortable age, but it seriously isn't the
> right age. At 16 I'm on par with a 40 y/o as far as *LEGO* is concerned. Sure,
> the 40-y/o probably has a larger income and possibly more lego than me (not
> neccessarily the latter either) but the main point is we share the love to
> lego, and in the *same* way, which is (naturally!) very different than the way
> a 7 y/o loves lego. The cutoff shouldn't be at 18 - maybe at 12, or 16, but
> NOT 18. There's just no logic in that.
>
> > 4. We are not a babysitting service - OK don't throw stone's here we know you
> > don't need babysitters but once exceptions start being made this is where this
> > can lead. We don't want to end up having parents dropping off their kids for
> > a couple of hours and expect us to monitor them for free. This is not why
> > NELUG started and in my oppinion if this started happening many of the Adults
> > in NELUG would stop comming to meetings and we don't want that.
>
> Sorry, can't help but get mad about this one. I babysit, and I don't think
> people would trust me with their kids if I needed a babysitter myself. I don't
> think I need "monitoring" either. If my parents "dropped me off" it would only
> be because I can't drive alone (yet). Maybe I'd take the T if that'd make you
> feel better.
>
>
> Another point I'd like to bring up is that NELUG is the only LUG that has a
> cutoff age, to the best of my knowledge. Many groups don't have a clear-cut
> rule about this. It is much easier, and more fair towards the people pending,
> to deal with this issue on a case-by-case basis. NELUG decided to have a
> cutoff, and I respect that - it's your choice. If you still want to have a
> cutoff, that's fine by me. But *please*, at the very least, reconsider the age.
>
> Respectfully,
> -Shiri
>
> P.S. I've posted about this 8 months ago (and countless times between then and
> now). Feel free to read it here.
> http://www.lugnet.com/loc/us/me/?n=116
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) My sentiments exactly Craig! I've been telling her this forever, maybe now that you did too she'll listen...she's one of the cornerstones of .castle, as far as I'm concerned. And no one would know what a BURPMAN or SPUD is without her...;-) (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) I have never met either Craigo or Shiri, but the above statement is factual even on its face. A lego club that doesn't want Shiri as a member, whatever their charter position as to the age of members, has lost its soul in my opinion. I am West (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
Message is in Reply To:
258 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
