To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.org.usOpen lugnet.org.us in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Organizations / United States / 436
    Re: Age limitations —Matthew Miller
   (...) What exactly would we tell the person that got denied? "We don't think you're as cool as some other people, so you can't be in our club"? That's not likely to have a positive outcome of any sort. I certainly don't want to be the person saying (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)  
   
        Re: Age limitations —Chris Maddison
     (...) What is "cool" and "not cool" has nothing to do with it. And, as I said before, just being a third party, I feel that this is VERY arrogant on NELUG's part as a whole...I think we'd all be satisfied if this were taken case by case; have a (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
    
         Re: Age limitations —Matthew Miller
      (...) I didn't say "*what* is cool". I said "*who* is cool". That's a completely separate issue. The actual words used may be "mature enough", but it won't feel that way to the recipient of a rejection. It's painful enough for Shiri to be rejected (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
     
          Re: Age limitations —Chris Maddison
       (...) OK, so replace "what" with "who". I still don't think that changes anything. (...) NELUG's (...) I apologize that I seemed arrogant. This is not so much an attack, and I'm sorry it came off that way. But it IS a very direct and straightforward (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
      
           Re: Age limitations —Matthew Miller
       (...) It's ok. It's difficult to convey intentions and tone in newsgroup postings and it's easy to misinterpret. (...) The counter question is: if it's a huge fight to get her in, will the situation be healthy afterward? (...) This might be an (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
      
           Re: Age limitations —Jeff Stembel
        (...) WAMALUG does not have geographic restrictions. Anyone able to make it to meetings can become a charter member, and *anyone* can join our list and post. Currently, we have members who come to meetings and events from about three hours north and (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
       
            Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
        (...) I loathe "me too" posting, and therefore don't do it. I am, however, in complete agreement with Matt in every post he's made. eric (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
      
           Re: Age limitations —Chris Maddison
       (...) and (...) That is a good point to think about. I'm not sure I can answer it. I think that should be between Shiri and NELUG. (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
     
          Re: Age limitations —Tim Courtney
       (...) NELUG's (...) That was then, this is now. Though I'm not denying your unanimous vote, but if the rest of NELUG still feels the same on the issue, I'd sure like to see their support for you now. You appear to be the _only_ one sticking up for (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
      
           Re: Age limitations —Matthew Miller
        (...) "Then" was less than half a year ago. I'm not sure how that can be construed as a long time. (...) I assure you that I am not just ranting on my own. Remember that LUGnet is not a real-time forum, and that not many NELUG members are likely to (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
       
            Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
         (...) Ok, let's consider them then: ] Why do you cater only to adults? ] ] The primary reason is that children already have their own "User Groups" ] called their classmates. On average a child building with LEGO® has a ] large number of friends (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
        
             Re: Age limitations —Matthew Miller
          (...) I did ask for consideration of the FAQ *and* my posts. You're not doing that. (...) I assure you that I wouldn't be going to such lengths to discuss this decision if it were a solitary opinion of my own. I try to be a reasonable person. (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
         
              Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
          (...) Well, the FAQ is the only "policy" of the group that I see. Other than that, I see a single member of the organization sharing his views, which may or may not be those of the rest of the organization. I did notice that I didn't comment on a (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
         
              Re: Age limitations —Peter White
           (...) You could argue for 21(voting), 16(age of consent/age you can marry) or any myriad of ages around the world where people are subject to laws. (...) let's hope they're taking about Lego or maybe it's adult talk ! (...) Hey Frank, why don't we (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
          
               Re: Age limitations —Matthew Miller
            (...) Do you really think attempting destructive action will help anybody? I don't think Shiri would exactly feel welcomed into this group if this were the way it happened. We're not a government. Voting isn't a binding sort of legal thing. It's the (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
           
                Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
             (...) I have to agree with Mathew on that one, and because of that we also need to be carefull about how much we antagonize the current members. What I hope to accomplish by participating in this debate is any of the following: - convince NELUG to (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Peter White
             (...) My aims too, Frank. By pointing out how you can be more ridiculous than the ridiculous shows that their position can be dismantled. They need to rename the group to include Adult in the title. Bad luck that Shiri doesn't live in a more (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Christopher L. Weeks
             (...) No it doesn't. You acknowledged that they could find a way to stop you. What it does is show that you are not seeking a consensus. That what you want is to belittle, demean, and bend people to your will. I suspect quite sincerely, that you are (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
           
                Re: Age limitations —Peter White
             (...) I can't see how she would ever feel welcome with people who are running this exclusive misnamed organisation. Not a government, how about legislative body. Have a secret ballot (as opposed to secret handshakes). By the way, I have no aim in (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Matthew Miller
              (...) I'm taking this seriously (and staying up later than I'd like, to discuss it) because I think Shiri's request deserves that. It doesn't sound like it's a joke to her. (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
             
                  Re: Age limitations —Peter White
              (...) You like taking things out of context. That particular line was a joke, NOT the whole argument. I work nights, so I'm staying up too ! Don't twist things around and try and make it appear that your supporting her or her request, you are (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
             
                  Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
              (...) I think Matther is giving consideration to Shiri's request. He has stated that he is willing to bring the issue up again in a future meeting. Let's not allow our frustration with the situation cause us to start throwing bricks (and I will (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)  
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
              (...) What's ironic is that Shiri did get together with a bunch of people in the Boston area (most of whom I assume are NELUGers). As I recall from watching the planning of the meeting at TCS and retirement to a nearby eatery is that Shiri was one (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
             
                  Re: Age limitations —Matthew Miller
               (...) It's not ironic; it's intentional. We're not hard-hearted evil people. See: (3 URLs) I didn't realize that Shiri wasn't allowed to participate in the window display at TCS; I was really busy at work during that time, so someone else will have (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
              
                   Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
               (...) I wasn't in on the window display, but I beleive that the reasoning behind it was pretty simple: It was an official NELUG "event", complete with signage at TCS saying that the display was by NELUG; therefore, a non-NELUG member shouldn't be (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
             
                  Re: Age limitations —Tim Courtney
              (...) Actually, I was 18 at the time. I turned 18 the end of February this year. -Tim (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
             
                  Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
              (...) feel (...) Oops... I'm starting to recall that you were pressing for a non-NELUG meeting so that Shiri could attend (but that's all just a muddle). On the other hand, as I pointed out before, nothing magical (except a few stupid legalities) (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
             
                  Re: Age limitations —Tim Courtney
              (...) Yep, I was. (...) Exactly. -Tim (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Matthew Miller
             (...) "NELUG" mirrors the many computer users' groups in the world. I don't think any deep thought went into the name, but it has an implication that we are something different from the normal Lego kids' club. "Users' groups" are generally for (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
              (...) So Shiri isn't a "serious" LEGO fan? My dictionary doesn't define "serious" as implying "adult". I have to admit that I've never joined any sort of "users group" (<sick humor>of course if one uses the coloquial definition of "user" then I'm (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
             
                  (canceled) —Matthew Miller
             
                  Re: Age limitations —Matthew Miller
              (...) I think you started replying before you read the whole message: (...) We felt that we had to draw the line somewhere. I don't remember the particulars of other people's opinions on this next point, but personally I think making exceptions / (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
             
                  Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
              (...) as (...) No I did read the whole message. What I'm trying to do is get you to re- examine the reasoning that led to the feeling the group had to be adult only. So far, the only issues which I can accept as legitimate which have been raised are (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Peter White
             (...) Here, you go again, selective snipping. (...) What LUG isn't different from a kids club. We wouldn't even blink if a sixteen year old wanted to attend. But then in Australia we don't have a lawyer on every corner. (...) Rules need to be (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Matthew Miller
             (...) That was the one part of your post I was replying to. I don't think I removed anything relevant to my reply or that would characterize what you're saying. If I did, I apologize. (...) That I don't doubt. I'm concerned about consequences for (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Matthew Miller
              I mean: (...) ^ -mis (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
             (...) So what are you going to do when some 21 year old demonstrates the maturity of a 3 year old? As far as the maturity issue goes, all you're doing by specifying an age is reducing the number of potential conflicts, you can't eliminate them. So (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
           
                Re: Age limitations —Larry Pieniazek
            (...) Yep. Just as an aside, there is a process I often take architecture clients through (It's called QFD for the home audience to go look up if they want). It's quite formal and you get rather methodical and mechanical answers out at the end of (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
          
               Re: Age limitations —Matthew Miller
            (...) You could. But 18 is the age where, in the United States, you are legally responsible for yourself. (The age of majority.) Many members of NELUG are concerned about the possible legal implications of accepting minors into our group. You mocked (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
           
                Re: Age limitations —Christopher L. Weeks
             (...) There is the ability to seek self-custody prior to 18 through the courts. What about in the extremely unlikely event that someone who has done so wants to join? (I realize that the rule is still 18, but what if the reason behind the rule flys (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
             (...) What (...) Probably irrelevant, there are still legal issues which make a cutoff at age 18 (such as voting, though the voting age has almost no bearing on this debate, I assume that there are other legal issues which are relevant). Also, NELUG (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
           
                Re: Age limitations —Todd Lehman
            (...) I disagree with the first statement there -- I think everyone (myself included) is getting tripped up over the word "adult." Do you really mean to say that it is important to us (NELUG) to be a group of 18-and-older LEGO fans? I think what's (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
           
                Re: Age limitations —Matthew Miller
            (...) That's definitely important. But it actually _is_ important to some members (not unshakeably strongly for me, but maybe for some people, and I think it's a completely valid viewpointpoint) that it be an _adult_ group. After all, this is a (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
           
                Re: Age limitations —David Eaton
            Alright, I'm going to jump in here (I suppose it was inevitable) and say I'm agreeing with Todd-- (...) Well, I'll jump in here real quick with a minor point-- Lego's attitude has rarely (if ever, aside from the recent UCS sets and potentially LD) (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
           
                Re: Age limitations —Shiri Dori
            Uhhh... tiny nitpick :-) (...) ^^^^^^ (you do mean NELUG, right?! just checking... didn't know there was a requirement for LUGNET too!! <grin>) Otherwise, you brought up some extremely valid points. -Shiri (24 years ago, 6-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
           
                Re: Age limitations —David Eaton
            (...) Doh! The sad thing is I went through and tried to make sure I didn't DO that (I've been known to a couple times).. musta missed one... DaveE (24 years ago, 6-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
          
               Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
           (...) I (...) In the US (which is what matters here), 18 is the voting age. This is the commonly accepted age of adulthood in the US (though drinking and smoking usually require being 21, and 16 is the age of consent for many things, though kids (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
         
              Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
          (...) Frankly, I would find the presence of bored parents disruptive. I have before. eric (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
         
              Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
          (...) before. Possibly, maybe even probably, true. It depends on what is open for the bored parents to do. If there is another room where the couple bored parents and the bored spouse can hang out and do their own thing, or if the bored parents are (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
         
              Re: Age limitations —Larry Pieniazek
          (...) meeting (...) We are in hypothetical land here, unfortunately. I cannot speak for NELUG, only speculate. Organizing meetings is hard work. It's made harder when you have to: - make sure it's a bar that allows underage people - make sure (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
         
              Re: Age limitations —James J. Trobaugh
           Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... <snip> (...) I might have missed something here in all the 300+ post, but what is "the T" and "x"? (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
         
              Re: Age limitations —Matthew Miller
           (...) The T is the subway/trolley system in Boston. It's also the busses, but when people say "the T", they almost always mean trains. I'm not sure exactly what Larry means by "x", but I assume it stands for "getting there". [ -> off-topic.fun ] (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
         
              Re: Age limitations —Mark Herzberg
          (...) The "the T" is Boston's subway/train system. Sort of like how they call it "Le Metro" in Paris or "the Underground" in London. In Miami, we call our subway/train sytem "A waste of money", mainly because we know Miami is a car city, so only (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
         
              Re: Age limitations —Larry Pieniazek
          (...) Funny, in the US anyway, it seems that the public transit that works the best was built a long time ago by private companies, and the public transit built recently in cities that didn't have any doesn't usually work at all. Here in Zurich, the (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
        
             Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
         (...) And I assure you he is not the only NELUG or Lugnet member who feels the way he does. He is just the one who is getting to respond to these posts first- and he's doing it well enough that I, for one, don't see the need to parrot him. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
        
             Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
         (...) Unfortunately that is rather difficult for me to do since I'm in North Carolina. Frank (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
       
            Re: Age limitations —Tim Courtney
         (...) Then I must be mistaken. I based that comment off of some stuff I read today before posting my first reply, set 8 months ago, with a reference to this decision being made 4 months earlier, so roughly a year. (...) Yes, I understand that, and I (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
        
             Re: Age limitations —Christopher L. Weeks
          (...) Wait! How can you both say that maturity isn't directly attributable to age and then support _any_ age cut-off. This makes it sound like you're just trying to implement a change for...<blink, blink>...for what? Maybe for Shiri specifically? (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
         
              Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
          (...) it, (...) Absolutely agreed on this. (...) 18 is certainly the age which makes the most sense, though 16 is also a reasonable age. Of course in some ways, I would argue that 21 may be the most supportable age if alchohol consumtion will be a (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
         
              Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
          (...) And frankly, this is precisely the reason I personally supported 21 as a cutoff age when we were discussing it. I am still extremely uncomfortable with the idea of anyone under 18 coming anywhere near a gathering of people drinking. eric (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
         
              Re: Age limitations —Shiri Dori
           (...) Ah, I knew the drinking issue would come up. Here's my stand on this: I don't drink. I have no reason to. I cannot drink, as I am allergic to grapes, and moreso, I don't *want* to drink. If I were offered a drink, I'd turn it down. I can give (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
          
               Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
            (...) You desperately, desperately need to understand that this issue has nothing to do with you personally. eric (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
          
               Re: Age limitations —Christopher L. Weeks
           (...) Well, I'm not exactly urging you to take it up, but... (...) OH MY GOD! (Oh wait, I'm a heathen.) This would be unbearable. Can you trade in your body for one that works properly? The fermented juice of the grape is one of life's great (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
          
               Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
            (...) And in fact, the beverage most likely to be consumed at an adult gathering in the US doesn't have any grapes in it (at least as far as I know, I don't pretend to be an expert on alchoholic beverages). I would be dissapointed though which an (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
          
               Re: Age limitations —Shiri Dori
           ROFL!! Thanks Chris, you just made my day, as much as my allergies are usually a serious issue to me I gotta reply on this one... (...) As am I, but I do say the occasionally OMG ;-) And I even pray once in a while, what can I do, that's the way I (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
         
              Re: Age limitations —Todd Lehman
          (...) Me too -- I totally agree in the case of alcohol (no pun intended :-) But must there be a single sweeping cutoff? Make the cutoff 21 for meetings held at bars or places where alcohol is present. Make it 18 or 16 for other places. Simple. (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
        
             Re: Age limitations —Todd Lehman
         (...) I totally agree with Tim. And I realize that the issue isn't officially up for discussion when I say this, but I would still be in favor of lowering NELUG's age limit from 18 to 16. When the issue first came up last summer, IIRC, the number 18 (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)  
        
             Re: Age limitations —James J. Trobaugh
           (...) Actually it's 16 in Georgia also.(15 for a learner's permit) jt -- ---...--- James J. Trobaugh North Georgia LEGO Train Club (URL) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
         
              Re: Age limitations —Todd Lehman
          (...) D'oop! I stand corrected. Here's the chart I pulled data from: (URL) may be other errors. --Todd (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
         
              Re: Age limitations —James J. Trobaugh
           (...) It's easy to get it confused if you actually read the actually Georgia Department of Public safety codes, but for a Class D license (regular car) you must be 16 and have held a learner's permit for one year. (URL) did try to change this to 18 (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
         
              Re: Age limitations —Mark A. Herzberg
          (...) It is currently 15/16 in Florida. And, like Georgia, attempts to raise it failed. (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
        
             Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
         (...) As an interested bystander, that seems reasonable. Of course to some extent, an event at someones house is up to that person's discretion. Certainly if someone's blanket liability policy has anything to say about age, that must be adhered to. (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
       
            Re: Age limitations —Shiri Dori
        (...) It doesn't matter if it's a long time or not - if new things are brought up, it's reasonable to request a second discussion about this. <snip> (...) Of course, silly me... I totally forgot to reply to the points in the FAQ. From the URL posted (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
       
            Re: Age limitations —Jeff Thompson
         (...) Whoever wrote this about being bored by "just sit[ting] around talking" must not remember being younger than 18. Teenagers are not inherently bored by sitting and talking. Particularly teenagers as bright and sociable as Shiri seems to be. I (...) (24 years ago, 7-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
       
            (canceled) —Jeff Thompson
      
           Re: Age limitations —Erik Olson
        (...) You know what? LUGNET is a terrific place in the woolly Internet on account of the volume level doesn't get much louder than this. Matt might be the _only_ one sticking up for this position because it's July 3 and everybody is not hooked up to (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
       
            Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
        (...) with (...) I haven't joined, and in all seriousness, probably would not join because of this rule (and note that my main vested interest in a New England/Boston based LUG would be to point my nephew, who is under 18, to). (...) to (...) Well, (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
       
            Re: Age limitations —Erik Olson
         (...) OK. Normally "vested interest" means you've already invested something, money or effort, or you own the land underneath it. Like the members of a club have. It sounds like you have a "interest". (...) I disagree. (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
        
             Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
         (...) Frank (...) based (...) or (...) Well, since you're getting technical, I'll quote the definition of "vested interest" from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary Second Edition: ] vested interest ] 1. a special interest in an existing system, (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
        
             Re: Age limitations —Erik Olson
         (...) I think you have the opposite, because you don't like the existing system. You think you stand to gain by a change---therefore you are on the other side from the "already vested". Webster's is more precise. I rely on the 1967 edition, which (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
       
            Re: Age limitations —Jeff Johnston
        (...) I disagree. NELUG is descriptive of the group: it is a group of LEGO users, based in New England. Furthermore, I think that forcing the current NELUG to give up the name (not that it would be feasible to do so) would serve no useful purpose. (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)  
       
            Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
        (...) to (...) based (...) that (...) NELUG (...) that (...) having (...) Well, frankly (to be frank as is my right as a Frank... :-), I see NELUGs insistence on being adult only as being stupid and political. I think that such attitudes have no (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
       
            Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
         (...) The above comment was out of line, and I appologize for it. I admit that it does reflect my feelings to some extent, but it's a poor way to debate (and it is critical for debate to be usefull to be carefull in sharing feelings like this. I do (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
       
            Re: Age limitations —Mike Walsh
         "Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:Fx5tJo.F84@lugnet.com... [... snipped ... ] (...) so (...) I just returned from my parents house (Northern Virginia - I did make it to the LEGO Outlet, you just gotta like the scratch and (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug, lugnet.org.us.nclug)
       
            Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
         (...) This sounds like a good policy to me. The idea of a sponsor allows a junior member to attend if they are able to convince at least one person to give them a chance (and contribute sufficiently to the activities that the rest of the members (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nclug)
        
             Re: Age limitations —Eric Kingsley
         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 (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nclug, lugnet.org)
       
            Re: Age limitations —Stephen F. Roberts
        "Mike Walsh" <mike_walsh@mindspring.com> wrote: <chop an excellent disertation> (...) ...When we (WAMALUG) were making up our Charter, we wrestled with the jrfol issue some too. Some of us, myself included, wanted to be part of the club mostly to be (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug, lugnet.org.us.nclug)
      
           Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
       (...) As I said in another post, I am in complete agreement with everything Matt has said. I do not like "me too" posting, though, and if I see Matt eloquently defending the decision NELUG has made, I don't see the point in posting. (...) I have to (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
      
           Re: Age limitations —Richard Franks
        (...) She raised the issue of membership, that is a positive step. The fact that a lot of cause-fighters weighed in, happy to battle should not, IMHO be in any way the responsibility of the original poster. (...) I believe that argument is nullified (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
       
            Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
        (...) It would have been far more positive if she had contacted NELUG directly, rather than attempting to "shame" us into changing our policies by bringing it up with a wide crosspost on Lugnet. We are not hard people to get ahold of. Our webpage (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
       
            Re: Age limitations —Richard Franks
         (...) If the original post was only sent to lugnet.org.us.nelug group then would that have been acceptable? (...) You misread -- I never mentioned the topicity of the subject. (...) That's *your* read. As a discussion group, I think it's entirely (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
        
             Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
          (...) Certainly more acceptable. (...) No offense, but I really don't think the opinions of anyone but NELUG members really matter in this decision, so I really don't think it's necessar to gauge their opinions. eric (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
         
              Re: Age limitations —Richard Franks
          (...) No offence taken - it's a good point. (...) Not necessary, but I think you'll agree that if there had been more positive suggestions (eg probation, age-limits for event locations etc), and less bickering and name calling.. then cross-posting (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
         
              Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
          (...) Well, this is two seperate things, really. Obviously, the thread could have done without name-calling or bickering. I *do* think that discussion is a good thing, and suggestions are always welcome. However, it can be difficult for someone (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
         
              Re: Age limitations —Richard Franks
           (...) That is NELUGs right. However, by discussing it here, you might get to hear opinions from other people who have run organisations and gain from their experience too. I'm not criticising your decision, but I do think that all LUGs stand to (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
          
               Re: Age limitations —Richard W. Schamus
            (...) If I'm flamed for fanning the flames, this is what I'd like to be flamed for. I'm gonna psuedo "Me too" on Richard's comments, (though that may hurt you [Eric], as well. You, (NELUG,) are not the only LUG in the country. Shiri asked if we, (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
           
                Re: Age limitations —Matthew Miller
             (...) Open discussion is one thing, and I don't think that would have bothered Eric. It's the general aggressive tone people have taken with us that he takes issue with. How closely have you been following this? (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
              (...) I agree, the overly aggressive discussion is close to purposeless (other than allowing people to blow off steam). One thing which was definitely a problem was the small number of contributors originally. I'm glad to see that there is some more (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Richard W. Schamus
             (...) Fairly closely. I agreee, the aggressive name-calling is always unjust and without merit. What I find distasteful is, every close of a post from Eric is, (please don't knitpick my quote, as it is an amalgam of many of his posts) "We should (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
             (...) Because I think it's an important issue, and NELUG should hash it out in person, with the interested parties (ie, people who are actually in the club and attend meetings) having a say. (...) Great. You can have all the open discussion you (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
           
                Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
            (...) Can you back this assertion up with a quotation from me showing that I feel this way? I don't think you'll find you can. eric (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
           
                Re: Age limitations —Richard W. Schamus
            (...) No Eric, I don't think that I should go back and root out everything you said and compile it here for you (out of context mind you, for which you would assuridly find fault with). Perhaps you don't uncomfortable. Perhaps you just don't feel (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
           
                Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
             (...) So, in other words, you can't support it. That's fine. I just want you to be aware of it. (...) Can you show me a quote where I told anyone not to talk about it? I don't think so, again. I have never said that people shouldn't talk about it. I (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Richard W. Schamus
             (...) <snip> I will stress again, however, that the opinions of non-NELUG members (...) nor (...) Ok. Let's go back to the original poster. SHE, (not you, or anyone else) solicited the opinions of others. I by no means meant to actually solicit your (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Jeff Johnston
             (...) When people start responding to NELUG in the way that they have - calling the group 'exclusionary', 'arrogant jerks', and all of the other insults that have been flung at the group - how could he *not* feel attacked? (...) That's easy, and (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Richard W. Schamus
             (...) your (...) do (...) The last time I checked a dictionary, the definition of exclutionary was something or some one that excludes something from its boundaries or grouping. I'm not saying anyone is arrogant. I actually respect NELUG's right to (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Richard Franks
              (...) Because 'judging' people on a case-by-case basis is not only unequal treatment, but it is open to abuse. Perhaps NELUG will consider another system, but until they do have their meeting, your question can only be rhetorical. If any LUG started (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
             
                  Re: Age limitations —Tom Duggan
              (...) treatment, (...) being (...) But isn't it unfair to keep someone out, who most every one agrees is a mature person just so in the future we don't have to "deal" with the issue later? Shiri should be judged by her merits as a person alone, and (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)  
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
             (...) But when we say we will discuss it at a meeting, you say we are attempting to stop people from talking about it. I really can't understand what it is you're trying to say. I am trying very hard because, believe it or not, I do want to. But you (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Richard W. Schamus
             (...) because (...) I (...) a (...) This is all well and good. Your decicions, at your meet, at your club. I do not contridict myself. You keep asking to let it lie, (which you can ASK all you want,) but the ORIGINAL poster(Shiri) asked for a public (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Matthew Miller
              (...) This is off-topic in this group -- it would be better to move it to lugnet.org.us. This is, after all, the newsgroup/mailing list *for* NELUG. If you mean it to be a discussion for people other than NELUG, it's better placed somewhere else. (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
            
                 Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
             (...) Ah, I see. It's a simple misunderstanding. I don't care if you discuss this all over Lugnet, by all means, Shiri asked you to, go ahead. But when you post things like this statement: (...) to lugnet.org.us.nelug (in (URL) with no crossposting, (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
           
                Re: Age limitations —Jeff Johnston
             (...) If I were him, I wouldn't want to discuss it in this forum either. We've already seen the results of that with people's responses to Matt Miller. The responses ranged from incredulous to abusive, but nobody seemed willing to try to listen and (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
          
               Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
            (...) I have to say that as someone who is involved in starting a LUG which currently will be open to non-adults, I am strongly interested in the reasoning. Perhaps I am missing something terribly important. Even if I'm not missing something (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug, lugnet.org.us)
          
               Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
           (...) No, it's my right. I see little need to solicit the opinions of non-NELUG members on this. We can choose to run our club however we like. Moreover, I'm not going to post to a public forum things that could possibly be taken as an insult or a (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
          
               Re: Age limitations —Richard Franks
           (...) Fine, that is NELUGs right, which I support btw. (...) I'm not arrogant enough to suggest that my opinion should matter to you, but I am interested in hearing yours. You've discounted two positive suggestions, both of which sounded reasonable (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
          
               Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
           (...) Heh. I've discounted so many options in the past 12 hours, I'm afraid you'll have to remind me which two you're talking about. However, I am always open for meaningful, productive discussion (within some boundaries). Let me know what you mean (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
         
              Re: Age limitations —Chris Maddison
          <snip> (...) in (...) Eric, I find that last comment very rude and insulting. Think about it; how would you like to leave everything you know and love across an ocean, and have very few friends in this new place? It would be horrible. Now, you find (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
        
             Re: Age limitations - please take the discussion out of .nelug —Frank Filz
          (...) Absolutely and totally agreed. I am trying to direct conversation out of .nelug for this reason. (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
        
             Re: Age limitations —Larry Pieniazek
          In lugnet.org.us, Richard Franks writes: <snip> I just read this whole subtree and I would like to reiterate Frank's call for setting followups on posts carefully. If what you are discussing is generic to all LUGs, it ought to be to org.us NOT to (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug, lugnet.org.us)
        
             Re: Age limitations —Richard Franks
         (...) Yup, in hindsight, setting the followups to lugnet.org.us.nelug on this topic is likely to cause an ugly subtree, my bad. (...) I wondered about this before - why lugnet.org.us rather than lugnet.org? For reasons of law and liability I can (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
        
             Re: Age limitations —Larry Pieniazek
         (...) You know what? You're right. I hate that! FUT lugnet.org, who so far have missed out on the blast. Take your general questions there. (or maybe to lugnet.loc.it, I hear they're itching for some long post chains so they can pass lugnet.loc.uk (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org)
       
            Re: Age limitations —Jeff Johnston
         (...) I honestly get the impression that this is what is really at the core of the desires of the folks who agree with the age restriction. "We are a bunch of adults who all share an interest in LEGO, and we want to do activities that adults do (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
       
            Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
        (...) I would like to start by saying that I do not speak for all the members of NELUG in any way on this, but: Yes, this is why I feel the way I do. I make no bones about it, nor do I attempt to hide behind other things. I have never said that the (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
      
           Re: Age limitations —Todd Lehman
        (...) What else is she going to do? Wait 2 years? You have to put yourself in her shoes to understand why she did what she did. I understand her frustration and I think that the NELUG rule is (at least in her case) broken. Just because everyone (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
       
            Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
        (...) No, but I think contacting us directly would have been the way to go. I know that in many cases I seem to stand for hashing things out in public, but I feel that things only need to be as public as they absolutely must. I wouldn't care at all (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
       
            Re: Age limitations —Todd Lehman
        (...) Nobody's perfect, we're all human, and it's a very human reaction to reach out in desperation sometimes. Let's not worry how it was brought up, but why. --Todd (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
       
            Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
        (...) You are right, of course. I am far less concerned with how it was brought up - or even *why* it was brought up - than I am with discussing it as a group (that is, NELUG). I would very much like to see this issue discussed at the next NELUG (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
      
           Re: Age limitations —Shiri Dori
       (...) Extremely understandable. (...) Well, that's too bad. I only posted about 5 posts in this thread of 150(right now), but if that's all that is required for you to form an opinion on someone, I guess that's up to you. I think that possibly you (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
      
           Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
       (...) It is far from the only way I am forming an opinion on you. I might not participate in Castle World, but that doesn't mean I don't read the posts. I do remember very well having Ice Cream with you at Lizzy's. I have an opinion formed of you (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
      
           Re: Age limitations —Shiri Dori
       In lugnet.org.us, Eric Joslin writes: <snip> (...) OK, sorry, I misread your post. I'm glad you didn't form an opinion on me based on those few posts. :-) <snip> (...) Yes, true. But the original post wasn't posted as a "blowing off steam" post. It (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
     
          Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
       (...) NELUG's (...) Perhaps it is arrogant for outsiders to suggest a change (however, I would also point out that I actually have a minor vested interest in that I have family in the area, so would consider becoming a member of NELUG, and I have a (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
      
           Re: Age limitations —Todd Lehman
       (...) It's interesting to note that the age range of the people attending the first two meetings was, IIRC, approximately 22 to 34. I think this may have had a lot to do with the way things got rolling initially. I can only wonder where things would (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
      
           Re: Age limitations —Jude Beaudin
       In lugnet.org.us, Todd Lehman writes: <snip> (...) Perhaps about 200 posts less than you have now!:-) Jude I am sorry, I couldn't help it. <grin> (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
     
          Re: Age limitations —Peter White
      (...) Now, you're bringing in an even more ludicrous argument, 'we','community', 'fit'. (...) NELUG's (...) So who put it forward ? (...) You mean attack a ridiculous reason for exclusion. If anyone thinks they can form an organisation with (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
     
          Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
       (...) One thing which it may be getting time to do is to remove lugnet.org.us.nelug from the list since it is not as public a forum as lugnet.org.us (and note that NONE of the Lugnet groups are truly public). Frank (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
     
          Re: Age limitations —Matthew Miller
      (...) I believe it was at Shiri's request. (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
     
          Re: Age limitations —Peter White
      (...) Was that Shiri the potplant or Shiri the mosquito, bit hard for someone who is not present to put something forward. (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
     
          Re: Age limitations —Matthew Miller
      (...) It may not have been Shiri at all. It was someone under 18 from LUGnet who wished to join. This person asked Eric -- who runs the web site and does some organizational stuff for the group -- and perhaps some other members if we would put it on (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
     
          Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
      (...) And I'm relatively sure it was Shiri. The 18 limit was arbitrarily drawn up at one of the first meetings, as a way of keeping the organisation as one for adults. When it actually excluded someone, we had a long debate over whether or not to (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
    
         Re: Age limitations —Christopher L. Weeks
     (...) We who? Who needs to be satisfied? (...) You might wish to try and support this claim. Go back and read. Matt has in no way acted immature about this. Chris (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
    
         Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
     (...) And conversely, I would argue that by posting her initial post to such a wide number of groups, rather than contacting NELUG directly with her problems, Shiri has acted very immaturely. eric (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
    
         Re: Age limitations —Shiri Dori
     (...) Possibly. But I have contacted NELUG in the past about this - in the discussion you mentioned. It might've been me, I can't say for sure, after all I wasn't at the meeting. New things came up now, for me, and I was feeling more and more (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
    
         Re: Age limitations —Eric Joslin
     (...) And we know how that decision went. And since that didn't work, upping the ante is the way to go? What happened to your very sincere comments about how you didn't want to bug us about the issue? (...) I'm sorry that I'm going to have to be the (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
   
        Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
   (...) A few thoughts strike me on this whole issue, and Mike's response: - There is always a possibility of someone being immature or otherwise innapropriate for a group. The issues of telling them they are no longer welcome is no easier if they are (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
   
        Re: Age limitations —Eric Kingsley
     (...) For what its worth Shiri asked me if she could put something in the window at TCS. I told Shiri in person prior to the TCS display going up that if she came to TCS when we were setting up with her Inn we would include it. If someone countered (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
    
         Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
     (...) a (...) came (...) I don't know if that was a personal communication, or if I missed something (there was a short spell where I wasn't reading all the posts about the TCS display). I did get an impression that Shiri was told she couldn't (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
    
         Re: Age limitations —Shiri Dori
     (...) Yeah, Eric's right, I just wasn't able to come to the TCS meeting at the time. -Shiri (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
    
         Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
     (...) Ok, either I read something into the discussion that wasn't there, or I picked up on someone elses misreading. I just hope our organization gets to the point where we can make some public displays. Frank (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
   
        (canceled) —Eric Kingsley
 

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR