| |
In lugnet.org.us, Matthew Miller writes:
> > 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 member vote. Is the person mature enough to be in NELUG? And,
>
> We had a member vote. It was unanimous that we would draw the line at 18.
>
>
> I'm glad for Shiri that so many people are willing to stick up for her, but
> I am also amazed by the number of people who have no direct connection with
> NELUG who are so willing to attack us. THAT strikes me as arrogant. If it
> were just messags of support for Shiri, that would be one thing, but the
> recent few messages (including but certainly not limited to yours) have been
> very attacking, and I'm not sure how that is supposed to help anyone.
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
nephew who would be a prospective youth member of a LUG, who lives in the
area).
Another note: I might have stayed out of this discussion had it been just in
lugnet.org.us.nelug, but it has been expanded to lugnet.org.us, and I feel
that the discussion itself is useful to other current and potential LUGs.
I'm curious as to why the group unanimously felt that they had to exclude
people under 18? In some ways, it almost strikes me as an insecurity on the
part of the members.
I also feel that this is a cop out. The primary reasons I can see for
excluding youth members are maturity and liability. The maturity issue is one
which doesn't magically go away at 18, and bending to the liability issue is
just going along with the trend in the US to become juniorized (we can't
accept real responsibility for anything, so we have to sue property owners
because they had the gall to not take a road grader to their property and
completely flatten it, and then cover it with several feet of foam rubber so
no one gets hurt if they fall).
When I was growing up, there seemed to be little of this worry (though the SF
convention I attended did re-locate to outside of Boston, and changed their
date to not be the weekend before President's Day in an attempt to reduce the
number of immature kids attending [but I don't think they set an age
requirement]).
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
