Subject:
|
Re: Age limitations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Jul 2000 04:12:31 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@mattdmSPAMCAKE.org
|
Viewed:
|
1704 times
|
| |
|
|
Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com> wrote:
> That was then, this is now. Though I'm not denying your unanimous vote, but
"Then" was less than half a year ago. I'm not sure how that can be construed
as a long time.
> their support for you now. You appear to be the _only_ one sticking up for
> the position. I would say that it is time for another vote on the matter.
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 be even
reading this yet. In fact, some NELUG members don't even read LUGnet.
> cause. Also, I am not (and I doubt anyone else is either) phased by your
> multiple apologies to Shiri, when you refuse to weigh the issues and instead
You are right -- I am not attempting to weigh the issues. I am attempting to
explain the official position of NELUG. (See: <http://www.nelug.org/faq/>.)
I think for Shiri's sake that we will talk about this at a future meeting,
but I don't feel that it's productive to hash things out here, especially
with the general antagonism displayed by non-members.
I would encourage you to consider the things I've said in other posts, and
the points made in the FAQ on the web site.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
