| |
In lugnet.org.us, Matthew Miller writes:
> 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.
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 they see every day that like the same thing.
As Shiri and others have mentioned, this is not true for high school age
youth. Well, so much for your PRIMARY reason...
] Adults that build with LEGO® are much more widely dispersed and need a group
] such as this one to help them meet other Adults with the same interests. We
] are trying to build a mature environment for AFOLs rather then expand the
] number of multi-generational groups that currently exist.
I would argue that high school age youth have the same needs. Also, there is
no multi-generational group for the New England area.
These reasons seem TOTALLY arrogant (and totally ignore the ONE reasonable
reason, that of liability).
Just my opinion.
I'd also point out that those of us who are not NELUG members are perhaps
being antagonistic because we see you taking a ridiculous stand. What is
interesting is that not only are you so far the only NELUG member to be
speaking in favor of the rule, you are the ONLY Lugnetter speaking in favor.
I sure wish I could point my nephew at a group which would accept him, and
encourage him to grow (when I talked to him last about his plans for his
Mindstorms, he had some pretty nifty sounding ideas, and had worked out a lot
of things on his own).
Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) "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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
