| |
In lugnet.org.us, Peter White writes:
> In lugnet.org.us, Matthew Miller writes:
> > Peter White <aztekium@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > Hey Frank, why don't we all join NELUG (no geographical restrictions) and
> > > vote down their restrictive rule (betcha they would find a way to stop us).
> >
> > 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.
>
> I can't see how she would ever feel welcome with people who are running this
> exclusive misnamed organisation.
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 of the instigators of the meeting (as well as Tim Courtney who
was not yet 18). That meeting suggests that at least some of the NELUGers feel
comfortable meeting with youth, at least in a public place (and for those
worried about liability issues, I doubt the liability issues in the case of
this meeting were that much less than they would be for a NELUG meeting at a
public place, especially for Todd whose server was used to plan the meeting,
and who was present at the meeting).
As a non-lawyer, my feeling of the significant liability exposures would be
that the owner of the property a meeting was held at, or someone who drove a
minor in their car, would be the only probable exposures. Unless the meeting
gets really out of hand, playing with LEGO bricks just isn't a dangerous
activity. If one of your members is a psychopath and is going to do something
unmentionable to a minor, do you want them in your group anywise? What other
real liability exposures are there?
In contrast, in my role as a youth advisor, there are more real liability
issues because there is an expectation that I am monitoring the situation. The
purpose of the group also has overnights and transports the youth to
activities. The group is also purely a social group for teens, which increases
the likelyhood of sexual activity and fighting. I just don't see those types
of exposures for a LUG (but those types of exposure are more real for
something like Brickfest).
There are other liability concerns (very remote, but real, ask my mother),
which are not unique to members who are minors. If the group does something
which psychologically harms someone, the group certainly can be sued (though
it is highly unlikely that the suit will be won - the case my mother was
involved in was dismissed I believe, and that particular case involved a
church group, which could be construed to expect more psychological care than
would be expected of a LUG [because churches offer counseling etc.]).
Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
