| |
In lugnet.org.us, Matthew Miller writes:
> Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > So Shiri isn't a "serious" LEGO fan? My dictionary doesn't define "serious" • as
>
> I think you started replying before you read the whole message:
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 maturity (which as we have been discussing is independant of age)
and legalities (which I don't think need to be an inhibitor if some care is
taken).
> > > This wasn't done with the intent to exclude someone like Shiri, but it's
>
> 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 / judging each person individually leads to more
> strife and difficulty. It's (obviously) complicated when there *is* a
> special situation with undisputed merit.
It's certainly easier to set arbitrary rules and follow them to the letter,
but it is most likely not better. What are you going to do when some parent
would like to host a meeting at their house? Decide it's not official (1)?
Make them send their kids away? Not meet there, even though they have a huge
LEGO train layout in their basement that everyone wan't to see? Yes, that
example is somewhat absurd, but gee, if you want to follow the letter of the
rule, and make NO exceptions, you need to deal with that potential.
(1) And that won't get you out of a liability issue. "Oh, it wasn't an
official meeting" won't carry much weight in court if the club communications
were used to organize the meeting. Of course hopefully the court would see
that the club really has no responsibility for the fact that Joe's kid tripped
over the LEGO car on the stairs of Joe's house and broke his neck. Neither
should the club have any liability if Joe's kid slipped on the car in Fred's
house. Fred might have some liability (if Fred or one of his kids left the car
there).
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
