| |
> > Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com> wrote:
> I encourage
> you to bring this up at the meeting and seriously discuss _all_ aspects of it,
> including Shiri's extenuating circumstances, and the fact that her parents
> have offered to sign the waiver. If for maturity's sake you must have an age
> restriction, I would suggest lowering it to 16 or 14 at the LOWEST, OR
> considering people on a case-by-case basis, carefully.
Wait! How can you both say that maturity isn't directly attributable to age
and then support _any_ age cut-off. This makes it sound like you're just
trying to implement a change for...<blink, blink>...for what? Maybe for Shiri
specifically? Why would you "suggest lowering it to 16 or 14 at the LOWEST?"
I think that if their LUG is to have an age cutoff, 18 makes _by far_ the most
sense. (Probably it doesn't matter, but I want you NELUGers out there to
realize that some of us support both your right to have such rules and the
logic behind them. (Oh, but I'm not interested in such tightly exclusionary
rules for our LUG down here.))
As Matthew has already pointed out, how would a cutoff of 16 help? Wouldn't
that just suck for the fifteens?
> I feel strongly still, that the liability issue is a moot point.
Of course...it's not you who are liable.
I think there are solutions that could work both for the club and for the
mature kids who want to participate. Why not restrict membership to >18 but
allow younger to participate in some/many events? Also, why doesn't Shiri put
together an event and invite NELUG? There has been affection expressed toward
her, so I'm sure people would go.
(Oh, and Shiri, you can hop on the train and come do LEGO stuff in NJ with us
:-)
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) it, (...) Absolutely agreed on this. (...) 18 is certainly the age which makes the most sense, though 16 is also a reasonable age. Of course in some ways, I would argue that 21 may be the most supportable age if alchohol consumtion will be a (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
