 | | Re: Age limitations —Richard W. Schamus
|
| | | (...) I've read about half of the posts and I can see this is turning/has turned ugly. I'm not gonna get into, 1) Opinion, 2) Justice/fairness, 3) Legalities. I'll just say how I feel about it. I never had a dark age, much like Shiri. I know what it (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) I don't think it is at all unreasonable for a groups policies or whatever to specify how membership is attained, and how and why it can be revoked. This is crucial to maintaining the stability of the organization should a problem arise. Frank (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Age limitations —Richard W. Schamus
|
| | | | (...) it's "Constitution" (...) as (...) Exactly my point in referencing the specific neccessary evil. It IS crucial to maintaining the stability of an organization to rectify things that go wrong when they ARISE. I'm sure exclusion to prevent (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Age limitations —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) I guess my point is that I don't see it as a necessary _evil_. I think it is just plain necessary. Frank (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Age limitations —Richard W. Schamus
|
| | | | (...) Ok, We'll leave the "moral" implaction off, (though I just used it as a figure of speech, and not a moralistic POV). It IS neccessary. But, it is NELUG's necessity, and not mine. Nor could, I'm sure, it be others. THAT is my point. Let NELUG (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
|
| | | | |
