Subject:
|
Re: Age limitations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Jul 2000 12:42:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1937 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.us, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > > 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?"
Absolutely agreed on this.
> 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.))
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 part of the club activities.
> > I feel strongly still, that the liability issue is a moot point.
>
> Of course...it's not you who are liable.
Yup, the liability concern is not a moot point, though as Chris mentions
below, I also strongly believe there are reasonable ways to address that
concern, and minimize it (at least to the same order of risk as the club is in
general assuming just by formalizing themselves).
> 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.
I agree. Shiri (and others in the NELUG geography who don't agree with the
policy) may make the most impact in changing the rule by organizing more open
events.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) And frankly, this is precisely the reason I personally supported 21 as a cutoff age when we were discussing it. I am still extremely uncomfortable with the idea of anyone under 18 coming anywhere near a gathering of people drinking. eric (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) 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? (...) (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
|
|
|
|
