 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) I guess my point is that I don't see it as a necessary _evil_. I think it is just plain necessary. Frank (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) What (...) Probably irrelevant, there are still legal issues which make a cutoff at age 18 (such as voting, though the voting age has almost no bearing on this debate, I assume that there are other legal issues which are relevant). Also, NELUG (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) 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 (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) There is the ability to seek self-custody prior to 18 through the courts. What about in the extremely unlikely event that someone who has done so wants to join? (I realize that the rule is still 18, but what if the reason behind the rule flys (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | 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 (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) The above comment was out of line, and I appologize for it. I admit that it does reflect my feelings to some extent, but it's a poor way to debate (and it is critical for debate to be usefull to be carefull in sharing feelings like this. I do (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) No, that's the *minor* or secondary point. The major point is what NELUG should do, and I continue to assert "none of your (and my) business" is the correct answer. Worldwide membership or no, what really matters is the realistic membership (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | 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? (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) That's a good way to put it. I've probably stepped over the line some in this discussion, unfortunately the discussion has become somewhat heated. I think we need to step back a bit, and make sure we're not calling each other names for the (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Well, there's rather less between comment and chide than there is between comment and demand, I guess. I'd say "NELUG may find that their policy may be detrimental in the long run" is a comment, "NELUG are very wrong to not immediately change (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) We who? Who needs to be satisfied? (...) You might wish to try and support this claim. Go back and read. Matt has in no way acted immature about this. Chris (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) What's the diff? Chris (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Luckily you know all, or is that you are a know-all. Actually you were demanding, as per usual. (...) a (...) other (...) LEGO (...) There are no geographic restrictions on membership, read the thread. (...) You (...) Glad we have agreed on (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) You are. Although there have been more aussies than just you participating, you've been the chider, that's my read of the thread. (...) Well, no, the main issue is about access to NELUG. As I said, it's no one's business who to let in except (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| In lugnet.org.us, Larry Pieniazek writes: snippage of larry's well-made points. (...) unless (...) "Outside" and "aussies", why generalise Larry when it can only mean one person. Who is chiding and demanding now ? The whole issue is about access to (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| All right, After watching this evolve for a few hours from the (mostly silent) sidelines, and getting a general idea about opinions, I'll post another one. As much as I want the NELUG members to include me, I certainly do NOT want to corner them (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug) !
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| In lugnet.org.us, Shiri Dori writes: <snip> Here are my opinions, in case anyone cares. I admit I haven't read the whole discussion yet (theres a lot to read and I will but wanted to "fire" first and ask questions later so to speak) (OK, I went back (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) I don't think it's unreasonable to expect many (or even most) meetings to not allow kids who need supervision. I think it is somewhat unreasonable for the organization to flat out exclude the possibility. (...) But perhaps in the end, it isn't (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
|
