 | | 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)
|
|
