 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Thank you, Jude. This is *exactly* what this discussion needs: people willing to look at the opposing side's viewpoint, willing to try to understand it, and willing to work *with* that viewpoint to get things done. Fact: People in NELUG have (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | (canceled)
|
| | | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) For what its worth Shiri asked me if she could put something in the window at TCS. I told Shiri in person prior to the TCS display going up that if she came to TCS when we were setting up with her Inn we would include it. If someone countered (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| After reading Shiri's eloquent posts, I figured out a possible solution to the age problem. Not really anybody can be unsympathetic to Shiri's cause, but there is the other side of the coin. The concerns about the maturity of members is legitimate. (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| Shiri & all, First I am responding to the initial message because this thread is new from the last time I was on and now there are 100+ messages in the tread and I am on vacation and am not about to take more time from it than I am writing this (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) For what it's worth, I do think that you've been annoying about your notes, but no one of them was bad...it's just that you're harping on the issue. :-) (...) Is that true? I suspect that if the NELUG members really approach unanimity on this, (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) I would. But I wasn't really getting at a technical definition issue. From the perspective of posting to a newsgroup they're all functionally the same. They're just various opinions and regardless of how they're phrased, the NELUG readers will (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Yep. Just as an aside, there is a process I often take architecture clients through (It's called QFD for the home audience to go look up if they want). It's quite formal and you get rather methodical and mechanical answers out at the end of (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) No it doesn't. You acknowledged that they could find a way to stop you. What it does is show that you are not seeking a consensus. That what you want is to belittle, demean, and bend people to your will. I suspect quite sincerely, that you are (...) (26 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | 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)
|
|
