 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) It would have been far more positive if she had contacted NELUG directly, rather than attempting to "shame" us into changing our policies by bringing it up with a wide crosspost on Lugnet. We are not hard people to get ahold of. Our webpage (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) If the original post was only sent to lugnet.org.us.nelug group then would that have been acceptable? (...) You misread -- I never mentioned the topicity of the subject. (...) That's *your* read. As a discussion group, I think it's entirely (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Certainly more acceptable. (...) No offense, but I really don't think the opinions of anyone but NELUG members really matter in this decision, so I really don't think it's necessar to gauge their opinions. eric (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) No offence taken - it's a good point. (...) Not necessary, but I think you'll agree that if there had been more positive suggestions (eg probation, age-limits for event locations etc), and less bickering and name calling.. then cross-posting (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Well, this is two seperate things, really. Obviously, the thread could have done without name-calling or bickering. I *do* think that discussion is a good thing, and suggestions are always welcome. However, it can be difficult for someone (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) That is NELUGs right. However, by discussing it here, you might get to hear opinions from other people who have run organisations and gain from their experience too. I'm not criticising your decision, but I do think that all LUGs stand to (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) If I'm flamed for fanning the flames, this is what I'd like to be flamed for. I'm gonna psuedo "Me too" on Richard's comments, (though that may hurt you [Eric], as well. You, (NELUG,) are not the only LUG in the country. Shiri asked if we, (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) I honestly get the impression that this is what is really at the core of the desires of the folks who agree with the age restriction. "We are a bunch of adults who all share an interest in LEGO, and we want to do activities that adults do (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) I have to say that as someone who is involved in starting a LUG which currently will be open to non-adults, I am strongly interested in the reasoning. Perhaps I am missing something terribly important. Even if I'm not missing something (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug, lugnet.org.us)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Open discussion is one thing, and I don't think that would have bothered Eric. It's the general aggressive tone people have taken with us that he takes issue with. How closely have you been following this? (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) I agree, the overly aggressive discussion is close to purposeless (other than allowing people to blow off steam). One thing which was definitely a problem was the small number of contributors originally. I'm glad to see that there is some more (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) I would like to start by saying that I do not speak for all the members of NELUG in any way on this, but: Yes, this is why I feel the way I do. I make no bones about it, nor do I attempt to hide behind other things. I have never said that the (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| <snip> (...) in (...) Eric, I find that last comment very rude and insulting. Think about it; how would you like to leave everything you know and love across an ocean, and have very few friends in this new place? It would be horrible. Now, you find (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) No, it's my right. I see little need to solicit the opinions of non-NELUG members on this. We can choose to run our club however we like. Moreover, I'm not going to post to a public forum things that could possibly be taken as an insult or a (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Can you back this assertion up with a quotation from me showing that I feel this way? I don't think you'll find you can. eric (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Fairly closely. I agreee, the aggressive name-calling is always unjust and without merit. What I find distasteful is, every close of a post from Eric is, (please don't knitpick my quote, as it is an amalgam of many of his posts) "We should (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) No Eric, I don't think that I should go back and root out everything you said and compile it here for you (out of context mind you, for which you would assuridly find fault with). Perhaps you don't uncomfortable. Perhaps you just don't feel (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) So, in other words, you can't support it. That's fine. I just want you to be aware of it. (...) Can you show me a quote where I told anyone not to talk about it? I don't think so, again. I have never said that people shouldn't talk about it. I (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Because I think it's an important issue, and NELUG should hash it out in person, with the interested parties (ie, people who are actually in the club and attend meetings) having a say. (...) Great. You can have all the open discussion you (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) <snip> I will stress again, however, that the opinions of non-NELUG members (...) nor (...) Ok. Let's go back to the original poster. SHE, (not you, or anyone else) solicited the opinions of others. I by no means meant to actually solicit your (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Fine, that is NELUGs right, which I support btw. (...) I'm not arrogant enough to suggest that my opinion should matter to you, but I am interested in hearing yours. You've discounted two positive suggestions, both of which sounded reasonable (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) When people start responding to NELUG in the way that they have - calling the group 'exclusionary', 'arrogant jerks', and all of the other insults that have been flung at the group - how could he *not* feel attacked? (...) That's easy, and (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) If I were him, I wouldn't want to discuss it in this forum either. We've already seen the results of that with people's responses to Matt Miller. The responses ranged from incredulous to abusive, but nobody seemed willing to try to listen and (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) your (...) do (...) The last time I checked a dictionary, the definition of exclutionary was something or some one that excludes something from its boundaries or grouping. I'm not saying anyone is arrogant. I actually respect NELUG's right to (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Because 'judging' people on a case-by-case basis is not only unequal treatment, but it is open to abuse. Perhaps NELUG will consider another system, but until they do have their meeting, your question can only be rhetorical. If any LUG started (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) treatment, (...) being (...) But isn't it unfair to keep someone out, who most every one agrees is a mature person just so in the future we don't have to "deal" with the issue later? Shiri should be judged by her merits as a person alone, and (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) But when we say we will discuss it at a meeting, you say we are attempting to stop people from talking about it. I really can't understand what it is you're trying to say. I am trying very hard because, believe it or not, I do want to. But you (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Heh. I've discounted so many options in the past 12 hours, I'm afraid you'll have to remind me which two you're talking about. However, I am always open for meaningful, productive discussion (within some boundaries). Let me know what you mean (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) because (...) I (...) a (...) This is all well and good. Your decicions, at your meet, at your club. I do not contridict myself. You keep asking to let it lie, (which you can ASK all you want,) but the ORIGINAL poster(Shiri) asked for a public (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) This is off-topic in this group -- it would be better to move it to lugnet.org.us. This is, after all, the newsgroup/mailing list *for* NELUG. If you mean it to be a discussion for people other than NELUG, it's better placed somewhere else. (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations - please take the discussion out of .nelug
|
| (...) Absolutely and totally agreed. I am trying to direct conversation out of .nelug for this reason. (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| In lugnet.org.us, Richard Franks writes: <snip> I just read this whole subtree and I would like to reiterate Frank's call for setting followups on posts carefully. If what you are discussing is generic to all LUGs, it ought to be to org.us NOT to (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug, lugnet.org.us)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Yup, in hindsight, setting the followups to lugnet.org.us.nelug on this topic is likely to cause an ugly subtree, my bad. (...) I wondered about this before - why lugnet.org.us rather than lugnet.org? For reasons of law and liability I can (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Ah, I see. It's a simple misunderstanding. I don't care if you discuss this all over Lugnet, by all means, Shiri asked you to, go ahead. But when you post things like this statement: (...) to lugnet.org.us.nelug (in (URL) with no crossposting, (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) You know what? You're right. I hate that! FUT lugnet.org, who so far have missed out on the blast. Take your general questions there. (or maybe to lugnet.loc.it, I hear they're itching for some long post chains so they can pass lugnet.loc.uk (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org)
| |
