|
|
 | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| Shiri Dori wrote: I don't think that ý have any right to say something about it, but anyway, here is my 2 Turkish Liras: (...) Actually, being a Lego fan is much more difficult for a teen (I mean 15-17) than the real adults like us. They are more (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) as (...) No I did read the whole message. What I'm trying to do is get you to re- examine the reasoning that led to the feeling the group had to be adult only. So far, the only issues which I can accept as legitimate which have been raised are (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) So what are you going to do when some 21 year old demonstrates the maturity of a 3 year old? As far as the maturity issue goes, all you're doing by specifying an age is reducing the number of potential conflicts, you can't eliminate them. So (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Yep, I was. (...) Exactly. -Tim (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) feel (...) Oops... I'm starting to recall that you were pressing for a non-NELUG meeting so that Shiri could attend (but that's all just a muddle). On the other hand, as I pointed out before, nothing magical (except a few stupid legalities) (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| I mean: (...) ^ -mis (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) to (...) based (...) that (...) NELUG (...) that (...) having (...) Well, frankly (to be frank as is my right as a Frank... :-), I see NELUGs insistence on being adult only as being stupid and political. I think that such attitudes have no (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Actually, I was 18 at the time. I turned 18 the end of February this year. -Tim (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) That was the one part of your post I was replying to. I don't think I removed anything relevant to my reply or that would characterize what you're saying. If I did, I apologize. (...) That I don't doubt. I'm concerned about consequences for (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) I think you started replying before you read the whole message: (...) We felt that we had to draw the line somewhere. I don't remember the particulars of other people's opinions on this next point, but personally I think making exceptions / (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | (canceled)
|
| | | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Here, you go again, selective snipping. (...) What LUG isn't different from a kids club. We wouldn't even blink if a sixteen year old wanted to attend. But then in Australia we don't have a lawyer on every corner. (...) Rules need to be (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) I think Matther is giving consideration to Shiri's request. He has stated that he is willing to bring the issue up again in a future meeting. Let's not allow our frustration with the situation cause us to start throwing bricks (and I will (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) This supervision is something that we really don't want -- we don't want anyone not interested in Lego at our meetings. (...) Again, this is a good point. A line had to be drawn somewhere, and the legal age of majority seemed like a sensible (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) So Shiri isn't a "serious" LEGO fan? My dictionary doesn't define "serious" as implying "adult". I have to admit that I've never joined any sort of "users group" (<sick humor>of course if one uses the coloquial definition of "user" then I'm (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) It's not ironic; it's intentional. We're not hard-hearted evil people. See: (3 URLs) I didn't realize that Shiri wasn't allowed to participate in the window display at TCS; I was really busy at work during that time, so someone else will have (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) I disagree. NELUG is descriptive of the group: it is a group of LEGO users, based in New England. Furthermore, I think that forcing the current NELUG to give up the name (not that it would be feasible to do so) would serve no useful purpose. (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) I think you have the opposite, because you don't like the existing system. You think you stand to gain by a change---therefore you are on the other side from the "already vested". Webster's is more precise. I rely on the 1967 edition, which (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) "NELUG" mirrors the many computer users' groups in the world. I don't think any deep thought went into the name, but it has an implication that we are something different from the normal Lego kids' club. "Users' groups" are generally for (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
|
