To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.org.us.nelugOpen lugnet.org.us.nelug in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Organizations / United States / NELUG / 599 (-10)
  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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
 
  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 (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
 
  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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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? (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
 
  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 (...) (24 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 (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
 
  Re: Age limitations
 
(...) What's the diff? Chris (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR