Subject:
|
Re: Age limitations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.nelug
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Jul 2000 20:43:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1843 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Matthew Miller writes:
> Richard Schamus <legoman34@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > That you feel that you are injured and your rights have been trounced by OPEN
> > DISCUSSION only lowers my own personal opinion of NELUG in general, and you
>
> 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?
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
discuss this in a NELUG meeting."
Now, don't get me wrong, I'll not suppose that I can or should dictate policy
to anyone. I just feel that I shouldn't be dictated to either. I'll OPENLY
DISCUSS anything I think is appropriate in this forum for as long as I'm
interested or able. Shiri asked for OPEN DISCUSSSION, and I will be faithful
to that request. I sorry that Eric has been bombarded with unpleasentries, but
it hasn't come from me, nor do I support it in any way shape or form. I just
don't think that he will be able to cite these things in an attempt to get the
discussion into someplace more private.
The questions are out there. The issue has been raise. We'd like to talk about
it. It's that simple. Let's stay on track here. It is because I say so is not
a wonderful defense, but it is one that sounds questionable unmature, the
exact reason for the Exclusion.
BTW, being "labled" an "Exclusionary" is not name calling. It is a statement
of fact. When you keep out someone for whatever reason in what ever social
organization, you are "Exclusionary." WAMALUG is to some extent exclusionary.
We (WAMALUG) don't want to babysit either. Is it wrong? No. Can we deal with
it? I think so. Appearently NELUG is floundering under the same circumstances.
Rich
--
Have Fun! C-Ya!
Legoman34
*****
Legoman34 (Richard W. Schamus)... (No, I don't work for TLC, but I want
to...)
BRICKFEST 2001 IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER... START MAKING PLANS TODAY.
Card carrying LUGNET MEMBER: #70
Visit http://www.wamalug.org &
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Castle/1334
...(the wait is over...)
..."The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." ...
*****
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
258 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
