|
|
 | | 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
|
| (...) In other words, she's saying that the people who are currently in the group and who like it as it is should go and form their own group, and the current group changes. I think that's a bit backwards, personally. (...) Well, I wouldn't. Not (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Hmm, is that what Tamy was suggesting? I thought she was suggesting that NELUG lower its age range from 18+ to 16+ (or whatever, maybe even abolishing the age limitation completely) and that adults start a new group (either separate or as a (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| In lugnet.org.us, Todd Lehman writes: <snip> (...) Perhaps about 200 posts less than you have now!:-) Jude I am sorry, I couldn't help it. <grin> (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) It's interesting to note that the age range of the people attending the first two meetings was, IIRC, approximately 22 to 34. I think this may have had a lot to do with the way things got rolling initially. I can only wonder where things would (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
|
