Subject:
|
Re: Age limitations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.nelug
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Jul 2000 23:34:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1959 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Schamus wrote:
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Eric Joslin writes:
> > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Richard W. Schamus writes:
>
> <snip> I will stress again, however, that the opinions of non-NELUG members
> > on the subject mean little to me, and I have not attempted to solicit them, • nor
> > do I feel that I have to go over the specifics of mine with them.
> > <snip>
>
> 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
> [Eric's] opinion.
> SHIRI, (not ERIC) asked. You, [Eric], don't have to like it if she asked the
> world, you just have to deal with it.
>
> If by dealing with it, you feel you are being attacked, well, that is your
> problem.
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?
> Let's get back to Shiri's question, (not Eric's irritation). Why is there an
> age limit for NELUG and not as far as she can tell, with any other LUG?
That's easy, and it's already been answered more than once: because the
members wanted it.
What I think you want to ask is "*why* do the members want it", but the
best way to find out is to ask "why" and listen, not to say "Why do you have
an age limit, that's STOOPID" as so many people have done. One will
encourage people to talk, the other will only make them defensive.
Furthermore, when an answer is given, don't immediately leap all over it to
try and poke holes in it. Again, that's going to make people defensive. After
all, they did you the courtesy of offering their opinion, the least you could do
is try to understand it instead of attacking it.
J
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
