Subject:
|
Re: Age limitations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.nelug
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Jul 2000 00:21:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1782 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Jeff Johnston writes:
> 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
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
EXCLUDE. NOTE I myself, a full member of WAMALUG have Called myself
EXCLUSIONARY. Calling the car a car is not a foul. I'm not attacking anyone's
opinion, or right to keep that opinion. All I am doing is keeping the true
point of the ORIGINAL poster in veiw. SHE requested the world (LUGNET) to
ponder the question. I never leaped to poke anything. I just don't want the
question to be "politely" swept under the rug of a NELUG meeting, just because
you say it should be. What ever you decide for Shiri is up to you (NELUG). I
have no, (and should have no), bearing on your determination. I just think
that repeated attempts to quash opinion in the matter by some, saying that it
should be private are not within the bounds of the original poster's wishes. I
didn't start the discussion. We (LUGNET) are not forcing you (NELUG) to make a
decision publicly, (or privately for that matter). What ever reasons you feel
that we are forcing you to do so, is totally put upon you by yourselves.
It is unfortunate that some members of NELUG feel that they are being
harrassed by public opinion. I cannot speak for everyone. I will once again do
my best to keep the subject where it belongs, and not allow this to be an
attack on any one person or group.
The question remains. Why an age limit for those who have demonstrated
maturity?
That is the the crux of the biscuit. Like it or not.
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 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Because 'judging' people on a case-by-case basis is not only unequal treatment, but it is open to abuse. Perhaps NELUG will consider another system, but until they do have their meeting, your question can only be rhetorical. If any LUG started (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) But when we say we will discuss it at a meeting, you say we are attempting to stop people from talking about it. I really can't understand what it is you're trying to say. I am trying very hard because, believe it or not, I do want to. But you (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) 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? (...) That's easy, and (...) (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
|
|
|
|
