Subject:
|
Re: Age limitations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.nelug
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Jul 2000 00:58:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1922 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Richard W. Schamus writes:
> The question remains. Why an age limit for those who have demonstrated
> maturity?
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 allowing some people in, and disallowing others on a
subjective an issue as 'maturity', it would open itself to more claims of being
exclusionary.
Richard
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) treatment, (...) being (...) But isn't it unfair to keep someone out, who most every one agrees is a mature person just so in the future we don't have to "deal" with the issue later? Shiri should be judged by her merits as a person alone, and (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
