|
|
 | | 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)
| | | | | 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
|
| (...) 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)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) If I were him, I wouldn't want to discuss it in this forum either. We've already seen the results of that with people's responses to Matt Miller. The responses ranged from incredulous to abusive, but nobody seemed willing to try to listen and (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | 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)
|
|
