Subject:
|
Re: Shiri - A one time thing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.people
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2001 20:05:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1144 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.people, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > I won't bother going
> > into those reasons yet again- they are well documented in several threads on
> > Lugnet. You can find them yourself, I'm sure.
>
> I found them. (1) I was quite surprised to read them, too.
>
> You claim to dislike being a judge of people, and yet you are being a judge
> in a fairly callous way IMHO. Perhaps you could find better ways to limit
> entry into such an exclusive club, that would help reduce the "legal
> liability" problem even more.
snip of a few suggestions, including a scandalous misspelling of "MEGA BLOKS"
> These make more sense than barring entry to minors on the excuse that they
> can't legally vote yet or because there are vague and murky guardianship issues.
In the previous discussion I was one of the people who (as an outsider)
felt that the group was making an unfortunate choice in barring Shiri from
meetings, even though she was and is a minor. Ultimately, whether we like
it or not, a group may choose to limit its membership any way it chooses,
even if such choices seem arbitrary and unfair to particular individuals.
In any case, it's not simply a matter of excluding someone because
"something unpleasant" might happen; minors are excluded because of the very
specific and serious liability involved should such a minor be injured. An
adult--even a violently pro-choice adult--is legally held to be responsible
for his/her actions in a way that a minor typically is not. As such, the
group could incur greater penalties if something happens to a minor.
And we all know what a goofball Shiri is, after all! 8^)
> Mmpf stuffing words in my mouth. Tastes kinda like chicken.
>
> I said that the policy appeared to be stupid and appears to be enforced with
> willful ignorance. I never said that the members of NELUG are stupid and
> willfully ignorant.
As a matter of semantics, one who behaves with "willful ignorance" is
generally indistinguishable from someone who is, at least occasionally,
"willfully ignorant," so it is quite reasonable to construe that as an
insult, even if you didn't intend it as such. If, for instance, I were to
tell you that you were behaving like a chowderhead, I wouldn't *actually* be
calling you a chowderhead, but the insulting subtext is fairly clear.
> If that's insulting to you, fine. I will make note of the fact that you did
> find it insulting and disrespectful and somehow allows you to put words into
> my mouth, and so I will use softer words for you if you wish.
D'oh! I give a verbose explanation, and then I read your courteous olive
branch. That'll teach me to read while posting, rather than *before*
posting. Oops.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Shiri - A one time thing?
|
| (...) Insults...? Okaaaay, hold that thought. (...) I found them. (1) I was quite surprised to read them, too. You claim to dislike being a judge of people, and yet you are being a judge in a fairly callous way IMHO. Perhaps you could find better (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.people)
|
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
