cbp@icc.com (Chris Preston) (12/18/89)
In article <33190@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> marie@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Marie desJardins) writes: >the pre-high-school age frame) to speak up. The rest of the net is >available for those who want to have intellectual discussions. >Anybody as articulate as Antony and the other alleged kids who have >been posting here can certainly find a forum for their views >on just about any topic. I remember going in to work with my You must be "kidding" :-). Points: 1. Isn't it intellectual descrimination when suggesting that an intelligent kid should go somewhere else. Would you agree that the net is a place where _ideas_ are exchanged. Perhaps, "kids" (read younger than college age, I suppose) would gather a certain desire to relate on a higher level were some of their peers to do so. This could have a very positive impact. 2. This is a public network. Whatever else one might say, that individual A should not post here because he/she doesn't belong is reminiscent of when my baby sitter took me on a bus ride, and would not let me sit in the back (this was _long_ ago) because only black people belonged there. It was wrong then, and to base such *selectivity* on age, is wrong now. On the net, we are basically equal in being heard. That's the kind of opportunity that I would have truly enjoyed in high school (even before, as I was *articulate* like Anthony). So why try and regulate an open net? It is not feasible, and will accomplish nothing. 3. Anyone who can access and participate in the net, is _probably_ a bit above average. Being *articulate* may well be the default in many cases. --cbp __ _______________ ____/ \____ My employers opinions are illogical. \_________ ___) (_ __ICC____) Unfortunately, mine are not always ___\ \______/ / `--' better. ) `|=(- \--------------' -- cbp