On 6/9/2022 2:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <JVqoK.3050$sW.1020@fx37.iad>, moviePig
> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/9/2022 1:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Jun 9, 2022 at 7:27:14 AM PDT, "moviePig"
>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/8/2022 10:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 8, 2022 at 7:25:24 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> I wonder how things might work out if, in order to acquire
>>>>>> a gun, you have to be sponsored by a senior
>>>>>> owner-in-good-standing...
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder how things might work out if, in order to vote, you
>>>>> have to be sponsored by a senior voter-in-good-standing.
>>>>
>>>> Never lose your sense of wonder. In both instances, much might
>>>> depend on what causes a loss of "good standing". Or didn't you
>>>> think that far?
>>>
>>> These days it's usually defined as whatever 'progressives' say it
>>> is.
>>
>> I don't know what "progressives are saying these days" ...
>
> Just look to whatever the criterion du jour is for being canceled
> and you'll find out what currently causes a loss of good standing.
>
>> ... but I'm sure they routinely affront both God and physics.>>
>> Meanwhile, though, a "good standing" might include a record of
>> behavior by sponsorees -- such that, e.g., you might insist that
>> your 18-year-old nephew, in addition to not being a loose cannon,
>> is well-trained in gun-handling/-safety.

(Since I put some thought into my post, I just wanted to amend your
out-of-context quote of it.)

On 6/9/2022 5:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <%lsoK.21729$6P.10797@fx38.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/9/2022 2:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <JVqoK.3050$sW.1020@fx37.iad>, moviePig
>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/9/2022 1:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 9, 2022 at 7:27:14 AM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/8/2022 10:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 8, 2022 at 7:25:24 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wonder how things might work out if, in order to acquire
>>>>>>>> a gun, you have to be sponsored by a senior
>>>>>>>> owner-in-good-standing...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder how things might work out if, in order to vote, you
>>>>>>> have to be sponsored by a senior voter-in-good-standing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Never lose your sense of wonder. In both instances, much might
>>>>>> depend on what causes a loss of "good standing". Or didn't you
>>>>>> think that far?
>>>>>
>>>>> These days it's usually defined as whatever 'progressives' say it
>>>>> is.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what "progressives are saying these days" ...
>>>
>>> Just look to whatever the criterion du jour is for being canceled
>>> and you'll find out what currently causes a loss of good standing.
>>>
>>>> ... but I'm sure they routinely affront both God and physics.>>
>>>> Meanwhile, though, a "good standing" might include a record of
>>>> behavior by sponsorees -- such that, e.g., you might insist that
>>>> your 18-year-old nephew, in addition to not being a loose cannon,
>>>> is well-trained in gun-handling/-safety.
>>
>> (Since I put some thought into my post, I just wanted to amend your
>> out-of-context quote of it.)
>
> There was nothing out of context to what I wrote. It was perfectly in
> context to what was being discussed.

You made it seem that those 9 words were the extent of my thought.

On 6/9/2022 7:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <LZtoK.14833$_T.7122@fx40.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/9/2022 5:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <%lsoK.21729$6P.10797@fx38.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/9/2022 2:45 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <JVqoK.3050$sW.1020@fx37.iad>, moviePig
>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 1:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2022 at 7:27:14 AM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2022 10:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 8, 2022 at 7:25:24 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I wonder how things might work out if, in order to acquire
>>>>>>>>>> a gun, you have to be sponsored by a senior
>>>>>>>>>> owner-in-good-standing...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wonder how things might work out if, in order to vote, you
>>>>>>>>> have to be sponsored by a senior voter-in-good-standing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Never lose your sense of wonder. In both instances, much might
>>>>>>>> depend on what causes a loss of "good standing". Or didn't you
>>>>>>>> think that far?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These days it's usually defined as whatever 'progressives' say it
>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know what "progressives are saying these days" ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Just look to whatever the criterion du jour is for being canceled
>>>>> and you'll find out what currently causes a loss of good standing.
>>>>>
>>>>>> ... but I'm sure they routinely affront both God and physics.>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, though, a "good standing" might include a record of
>>>>>> behavior by sponsorees -- such that, e.g., you might insist that
>>>>>> your 18-year-old nephew, in addition to not being a loose cannon,
>>>>>> is well-trained in gun-handling/-safety.
>>>>
>>>> (Since I put some thought into my post, I just wanted to amend your
>>>> out-of-context quote of it.)
>>>
>>> There was nothing out of context to what I wrote. It was perfectly in
>>> context to what was being discussed.
>>
>> You made it seem that those 9 words were the extent of my thought.
>
> Well, you'd already posted it once to the group. Everyone who's
> interested had already read it. Not sure who you think is jumping into
> this 100+-post thread with my response and who would have missed yours.

Well, maybe you're right... maybe I'm the only one who often reads just
the latest post of bunch of new ones in a thread, expecting that the
quoted history will supply the recent material. Surely *you* never do
that, but always go back and open each unread original individually...