🚀 go-pugleaf

Meg slaps:

> Sorry if we actually understand Usenet here and want it
> to work well.

I never called into question your good intentions. The impossibility of
group removal *is* news to me--but you knew that already--and I'm happy
you pointed it out. [Sounds of whips and delighted squeals from the next
room.]

You go on to ask:

> How did this suddenly get gender-linked?  As I've said before,
> I don't care much either way, but the fact that X, Y, or Z
> doesn't see the point of a booze group is hardly proof of
> cliqueishness.  Moreover, accusations of cliqueishness are
> generally a guaranteed way to kill a new group proposal in
> a voting environment.  In any environment, it's the rhetorical
> equivalent of forgetting to throw the grenade in your hand.
 
You drop the gender card pretty quickly--and I think it's the
generalization from a series of posts to a hypothetical "them" that bugs
you anyway. Let the record show that I was careful to distinguish--if not
exactly scholastically--between two *different* negative responses to the
ba.booze idea. Cliqueishness [to 'e' or not to 'e'?] is *your* term. 
*I* said "some of the bad old boys," alluding most importantly to the
roller rink anthem of my youth; still, finding a common set of
rhetorical moves--here, resistance to what might be a genuinely bad
idea in ways that nonetheless *look* exclusionary--hardly constitutes 
an accusation of furtive conspiracy. 

In honor of your authori-tah, I'm off to pour myself a glass of Parducci's
1997 Petite Syrah: for the record, not as good as last year's, but still a
damn good buy and surprisingly full-bodied.

Bottoms up

cary


"kindle the fire of love with the faggot of virtue" --mechtild