[kj] Jaz would nt appreciate this article

[iPat]

> 
> *******OUCH,aarggghhhhhh,that hurt:The answer is so blindingly obvious that
> it came out of my screen and slapped me around the face.
>   If you ve got a bike ,then you can cycle to the green areas.*******
> 

well you obviously dont do that as you would see the stupidity of the
answer. I expect juvenile comments from teenagers, not intelligent
persons like yurself.

> 
> ******I think that, that is another topic.We have more wealth.But do we use
> these gains wisely?Do people spend their money on what makes them happy or
> on what they are TOLD will make them happy?*****
> 
i dont agree. You made a statement. I simply asked by what can you
qualify such a statement, what measurement you can use? But you sound
confused. On one hand you say people are wealthy because they can buy
more clutter but in the other hand imply that they are TOLD to do so
as if they have no choice (refferring to a previous discussion where
you said everyone has choice).


> ******Yes,But if never purchased any rings you could use the money to buy a
> flight ticket and cycle around  anywhere in the world.In the 1930s the cost
> of a short-haul flight ticket was the equivalent to two months work.So there
> are more opportunities in this day and age to seek fulfilment,then there was
> when we were poor(in the good old days).********
> 

ok, it was you who inferred that by being able to actually own more
goods that we were richer. Yes having money and utilising can allow
you a variety of means for fulfilment but you can still fulfill
yourself without the large ammounts of money. A point you make further
below. You don't seem consistent here. that may be down to my
inability to fathom your meaning or you trying to be the jester.


> 

> 
> > otherwise we wouldnt consume more. So is it a false value that is
> > really a distraction from where true wealth lies?
> 
> ******* In reality its only a small minority that see possessions as
> wealth,And I am really not bothered if anybody sees wealth as
> possessions,Its their life,let them get on with it.Personally Im quite happy
> and content,If they are not.They should sort it out********
> 

you see Peter, this is where you lose me. May i quote your origional
statement: <From my observations this is completely untrue,The
population is
considerably more wealthier than a generation ago.People have never had so
much disposable income.Nowadays youngsters all wear labels,got mobiles and
as most are overweight,they must be getting ample food.Televisions,VCRs,
phones and cars are the norm>

You used material posessions to qualify your point. Now you seem to be
saying that its not relevant? Im not being antagonistic here, i just
dont understand your reasoning.



> 
> > so a question, what is the most valuable thing in your life?
> 
> ********Myself*********
> 
for me my son and the others i love



> *******It does seem odd that you are trying to convince me that consumerism
> is wrong............when I dont own an ipod, a mobile phone,A car,A
> watch..........Why, because I dont want them.I ll only get something if I
> want or need it,Not because Bono tells me I want or need it.


im not trying to convince you that consumerism is wrong but that you
cant judge wealth by those means, again for the points i made b4.


>      Different things make different people content.Problems arise when
> people dont know what makes them content ,And so they follow what other
> people see as contentness.******


i agree, but thats not what you began in saying!
 

> *********My mind is changeable,And I am always ready to change it if I see I
> am wrong*************
> 
> 
well i hope im like that too. Otherwise it will be an unispired existence!


so how do we measure wealth? I just heard a report on radio about the
fact that chickens are now poor nourishment. Its not really new news
but i can afford a lot of food but if the quality of food is crap then
does it make me richer or poorer?

-- 
iPat
live for today, live for tomorrow
"Truth is a pathless land. Man cannot come to it through any
organisation, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual,
nor through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He
has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the
understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and
not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection..."