[kj] Jaz would nt appreciate this article

[peter.west410]

> >
> > *******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.

*******That was my reply ,and Im sticking to it and standing by
it***********




> > ******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 (referring to a previous discussion where
> you said everyone has choice).
>

*********Right:It is true that this generation has more money then previous
generations.But instead of spending money on something they want,They may
buy the latest expensive Mobile phone,Just to show off.But they dont really
want it, They are just trying to keep up with everyone else.
If that dont make sense I shall admit to being confused*********



> > ******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 ,richer in a monetary sense**********

Yes having money and utilising can allow
> you a variety of means for fulfilment but you can still fulfil
> yourself without the large amounts of money.

********Yes, I agree.I have never said that money leads to
fulfilment,**********

 >
>
> 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.
>
******I was trying to say that people are richer nowadays,but not
neccisarily happier and I was trying to explain why. Personally it all makes
sense to me,But I can understand how it can be misinterpreted*********
> >




> > > so a question, what is the most valuable thing in your life?
> >
> > ********Myself*********
> >
> for me my son and the others i love
>
********But if it was nt for yourself being there,Then you could nt love
anyone else could you?So ultimatley :You must care for yourself more
     For example :If someone did nt take care of themselves and passed
away,The people who are left behind suffer.

 Nice sentiments though.**********



>
> > *******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.
>
*******How else can you judge wealth then?If you are referring to other
things,then its not wealth is it**********

> >      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!

**********Thats what ive been meaning to say.I think you may of got the
wrong end of the stick,***********




> 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?


   ******* I think that is where this debate is disintegrating:It doesnt
make you richer or poorer,It makes you unhealthier due to the fact that your
food supply is poorer quality.I use the word "richer" to imply having more
money available,I dont use "richer" to imply that one is better,happier or
more fulfilled just because they are richer.
      Hopefully ,that will make my previous posts make more sense********










-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 01/04/2005