On May 16, 9:03 am, "John Galt" <whoisjohng...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <retrogro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:nr8r2450outt2op4ipc4djv8b4nvpqaoio@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 16 May 2008 13:04:11 +0530, "John Galt"
> > <whoisjohng...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >><retrogro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >>news:tj8q24punnraomov9r1624m14mvkggb6mt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 07:58:05 +0530, "John Galt"
> >>> <whoisjohng...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >>>>> NO. If people say they are happy then they are happy. It is not
up
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> you to tell them what makes them happy.
>
> >>>>You're suggesting that people will be happy with less money to spend
> >>>>next
> >>>>year than they do this year?
>
> >>>>Seriously?
>
> >>> Do you honestly believe wealth and happiness are related. LOL.
>
> >>Wealth? Who said anything about wealth? I'm talking about raising
> >>families.
> >>I'm talking about food on the table, enough money for your kid to play
> >>Little League, having your kid's birthday party at Chuckie Cheese, or
> >>maybe
> >>if you can afford piano lessons for your daughter. At the lower and
middle
> >>class layers of society, you're damn right money is tied to happiness.
If
> >>it
> >>wasn't, money wouldn't be continually cited as one of the primary
causes
> >>of
> >>divorce.
>
> > Nonsense.
>
> Then feed me more than your personal anecdotes in refutation. I KNOW
poor
> people can be happy -- I've spent no shortage of time educating their
> children. That said, the idea you're proposing, that people don't care
about
> giving their children "things" as cited, and they're just as happy if
they
> cannot if they can, is absurd.
>
Dear God..they let a Randroid teach their children? <shudder>
The only subjects Randroids are suitable for teaching are Sociopathy
101.
|
