🚀 go-pugleaf

>    >   This is so wierd.  I don't think you and I share a single opinion.
>    >And this includes your interpretation of what Janice said.  Her second
>    >sentence explicitly says that she doesn't care so much about money,
>    >its the personal appearance (read: image) that is being projected.  It
>    >is about the kind of people that drive trucks, not about the kind of
>    >people that have money.
> 
>    Ross, I think you're right in this; I just took it the rest of the way
>    -- a truck doesn't connotate $$$ while a Volvo definitely does.  Yes,
> 
> I can't see that. one of my fraternity brothers had a volvo at
> college, and he didn't really have any more money than the rest of
> them. I forget why he had it, he just did. this was in 1978.
> 
>    in a true financial analysis both cars are probably of the same value,
>    but the image projected is at one time they did (or wish they did)
>    own a newer version of the same vehicle.
> 
> not a valid conclusion either, esp with the high cost of new cars
> these days.
> 
> perhaps all it means is what you think it means. a friend in 1983
> changed jobs and bought a BMW, because 1) he wanted one, and 2) he
> thought it helped project the right image for him at his new job. I
> don't know if that was true or not, but if he thought so, and his
> likely clientele thought so, then it was.

Don't forget boys and girls:

A: A person driving a fancy import could be up to his eyeballs in debt.

B: Guess what billionaire Sam Walton drove? That's right, an old pickup.

RB