🚀 go-pugleaf

Onnie X. Granados wrote:
> 
>         Could someone tell me whether I'm missing the point of this or not?
> 
> Terry Rasmussen (trr@ontos.com) wrote:
<edit>
> :     I think what is being said here is quite simply that our publicly
> :     displayed posessions are in many ways advertisments of what we
> :     are and do and sometimes wish we were doing or could do.
> 
>         And after Terry says that, she goes on to say:
   
          BTW, I'm a "he", which is provided simply for information, as it
          has no bearing on the subject at hand.
> 
> :     If our advertising says one thing and we wish to be saying something
> :     else, we are the only one to blame; not those who are interpreting
> :     what we are displaying.
> 
>         "I wasn't date-raped, I was wearing a short, tight dress, and
> lots of makeup, so I was advertising that I wanted a physical
> relationship with this man.  He interpreted my display as being inviting,
> even when my words said othewise.  So it's all my fault, not his."
> 
>         Yeah, right.

         At first glance this seemed like a fairly good case against what
         I had stated, although taken to to a ridiculous extreme. However,
         after a few seconds of reflection I find it difficult to accept
         an excuse often used by morally and ethically defficient individuals
         to justify their taking what they wish, in this case the violation
         of another's person for their own gratification, as a refutation.
         Sorry, but I do not feel that you have made a case here.

> 
> :     closest to reality. My car, on the other hand was simply a desire for
> :     something with a 6 cyl. engine when I went looking. It was too good
> :     a deal to pass up: ...
<edit>
>         So your car is simply advertising that you just wanted a simple,
> practical vehicle, and if we think otherwise it's *your* fault, because
> you aren't advertising correctly, is that right?  Like the guy with the
> old truck -- there's only one possible thing it could say about him, and
> it's not very positive, if I'm reading you correctly.
> 
>         Do you see that your comments can be read in very conflicting
> ways?  Just what is *your* point?
> 

           I suppose I should have provided more detail here. I own a 
           four door automoblie which is at the larger end of the 
           midsize vehicles. If you did not know me, this could imply
           a number of incorrect things about me; for instance that I
           might have children to transport, which is incorrect.  

           Vehicular transport is one of lifes' big expenses, so we do
           tend to put some thought and effort into making this choice,
           some more than others. I have always felt an attachment to my 
           vehicles, but they have rarely defined who I was. However, I 
           do feel that during the time when I drove a pickup with "FARM"
           plates on it, people could make a pretty good guess at what I 
           did and up to a point where I was coming from. The important
           detail, is that you can make some generalizations, however 
           upon further investigation, you may find some, or even all of
           your generalizations to be in error in this individual case.

           I should also like to point out that part of what I was 
           attempting to say, although very poorly, is that there _are_ 
           exceptions to any arbitrary general rule. 

           If I saw two crouds of people, one set dressed in the latest
           styles and the other in jeans in tee-shirts emblazoned with 
           "Star Trek" emblems, I think I could guess which set to ask
           a "Star Trek" trivia question of and be likely to get a
           correct answer from. This is not saying that the "dressed up"
           group are not Trek fans, simply that the other group was
           _obviously_ Trek fans.

   Just my $0.02 worth...

-- 
-terry rasmussen (email: trr@ontos.com)
<standard disclaimers apply>