🚀 go-pugleaf

	Could someone tell me whether I'm missing the point of this or not?

Terry Rasmussen (trr@ontos.com) wrote:

:     John, I think that you _ARE_ missing the majority of , if not the
:     whole point here.

:     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:

:     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.

:     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: it came to less than the vehicle I walked in for,
:     after the financing, even though it had a higher sticker price.

	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?

								Oz