🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Dqw1Aq.Jp7@world.std.com> jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) writes:
>Janice Gelb <janiceg@Eng.Sun.COM> wrote:
>>I personally would tend to think that I probably don't have much
>>in common with a guy whose main transportation is an old truck. 
>>But that's not a judgment based on only dating guys with money; for 
>>example, I wouldn't have the same reaction to a guy driving an old 
>>Volvo with 160,000 miles on it or something.
>
>Janice, thank you for being honest enough to admit that a guy's material
>posessions have a serious impact on whether you'd date him or not.  A
>lot of women here have been trying to claim that most women only want
>sincerity, honesty, integrity, etc. and don't care about a guy's wealth
>-- yet most of us guys know this is only so much hot air from our
>personal experiences.

   Much as I dislike continuing this thread, I dislike gross
misreadings worse.  Janice did *not* say that a guy's *wealth* was an
important factor for her; she said quite the opposite.

   She did state that a guy's *posessions* may influence her (initial)
opinion of him, but this is not the same thing.  We may presume that
the old truck and the old Volvo have approximately the same market
value.  Janice's point is that certain objects have social indicia
aside from their cash value.

   I think that she is quite correct.  The original story was not just
about a change in (apparent) wealth, but also of social group.  There
were far too many variables present to attribute the entire change of
observed reactions to the change in apparent wealth alone.

			-Gary

-- 
|Gary Brainin                     | "...the right to be let alone--the most    
|garygm@goonsquad.spies.com       | comprehensive of rights and the right most  
|Ramblings and PGP public key at: | valued by civilized men." Olmstead v. U.S.  
|http://www.spies.com/garygm/     | (Brandeis, J., dissenting)