🚀 go-pugleaf

Mike Packard <Mike.Packard@sandiegoca.attgis.com> writes:

>Sure, if you have the time, that is. 

The last time I looked, everybody has 24 hours in a day. It's a matter
of priorities.

>So you think I made this up? Have you ever owned a small business?

Yes I have and I do now.   

>Well, aren't you the armchair psychologist! I think you've hit the nail on the
>head. And that lack of time is precisely why they chose GE to being with. 

Again, it's not a lack of time. It's a matter of priorities.

>>> On the other hand, perhaps that is what GE clients are looking for, people
>>> who don't have a meaningful relationship as a priority.  

>You're absolutely right again. Some people consider their careers more
>important at the moment. I don't particularly like it myself, but if you're in
>that situation you've got to deal with it the best way you can. Just because
>you have a lot of free time on your hands doesn't mean everyone does. And just
>because you spend 60-70 hours a week at work doesn't mean you don't want some
>romance in your life either. It makes it much more difficult because there are
>only so many hours in a week. 

Again, I have my own business.  I work 60+ hours a week.  I still found time
to date when I was dating.  I still find time for the woman with whom I am
currently involved. I still find time to post to Newsgroups :-)  Instead of
spending thousands on GE, maybe you should spend only a few bucks to buy
a book on time management.  Hmmm. Let's see... 168 hours in a week minus
60 for work, minus 42 for sleeping, minus 14 for personal errands, etc. still
leaves 52 hours a week.    

>Well, there are some people who are looking for financial security and some
>people who have it who are looking for someone to share it with. With a little
>insight you can see that it can work out for both parties. Not every
>relationship is based on starry-eyed romantic ideals, you know. 

Will you show me the rule that says you can't have both a mutual sharing of 
finances and a mutual sharing of starry-eyed romantic ideals.  I prefer women 
who are independent financially as well as emotionally.  With a "little 
insight" you will find that the type of relationship you described is doomed 
to failure.  The women the other poster described don't *share*, they just 
take.  If you want that type, go for it.  But remember all finances have 
peaks and valleys, when the money is gone, you'll probably find that those 
type of women will be gone too.

Not to mention a better scenario that some of those women mature to their
own independence [one can only hope].  When that happens the basis for
the relationship vanishes... and so does she. 

>Face it, Ciccio, GE is a very successful business. It didn't get that way by
>providing a service that doesn't deliver. I know at least a dozen instances of
>people finding their "true love" at GE. Just because it doesn't fit your and
>John's ideal romantic notions doesn't mean it can't work nicely for others.
>Accept that not everyone has the same ideals as you do. 

I don't doubt that they deliver.  It's what they deliver and for how much.
Pay thousands of dollars to meet a woman who wants a dildo with a wallet...
doesn't sound like a good bang for the buck to me.  They can be found for 
free all over the place.

Ciao!
Ciccio