On Thursday, November 29, 2001, at 10:13 PM, measl@mfn.org wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Petro wrote:
On Monday, November 26, 2001, at 07:58 PM, measl@mfn.org wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
Not all women are golddiggers. They're called 'old maids'. ALL women who are interested in a 'relationship' are 'golddiggers' in the sense they want to 'change'
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Faustine wrote: the other party. Nothing like a good across the board generalization, huh Jim? Well, I hate to be in the position of defending Jimbo, but he's right--in a sense, but not just about women. Where does the desire for "a relationship" translate into the desire to "change the other party"?
Where is that a requirement in what Jimbo said? He said that any (woman) involved in a relationship wanted to change the other party, and that made her a gold digger. I am stating that in *any* relationship where there are 2 parties, both parties would, under a "Perfect Truth Serum" be able to articulate at least 2 things about the other party that they want to change. So by Jimbo's definition we are all gold diggers.
I'd be willing to bet (should there be a way of proving it to my satisfaction) that in every relationship, one party would like to change AT LEAST 2 things about the other party. Then I guess we're down the minutae of "what is "a relationship", and what is "change"...
It doesn't matter how you define relationship, altho there was a certain kind of relationship assumed (I would stretch it to almost any relationship that lasts more that say, 25 minutes) However "change" in this context is rather obvious.
Of course, this then makes every person who gets into any kind of relationship a "gold digger".
The American colloquialism "Golddigger" != "Relationship participant who would like to effect changes in the other engaging party(s)". The Goldigger term commonly refers to a woman who marries or engages in highly personal (not _necessarily_ sexual, but the inference is a common one) long term "relationships" for the accrual of cash and property, rather than any actual interest in the partner(s). Think long-term hookers. Think Mary Elizabeth Terranson :-)
Sure, but we're not talking normal definitions.
Who was she? It's nice to see you're not bitter ;-/ Why do you assume it was a she? <chuckles> Because Jim's comment specifically referred to women.
It is considered polite to refer to a TV as a she. -- "Remember, half-measures can be very effective if all you deal with are half-wits."--Chris Klein