in praise of gold

[Petro]

On Thursday, November 29, 2001, at 10:13 PM, measl at mfn.org wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Petro wrote:
>> On Monday, November 26, 2001, at 07:58 PM, measl at mfn.org wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Faustine 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' 
>>>> 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