XPost: can.general, can.politics, ott.general   
   From: nospam@thanksalot.com   
      
   John Fleming wrote:   
   > On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 13:34:17 -0700, while chained to a desk   
   > in the scriptorium "merlin!"  wrote:   
   >> $John Fleming wrote:   
   >> $> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 21:47:41 -0700, while chained to a desk   
   >> $> in the scriptorium "merlin!"  wrote:   
   >> $>> $John Fleming wrote:   
   >> $>> $> On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 17:28:35 -0700, while chained to a desk   
   >> $>> $> in the scriptorium "merlin!"  wrote:   
   >> $>> $>   
   >> $>> $>> $And you two clowns have a crystal ball to see the future,   
   >> and $>> $>> mind-reading $abilities so you always know when you are   
   >> being $>> $>> defrauded. How nice for $you! No wonder your financial   
   >> plan $>> worked $>> out so well.   
   >> $>> $>   
   >> $>> $> Nobody can foresee the future.  But a persona can take steps   
   >> $>> $> to mitigate risk.   
   >> $>> $   
   >> $>> $Of course they can, and I agree it is prudent to do so. But it   
   >> is $>> not $guarantee of anything, certainly not in this country.   
   >> $>> $   
   >> $>> $   
   >> $>> $> In personal finance, you do this by having a budget, a   
   >> $>> $> reserve fund, appropriate insurance, and minimizing your   
   >> $>> $> debt.   
   >> $>> $>   
   >> $>> $> In a relationship, you do this by making sure the woman you   
   >> $>> $> build a relationship has a good head for personal finance   
   >> $>> $> and isn't hooking up with you because of your wallet.  Not   
   >> $>> $> because she has nice tits and a good ass.   
   >> $>> $   
   >> $>> $Seriously? You size up a woman's financial acumen prior to   
   >> asking $>> her out? $That's wierd, dude.   
   >> $>   
   >> $> If I can, why not?   
   >> $   
   >> $Hey, whatever floats your boat. When it comes to women, most guys   
   >> are $interested in different sorts of assets, but if that's what   
   >> turns you $on....   
   >   
   > And most guys seem to run into a lot of problems, no?  Think   
   > there might be a connection?   
      
   Some do, some don't, and no - I certainly do not agree that it has   
   anything whatsoever to do with the woman's financial acumen.   
      
   > Like, hey, if they spent less time evaluating her tits and   
   > her hips and the shape of her legs and spent more time   
   > evaluating her character, values and personality.   
      
   Sure, I agree that character and values are much more important than other   
   considerations. But that's not the same thing as "financial acumen", is   
   it? That was your claim, wasn't it... that a woman's "financial acumen" is   
   a major determinant of marital happiness? Are finally starting to clue in   
   that you were mistaken?   
      
      
   > As I said elsewhere, sometimes you can see trouble from a   
   > country mile, if you keep your eyes open and think with your   
   > head instead of your gonads.   
      
   You were claiming that you could sort all this out with a spreadsheet. Why   
   you brought "gonads" into the discussion is something of a mystery.   
      
      
   > The cute bombshell may seem like a great catch when you   
   > start dating her, but you may rue the day you ever met her   
   > if you end up in a divorce court.   
      
   I suggest that the exact same thing applies to the woman with "financial   
   acumen"... and she might be even better qualified to strip you of your   
   assets, right down to the gonads.   
      
   You may grovel and apologize any time.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)