The Wealthy... Are they all Richard Crania?
mr_goo
Posts: 3,770
What is it with the wealthy and their complete and utter mindless selfishness?
I ask this question after chatting to a customer in darkest Dorset yesterday. A county littered with stately homes, owned by some high profile 'richard craniums'. This customer was telling me of a manor house owned by Jasper Conran, which was bought for him by daddy (Sir Terence). This stuck up little Berkshire complained to the local council that the poly tunnels on a field adjoining his estate were an eyesore and demanded they be removed. Obviously refused.
Then there is the story of Madge (Madonna) who was so irritated by the noise and sight of light aircraft from the nearby Compton Abbas airfield (Shaftesbury) that she tried to by it. in order to shut it down!!
Over in the next valley is another large estate reputedly owned by Viscount Rothermere (Daily Mail owner). He purchased this (£2.5m approx) from a family that couldn't afford the upkeep. Has spent a fortune on renovation (fair enough) and now worth 10x original value. He has an armed security detail patrolling the grounds and buys up all the surrounding houses as he does not want any 'riff raff' living near him.
I think I am going to walk around my front garden brandishing a Glock pistol in order to frighten off the underclass that dare to walk past my humble abode. And I demand that New Forest council order my neighbour to dismantle their greenhouse.
I ask this question after chatting to a customer in darkest Dorset yesterday. A county littered with stately homes, owned by some high profile 'richard craniums'. This customer was telling me of a manor house owned by Jasper Conran, which was bought for him by daddy (Sir Terence). This stuck up little Berkshire complained to the local council that the poly tunnels on a field adjoining his estate were an eyesore and demanded they be removed. Obviously refused.
Then there is the story of Madge (Madonna) who was so irritated by the noise and sight of light aircraft from the nearby Compton Abbas airfield (Shaftesbury) that she tried to by it. in order to shut it down!!
Over in the next valley is another large estate reputedly owned by Viscount Rothermere (Daily Mail owner). He purchased this (£2.5m approx) from a family that couldn't afford the upkeep. Has spent a fortune on renovation (fair enough) and now worth 10x original value. He has an armed security detail patrolling the grounds and buys up all the surrounding houses as he does not want any 'riff raff' living near him.
I think I am going to walk around my front garden brandishing a Glock pistol in order to frighten off the underclass that dare to walk past my humble abode. And I demand that New Forest council order my neighbour to dismantle their greenhouse.
Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
0
Comments
-
What is it with the wealthy and their complete and utter mindless selfishness?
I ask this question after chatting to a customer in darkest Dorset yesterday. A county littered with stately homes, owned by some high profile 'richard craniums'. This customer was telling me of a manor house owned by Jasper Conran, which was bought for him by daddy (Sir Terence). This stuck up little Berkshire complained to the local council that the poly tunnels on a field adjoining his estate were an eyesore and demanded they be removed. Obviously refused.
Then there is the story of Madge (Madonna) who was so irritated by the noise and sight of light aircraft from the nearby Compton Abbas airfield (Shaftesbury) that she tried to by it. in order to shut it down!!
Over in the next valley is another large estate reputedly owned by Viscount Rothermere (Daily Mail owner). He purchased this (£2.5m approx) from a family that couldn't afford the upkeep. Has spent a fortune on renovation (fair enough) and now worth 10x original value. He has an armed security detail patrolling the grounds and buys up all the surrounding houses as he does not want any 'riff raff' living near him.
I think I am going to walk around my front garden brandishing a Glock pistol in order to frighten off the underclass that dare to walk past my humble abode. And I demand that New Forest council order my neighbour to dismantle their greenhouse.
I doubt this to be the case. Poetic licence?0 -
-
What is it with the wealthy and their complete and utter mindless selfishness?
I ask this question after chatting to a customer in darkest Dorset yesterday. A county littered with stately homes, owned by some high profile 'richard craniums'. This customer was telling me of a manor house owned by Jasper Conran, which was bought for him by daddy (Sir Terence). This stuck up little Berkshire complained to the local council that the poly tunnels on a field adjoining his estate were an eyesore and demanded they be removed. Obviously refused.
Then there is the story of Madge (Madonna) who was so irritated by the noise and sight of light aircraft from the nearby Compton Abbas airfield (Shaftesbury) that she tried to by it. in order to shut it down!!
Over in the next valley is another large estate reputedly owned by Viscount Rothermere (Daily Mail owner). He purchased this (£2.5m approx) from a family that couldn't afford the upkeep. Has spent a fortune on renovation (fair enough) and now worth 10x original value. He has an armed security detail patrolling the grounds and buys up all the surrounding houses as he does not want any 'riff raff' living near him.
I think I am going to walk around my front garden brandishing a Glock pistol in order to frighten off the underclass that dare to walk past my humble abode. And I demand that New Forest council order my neighbour to dismantle their greenhouse.
I doubt this to be the case. Poetic licence?
He really has bought up the surrounding property. He lets his guests and friends live in the houses when they visit. As for the armed guards? It would be interesting to here from anyone that has served in the police and whether this is possible.Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
What is it with the wealthy and their complete and utter mindless selfishness?
I ask this question after chatting to a customer in darkest Dorset yesterday. A county littered with stately homes, owned by some high profile 'richard craniums'. This customer was telling me of a manor house owned by Jasper Conran, which was bought for him by daddy (Sir Terence). This stuck up little Berkshire complained to the local council that the poly tunnels on a field adjoining his estate were an eyesore and demanded they be removed. Obviously refused.
Then there is the story of Madge (Madonna) who was so irritated by the noise and sight of light aircraft from the nearby Compton Abbas airfield (Shaftesbury) that she tried to by it. in order to shut it down!!
Over in the next valley is another large estate reputedly owned by Viscount Rothermere (Daily Mail owner). He purchased this (£2.5m approx) from a family that couldn't afford the upkeep. Has spent a fortune on renovation (fair enough) and now worth 10x original value. He has an armed security detail patrolling the grounds and buys up all the surrounding houses as he does not want any 'riff raff' living near him.
I think I am going to walk around my front garden brandishing a Glock pistol in order to frighten off the underclass that dare to walk past my humble abode. And I demand that New Forest council order my neighbour to dismantle their greenhouse.
I doubt this to be the case. Poetic licence?
He really has bought up the surrounding property. He lets his guests and friends live in the houses when they visit. As for the armed guards? It would be interesting to here from anyone that has served in the police and whether this is possible.
No0 -
What is it with the wealthy and their complete and utter mindless selfishness?
I ask this question after chatting to a customer in darkest Dorset yesterday. A county littered with stately homes, owned by some high profile 'richard craniums'. This customer was telling me of a manor house owned by Jasper Conran, which was bought for him by daddy (Sir Terence). This stuck up little Berkshire complained to the local council that the poly tunnels on a field adjoining his estate were an eyesore and demanded they be removed. Obviously refused.
Then there is the story of Madge (Madonna) who was so irritated by the noise and sight of light aircraft from the nearby Compton Abbas airfield (Shaftesbury) that she tried to by it. in order to shut it down!!
Over in the next valley is another large estate reputedly owned by Viscount Rothermere (Daily Mail owner). He purchased this (£2.5m approx) from a family that couldn't afford the upkeep. Has spent a fortune on renovation (fair enough) and now worth 10x original value. He has an armed security detail patrolling the grounds and buys up all the surrounding houses as he does not want any 'riff raff' living near him.
I think I am going to walk around my front garden brandishing a Glock pistol in order to frighten off the underclass that dare to walk past my humble abode. And I demand that New Forest council order my neighbour to dismantle their greenhouse.
I doubt this to be the case. Poetic licence?
He really has bought up the surrounding property. He lets his guests and friends live in the houses when they visit. As for the armed guards? It would be interesting to here from anyone that has served in the police and whether this is possible.
No
So you were in the job then?Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
Is this not a bit like the whole all cyclists run red lights and are a menace on the roads debate?
Some people are d1cks, so it follows some rich people will be, same as every other group of people.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Exactly. Approximately half of the people you encounter will be more dickish than average.Is this not a bit like the whole all cyclists run red lights and are a menace on the roads debate?
Some people are d1cks, so it follows some rich people will be, same as every other group of people.0 -
As for the armed guards? It would be interesting to here from anyone that has served in the police and []whether this is possible[/b].[/quote]
No[/quote]
So you were in the job then?[/quote]
I was in the police, in Scotland. Firearms Licences are not issued for 'close protection' purposes. (Shotgun Certificates are, of course, issued to farmers). If security guards appear to be carrying handguns I would speak to the Inspector at your local police office. I would be concerned if the guards had anything like a firearm in their possession.0 -
It is, of course, possible to be armed without carrying a firearm.0
-
Statistically, more affluent motorists, or at least those driving more prestigious/expensive cars, break more rules and are less courteous than average. The study I've come across was done in the US but I'd be surprised if the same psychology doesn't apply everywhere else too. A statistical analysis did show significantly higher instances of bad behaviour by those driving prestigious/expensive cars. The theory apparently is that successful people with money and power pretty much universally come to the conclusion either conciously or subconciously that they must deserve it. Thus those without it must not deserve it and so having money and power = superior. The rules only apply to normal people and courtesy is for peers.
A related study consisted of getting two subjects to play a game of monopoly. They rigged the game by giving player A twice as much money as player B at the start. Both players knew this. Nevertheless, when they ran this experiment, player A would regularly take credit for being a better player, they'd act as though they deserved to win, often making fun of player B. If snacks were left in the room, player B would often take possession of them and gobble them. This was repeated many times with many subjects and the results were repeatable.
Conclusion:
People justify what they have so they can feel good about it.
When you have a lot, that often means developing an illogical sense of entitlement and superiority.
So yes, wealth can often produce richard craniums.
We shouldn't hate them, we should feel sorry for them. At least we can be content in the knowledge that we aren't massively wealthy because we're more righteous, moral people.
Apologies for not providing a link to the described studies, can't remember where I came across it.0 -
I think its a bit of cause and effect though.
what's to say the people described above aren't successful because they are driven (pun intended) to suceed and don't care too much about what they do to get it?
so rather 4rses are more likely to be rich than the rich are more likely to be 4rses.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Statistically, more affluent motorists, or at least those driving more prestigious/expensive cars, break more rules and are less courteous than average. The study I've come across was done in the US but I'd be surprised if the same psychology doesn't apply everywhere else too. A statistical analysis did show significantly higher instances of bad behaviour by those driving prestigious/expensive cars. The theory apparently is that successful people with money and power pretty much universally come to the conclusion either conciously or subconciously that they must deserve it. Thus those without it must not deserve it and so having money and power = superior. The rules only apply to normal people and courtesy is for peers.
A related study consisted of getting two subjects to play a game of monopoly. They rigged the game by giving player A twice as much money as player B at the start. Both players knew this. Nevertheless, when they ran this experiment, player A would regularly take credit for being a better player, they'd act as though they deserved to win, often making fun of player B. If snacks were left in the room, player B would often take possession of them and gobble them. This was repeated many times with many subjects and the results were repeatable.
Conclusion:
People justify what they have so they can feel good about it.
When you have a lot, that often means developing an illogical sense of entitlement and superiority.
So yes, wealth can often produce richard craniums.
We shouldn't hate them, we should feel sorry for them. At least we can be content in the knowledge that we aren't massively wealthy because we're more righteous, moral people.
Apologies for not providing a link to the described studies, can't remember where I came across it.
Churchill was quoted " rules, for the obedience of idiots and guidance for fools".
Rules apply to everyone, it's the mindset that evaluates the rule to verify the sense behind it which then decides a course of action. It's about risk perception and the gains weighted against the risk. Subjective outcomes from the same data set and sometimes money is a outcome.
There're plenty of tools who don't subscribe to the rules of society and claim state support and they are much more numerous!“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
There is little doubt that those who have material wealth are inordinately affected by it. What should be simple life enhancing things confer privilege and status on those who possess the baubles afforded by success, and it distorts their world view. To most people money and the things it brings are important, and cloud judgement. To some it's a gilded cage - a burden, even- and to some a substitute for a real life.0
-
There may well be a bit of both involved. However the conclusion of the Monopoly experiment was that success caused people to act more like 4rses. The subjects were randomly assigned their roles but it was the player in whose favour the game was rigged whose behaviour deteriorated. Success was a cause.I think its a bit of cause and effect though.
what's to say the people described above aren't successful because they are driven (pun intended) to suceed and don't care too much about what they do to get it?
so rather 4rses are more likely to be rich than the rich are more likely to be 4rses.0 -
@Slowmart
I agree that there are those at the other end of the spectrum who also flout the rules but the type of rules, their own justifications for it, and the entire psychology behind it tend to be very different in my opinion.
I think offenders at the underprivileged end of the spectrum have generally lost respect for themselves and society and justify "disobedience" on the basis that they are being wronged and/or have nothing to lose. The world owes them.
Offenders at the wealthy/privileged end on the other hand feel they are above the rules because they're special and more entitled. They've earned it and the world owes them.0 -
There is nothing wrong with buying local property because you don't want neighbours. If he can afford too and wants to spend his money doing that then why does that make him anything other than a rich bloke spending his money ?
He isn't breaking any laws is he.
In life you make choices, money affords more choices. It really is that simple.Living MY dream.0 -
No it's not....
In life you make choices, money affords more choices. It really is that simple.0 -
No it's not....
In life you make choices, money affords more choices. It really is that simple.
I wonder if there is a single other person on earth who agrees with you on that ?
Money can't buy happiness, however it can make you happy.
It can't buy you health although it can afford you better treatment.
It 100% gives you more choices than that of someone who is broke.
If you can't understand that I'm afraid your on your own as I'm not sure even the usual people who love to argue my every point would be so stupid as to try and make out it doesnt. :?Living MY dream.0 -
There is nothing wrong with buying local property because you don't want neighbours. If he can afford too and wants to spend his money doing that then why does that make him anything other than a rich bloke spending his money ?
He isn't breaking any laws is he.
In life you make choices, money affords more choices. It really is that simple.
there is everything wrong with it.
I live nr a very wealthy guy who has done this and its wrecked the commnuity, rents them out, tenants tend not to take an active part in the village, as they are short term and he has caused a lot of local resentment, as he can easily outbide any local buyers, he has bought 3 houses in his immediate facinity and a further 4 in the village.
these sort of people would get far more out of life by mixing in and being normal but they cant seem too, recently had a fence put up around his 11 acre garden because a local teenager training for a nat xc race would run nr his property (like at least 800m nr !) turn and run back, he thought someone was spying on him as he only saw her running away.... what a paranoid xxxx, no one is interested in you!0 -
There is nothing wrong with buying local property because you don't want neighbours. If he can afford too and wants to spend his money doing that then why does that make him anything other than a rich bloke spending his money ?
He isn't breaking any laws is he.
In life you make choices, money affords more choices. It really is that simple.
there is everything wrong with it.
I live nr a very wealthy guy who has done this and its wrecked the commnuity, rents them out, tenants tend not to take an active part in the village, as they are short term and he has caused a lot of local resentment, as he can easily outbide any local buyers, he has bought 3 houses in his immediate facinity and a further 4 in the village.
these sort of people would get far more out of life by mixing in and being normal but they cant seem too, recently had a fence put up around his 11 acre garden because a local teenager training for a nat xc race would run nr his property (like at least 800m nr !) turn and run back, he thought someone was spying on him as he only saw her running away.... what a paranoid xxxx, no one is interested in you!
It isn't your choice though is it, BUT it is his choice.
I personally think its wrong, but it does depend wether he is doing it purely for profit or for assistance or business but again, thats my thought which means little.
Humanity has a natural progression of people wanting more, it makes life unfair for many but how far do we go to the real core of the issue because the fact that people have had the option to post on this very thread and that they own a bike and will eat food today makes them better off than more than 80% of the earths population who live on less than $10 a day.Living MY dream.0 -
He does it out of some perverse sense of self importance, he already has a very large portfolio of properties else where.
when he first came here, he was ok but as he got richer, he has a become an idiot and local laughing stock, something i dont think he realises.
Money rarely buys happiness, just the illusion, of course poverty has the opposite effect, only that is real.
but we all have choices, i can sell my house to him
0 -
There is nothing wrong with buying local property because you don't want neighbours. If he can afford too and wants to spend his money doing that then why does that make him anything other than a rich bloke spending his money ?
He isn't breaking any laws is he.
In life you make choices, money affords more choices. It really is that simple.
there is everything wrong with it.
I live nr a very wealthy guy who has done this and its wrecked the commnuity, rents them out, tenants tend not to take an active part in the village, as they are short term and he has caused a lot of local resentment, as he can easily outbide any local buyers, he has bought 3 houses in his immediate facinity and a further 4 in the village.
these sort of people would get far more out of life by mixing in and being normal but they cant seem too, recently had a fence put up around his 11 acre garden because a local teenager training for a nat xc race would run nr his property (like at least 800m nr !) turn and run back, he thought someone was spying on him as he only saw her running away.... what a paranoid xxxx, no one is interested in you!
It isn't your choice though is it, BUT it is his choice.
I personally think its wrong, but it does depend wether he is doing it purely for profit or for assistance or business but again, thats my thought which means little.
Humanity has a natural progression of people wanting more, it makes life unfair for many but how far do we go to the real core of the issue because the fact that people have had the option to post on this very thread and that they own a bike and will eat food today makes them better off than more than 80% of the earths population who live on less than $10 a day.
Vtech. This thread isn't about the wrongs of world poverty and how we should all beat ourselves up about having a roof over our head.
Clearly this landowner is another example of a Richard Cranium who believes he can create his own fiefdom by removing the riff-raff. He sounds like an utter Berkshire Hunt. And on the subject of second/third/fourth homes these have put the nail in the coffin of many local communities in the South West. Your high powered stock broker/company executive/merchant banker who buys a cottage in a lovely rural village has 1. Destroyed the local economy because general stores, pubs, post offices and other independent traders cannot survive on trade from Friday evening to Sunday afternoon. 2. It has priced out the younger generations in these areas from ever getting a property either purchase or rent.
Another example of wealth and how these idiots think they can rule the roost. I used to be a member at Ferndown Golf Club in the 80s/90s. There was a good mix of membership types from butchers through to retired generals. On the whole everyone mixed pretty well, except one clique... the very wealthy new money mob, who only amounted to about 40-50 in numbers. This group attempted to buy the club and impose an annual fee of 5 figures, thereby ridding them of the other 600+ so members....the riff-raff.Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
Hmmm, I think you're the confused one here. I thought my response was pretty straight forward but apparently it has caused you some difficulty. You made a statement about money providing more choices and said it was as simple as that. I said it wasn't. You imply I'm an idiot.
No it's not....
In life you make choices, money affords more choices. It really is that simple.
I wonder if there is a single other person on earth who agrees with you on that ?
Money can't buy happiness, however it can make you happy.
It can't buy you health although it can afford you better treatment.
It 100% gives you more choices than that of someone who is broke.
If you can't understand that I'm afraid your on your own as I'm not sure even the usual people who love to argue my every point would be so stupid as to try and make out it doesnt. :?
Please read my response again and consider that my disagreement is with your claim that it's simple, not with your assertion that money provides choices. Surely no-one but you misinterpreted my pretty clear response? It really was quite clear.
You can be quite sn unpleasant fellow can't you?0 -
Hmmm, I think you're the confused one here. I thought my response was pretty straight forward but apparently it has caused you some difficulty. You made a statement about money providing more choices and said it was as simple as that. I said it wasn't. You imply I'm an idiot.
No it's not....
In life you make choices, money affords more choices. It really is that simple.
I wonder if there is a single other person on earth who agrees with you on that ?
Money can't buy happiness, however it can make you happy.
It can't buy you health although it can afford you better treatment.
It 100% gives you more choices than that of someone who is broke.
If you can't understand that I'm afraid your on your own as I'm not sure even the usual people who love to argue my every point would be so stupid as to try and make out it doesnt. :?
Please read my response again and consider that my disagreement is with your claim that it's simple, not with your assertion that money provides choices. Surely no-one but you misinterpreted my pretty clear response? It really was quite clear.
You can be quite sn unpleasant fellow can't you?
I knew your meaning and my reply stands.
I don't think I'm unpleasant, I am not saying its right. I am saying it is that simple.
When you have more money you have more choices, life is all about choices, whether right or wrong it doesn't matter for this purpose but the fact remains we have choices.
Poor people have the choice to miss meals or they could commit crimes to earn money to pay for things, they could work many jobs and run themselves into an early grave. Whatever really, they are still choices no matter if right or wrong.
This guy in question is obviously loaded and he chooses to buy up houses to prevent others being close. I have explained that I think it wrong but that doesnt matter, it doesnt matter that the poster here thinks it is wrong, what matters is that the guy thinks its right and due to the fact he is loaded he has the ability to action his choice.
It really is as simple as that.
Do I think I am unpleasant ? not on the whole, I think my words are unpleasant to some but to me thats because they don't like the fact that I reply with honesty and open-ness.
I am not a "yes man" and never will be, I simply speak my mind.
Find a lie or anything I have written here that was done to offend.
You won't find any, that is also quite simple.Living MY dream.0 -
Money affords more choices, however, it also influences the psychology of the choices made. Therefore saying money provides more choices and that's all there is to it IS over simplistic.
Hmmm, I think you're the confused one here. I thought my response was pretty straight forward but apparently it has caused you some difficulty. You made a statement about money providing more choices and said it was as simple as that. I said it wasn't. You imply I'm an idiot.
No it's not....
In life you make choices, money affords more choices. It really is that simple.
I wonder if there is a single other person on earth who agrees with you on that ?
Money can't buy happiness, however it can make you happy.
It can't buy you health although it can afford you better treatment.
It 100% gives you more choices than that of someone who is broke.
If you can't understand that I'm afraid your on your own as I'm not sure even the usual people who love to argue my every point would be so stupid as to try and make out it doesnt. :?
Please read my response again and consider that my disagreement is with your claim that it's simple, not with your assertion that money provides choices. Surely no-one but you misinterpreted my pretty clear response? It really was quite clear.
You can be quite sn unpleasant fellow can't you?
I knew your meaning and my reply stands.
I don't think I'm unpleasant, I am not saying its right. I am saying it is that simple.
When you have more money you have more choices, life is all about choices, whether right or wrong it doesn't matter for this purpose but the fact remains we have choices.
Poor people have the choice to miss meals or they could commit crimes to earn money to pay for things, they could work many jobs and run themselves into an early grave. Whatever really, they are still choices no matter if right or wrong.
This guy in question is obviously loaded and he chooses to buy up houses to prevent others being close. I have explained that I think it wrong but that doesnt matter, it doesnt matter that the poster here thinks it is wrong, what matters is that the guy thinks its right and due to the fact he is loaded he has the ability to action his choice.
It really is as simple as that.
Do I think I am unpleasant ? not on the whole, I think my words are unpleasant to some but to me thats because they don't like the fact that I reply with honesty and open-ness.
I am not a "yes man" and never will be, I simply speak my mind.
Find a lie or anything I have written here that was done to offend.
You won't find any, that is also quite simple.
You, however, say you doubt there's another person on earth who'd agree with me. Then you make your own infantile statements and suggest I disagree with them saying no-one else here is stupid enough to disagree.
No, you're not just honest, in fact you are not even honest.
Yes, you are unpleasant.
I also think you're disingenuous and ignorant.
Not insulting you, just trying to provide an honest statement of fact. I trust you won't object? :roll:0 -
Can we make the distinction between those born into wealth and those who get rich? I know of and have known quite a few that are landowners and Laird's. I have found them for the most pretty reasonable and often very charitable. The one's who 'make it' in some capacity can be obnoxious, classless and rude as heck.
One example is a local guy who got into property. He then made the realisation that if you build flatlets for the homeless, you can charge the DWP a fortune (currently £70 per person, regardless of age per night). Nothing wrong with that if you consider that it is essentially down to a housing shortage but his house has the biggest and most ludicrous christmas decorations. He has bank rolled his son in a double glazing business only working a few hours a day, mainly driving his M3 coupe around at silly speeds. His wife drives a Bentley and parks where tf she likes. Their drive way is a show of jet ski's, cars and a motor boat. The house he built and it is as crass and as crude as you like with not an ounce of style. He has a certain councillor in his back pocket who make sure that certain decisions go his way.
On the other foot is Lord X. I have been in contact with the estate manger quite frequently as the work premises we occupy was actually bequeathed to the people of this area 'for their use and benefit' by the late Lord X. The current Lord X is as gentlemanly as you will ever meet.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Duly amended. Although Craniums reads better.I assume you mean Richard Crania, my good man.Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
Therein lies the problem
Another example of wealth and how these idiots think they can rule the roost.
Whether it is right, or not. Whether you agree with it, or not. Whether you like it, or not, they do rule the roost.
And they probably do not care one jot what others think of that.
They are doing nothing illegal.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Money affords more choices, however, it also influences the psychology of the choices made. Therefore saying money provides more choices and that's all there is to it IS over simplistic.
Hmmm, I think you're the confused one here. I thought my response was pretty straight forward but apparently it has caused you some difficulty. You made a statement about money providing more choices and said it was as simple as that. I said it wasn't. You imply I'm an idiot.
No it's not....
In life you make choices, money affords more choices. It really is that simple.
I wonder if there is a single other person on earth who agrees with you on that ?
Money can't buy happiness, however it can make you happy.
It can't buy you health although it can afford you better treatment.
It 100% gives you more choices than that of someone who is broke.
If you can't understand that I'm afraid your on your own as I'm not sure even the usual people who love to argue my every point would be so stupid as to try and make out it doesnt. :?
Please read my response again and consider that my disagreement is with your claim that it's simple, not with your assertion that money provides choices. Surely no-one but you misinterpreted my pretty clear response? It really was quite clear.
You can be quite sn unpleasant fellow can't you?
I knew your meaning and my reply stands.
I don't think I'm unpleasant, I am not saying its right. I am saying it is that simple.
When you have more money you have more choices, life is all about choices, whether right or wrong it doesn't matter for this purpose but the fact remains we have choices.
Poor people have the choice to miss meals or they could commit crimes to earn money to pay for things, they could work many jobs and run themselves into an early grave. Whatever really, they are still choices no matter if right or wrong.
This guy in question is obviously loaded and he chooses to buy up houses to prevent others being close. I have explained that I think it wrong but that doesnt matter, it doesnt matter that the poster here thinks it is wrong, what matters is that the guy thinks its right and due to the fact he is loaded he has the ability to action his choice.
It really is as simple as that.
Do I think I am unpleasant ? not on the whole, I think my words are unpleasant to some but to me thats because they don't like the fact that I reply with honesty and open-ness.
I am not a "yes man" and never will be, I simply speak my mind.
Find a lie or anything I have written here that was done to offend.
You won't find any, that is also quite simple.
You, however, say you doubt there's another person on earth who'd agree with me. Then you make your own infantile statements and suggest I disagree with them saying no-one else here is stupid enough to disagree.
No, you're not just honest, in fact you are not even honest.
Yes, you are unpleasant.
I also think you're disingenuous and ignorant.
Not insulting you, just trying to provide an honest statement of fact. I trust you won't object? :roll:
You have completely changed your stance though.
You made a comment of which I replied. Others have also replied and backed up my comment on money affording choices then you turn it into a psychology issue but what has that got to do with this? A psychological issue means nothing if the person in question doesn't have the money to put into place his wanten desire to "rule the roost" does it. !!!
You seem to want to argue with me and even post derogatory things about me which is fine as you honestly won't bother me and although it's only just after 6am I can assure you that I had a decent sleep. I just had to get up early as I'm actually having breakfast with a neighbour this morning but it's a good 20 minute walk to their home as I didn't want to live too close to other folk.Living MY dream.0 -
Money affords more choices, however, it also influences the psychology of the choices made. Therefore saying money provides more choices and that's all there is to it IS over simplistic.
Hmmm, I think you're the confused one here. I thought my response was pretty straight forward but apparently it has caused you some difficulty. You made a statement about money providing more choices and said it was as simple as that. I said it wasn't. You imply I'm an idiot.
No it's not....
In life you make choices, money affords more choices. It really is that simple.
I wonder if there is a single other person on earth who agrees with you on that ?
Money can't buy happiness, however it can make you happy.
It can't buy you health although it can afford you better treatment.
It 100% gives you more choices than that of someone who is broke.
If you can't understand that I'm afraid your on your own as I'm not sure even the usual people who love to argue my every point would be so stupid as to try and make out it doesnt. :?
Please read my response again and consider that my disagreement is with your claim that it's simple, not with your assertion that money provides choices. Surely no-one but you misinterpreted my pretty clear response? It really was quite clear.
You can be quite sn unpleasant fellow can't you?
I knew your meaning and my reply stands.
I don't think I'm unpleasant, I am not saying its right. I am saying it is that simple.
When you have more money you have more choices, life is all about choices, whether right or wrong it doesn't matter for this purpose but the fact remains we have choices.
Poor people have the choice to miss meals or they could commit crimes to earn money to pay for things, they could work many jobs and run themselves into an early grave. Whatever really, they are still choices no matter if right or wrong.
This guy in question is obviously loaded and he chooses to buy up houses to prevent others being close. I have explained that I think it wrong but that doesnt matter, it doesnt matter that the poster here thinks it is wrong, what matters is that the guy thinks its right and due to the fact he is loaded he has the ability to action his choice.
It really is as simple as that.
Do I think I am unpleasant ? not on the whole, I think my words are unpleasant to some but to me thats because they don't like the fact that I reply with honesty and open-ness.
I am not a "yes man" and never will be, I simply speak my mind.
Find a lie or anything I have written here that was done to offend.
You won't find any, that is also quite simple.
You, however, say you doubt there's another person on earth who'd agree with me. Then you make your own infantile statements and suggest I disagree with them saying no-one else here is stupid enough to disagree.
No, you're not just honest, in fact you are not even honest.
Yes, you are unpleasant.
I also think you're disingenuous and ignorant.
Not insulting you, just trying to provide an honest statement of fact. I trust you won't object? :roll:
You have completely changed your stance though.
You made a comment of which I replied. Others have also replied and backed up my comment on money affording choices then you turn it into a psychology issue but what has that got to do with this? A psychological issue means nothing if the person in question doesn't have the money to put into place his wanten desire to "rule the roost" does it. !!!
You seem to want to argue with me and even post derogatory things about me which is fine as you honestly won't bother me and although it's only just after 6am I can assure you that I had a decent sleep. I just had to get up early as I'm actually having breakfast with a neighbour this morning but it's a good 20 minute walk to their home as I didn't want to live too close to other folk.
He lives in the gatehouse at the bottom of VTech's drive. 0
