Rich Getting Richer?

[Lord Jim]

Ya know, rube could have saved himself all this ridicule and grief, if after making the first completely wrong assertion, he had simply come back and said something like:

"I'm sorry, that really didn't come out right. What I actually meant to say was..."

That's what a normal person would have done...That's what a person who doesn't need negative attention as much as he needs oxygen would have done....

I've certainly said things like that when I've posted something that I could see from looking at it later was badly and misleadingly stated...Most people here, who have posted in any kind of quantity, have probably done that too...That's the right way to handle it...

But that isn't rube's way...

No, rube's way is to keep trying to change the statement while dishonestly claiming it's the same thing, and then accuse anyone who doesn't agree with him of being stupid....

(You must really crave the contempt with which many here regard you.)

"By jove, he's got it!"

[rubato]

The defining characteristic of affluence is free time is merely an equivalent way of saying the same thing. It assumes that the reader is smarter than a nutria and can think about what are the most important differences in the lives of the affluent which makes them different from everyone else.

Only stupid people would argue the point, and as I can see, only stupid people have done so. The idiot duo are awash in self-justification.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

The defining characteristic of affluence is free time is merely an equivalent way of saying the same thing.

Thanks rube...

Now in addition to proving that you don't know what the word affluence means, you have also demonstrated that you don't know the meaning of the word "defining" either....

And quite possibly do not know the meaning of the word "the" as well....

When it comes to sheer, naked ignorance, nothing you say could surprise me any more...*





*Of course I said that before, and then you showed that you couldn't properly interpret a one column table, or understand an article written in simple English, or find a link that was posted four times, so I may stand to be corrected on that claim again...

[rubato]

Were you ever going to try to address the substance? Ever?

No.

All crap, all the time.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Were you ever going to try to address the substance? Ever?

I've torn you apart substantively on this rube, repeatedly....

Apparently you weren't able to read that either....

[rubato]

And what is your argument that affluence does not equal free time? Did you have one?

Waiting and waiting.

Waiting and waiting.

Waiting and waiting.

whoops, nothing?



yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Right-o, here you go again rube, (I realize that in addition to your reading disability, you have severe information retention issues)

Right then, let's try posting the definitions of affluence yet again:

af·flu·ence
noun
\ˈa-(ˌ)flü-ən(t)s also a-ˈflü- or ə-\
Definition of AFFLUENCE
1
a : an abundant flow or supply : profusion b : abundance of property : wealth
2
: a flowing to or toward a point : influx

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affluence

af·flu·ence (fl-ns, -fl-)
n.
1. A plentiful supply of material goods; wealth.
2. A great quantity; an abundance.
3. A flowing to or toward a point; afflux.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

affluence [ˈæflʊəns]
n
1. an abundant supply of money, goods, or property; wealth
2. Rare abundance or profusion

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

Definition of affluence
noun
[mass noun]

the state of having a great deal of money; wealth: a sign of our growing affluence

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... /affluence


I don't see the phrase "free time" there anywhere. I don't see the word "contentment" anywhere....

I do however, see the word "wealth" four times....

Therefore, it seems pretty obvious to me that the defining characteristic of "affluence", the one factor that absolutely must needs be present to apply the term accurately, is ...uhh..."wealth"....

One absolutely, positively, cannot be called "affluent" without it.

One can however, be affluent and have free time or not have free time. (Plenty of affluent people have little or no free time.)

One can be affluent and not be content. (Many, many, affluent people aren't)

One can live "an affluent lifestyle" and not genuinely be affluent. (They could be doing it all on credit...many people have done this)

But once again, one absolutely positively cannot be "affluent" without wealth....to be wealthy is the defining characteristic of being affluent.

If the definitions from Webster, Colliers, American Heritage, and the Oxford English Dictionary aren't enough to convince you of this, (and apparently they aren't for some) here's more proof:

affluent [af-loo-uhnt or, often, uh-floo-]  
Main Entry:
affluent  [af-loo-uhnt or, often, uh-floo-]
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: wealthy[gee, for Thesaurus.com it's not even a synonym; it's the definition]
Synonyms: flush*, loaded, moneyed, opulent, prosperous, rich, stinking rich, upper class, upscale, well-off, well-to-do [see anything about "free time" or "contentment" there?]
Notes: to be affluent is to be prosperous or rich while effluent means flowing out or forth
Antonyms: destitute, impoverished, needy, penniless, poor

http://thesaurus.com/browse/affluent

Synonyms for affluent

Similarity of adj affluent

1 sense of affluent

Sense 1:
affluent, flush, loaded, moneyed, wealthy
rich (vs. poor)[gee, still no sign of "free time" or "contentment"]

http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/affluent/

Synonyms for affluent


modified

wealthy, prosperous, well-to-do; see rich 1. See syn. study atrich.

Roget's II: The New Thesaurus Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio. Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Okay, for those of you keeping score at home, it is now :

Reputable sources backing up "wealth" as the defining characteristic of "affluence" - 7

Reputable sources backing up anything else as the defining characteristic of "affluence" - zero, ziltch, nada, goose egg, naught, nil, zip.....0

Substantive enough for you, Wrong Way?

[Gob]

I thought retard had stated that a group of breast feeding women going for a coffee was a sign of excessive affluence. (Or at least in his world it is, apparently.)

[Sean]

The defining characteristic of affluence is free time is merely an equivalent way of saying the same thing. It assumes that the reader is smarter than a nutria and can think about what are the most important differences in the lives of the affluent which makes them different from everyone else.

Only stupid people would argue the point, and as I can see, only stupid people have done so. The idiot duo are awash in self-justification.

yrs,
rubato

And there we have it! RDT#275: "If what I post appears nonsensical/ridiculous/retarded to you, that is only because you are not intelligent enough to understand it".

[Lord Jim]

I thought retard had stated that a group of breast feeding women going for a coffee was a sign of excessive affluence.

Yes, it should be noted that was the context in which rube first asserted that "the defining characteristic of affluence is free time" and first revealed that he did not know what the word affluent meant....

So given his "clarifications" in this thread, he apparently believes that breast feeding women, being "affluent" enjoy unfettered free time, ("affluence=free time")

Which only a person who has never raised a child could possibly believe....

ETA:

Yes rube, when you've got an infant, it's all champagne, hot tubs, late night clubbing and sleeping till noon....

A life of absolute leisure with boundless free time....

[MajGenl.Meade]

I think this thread demonstrates that the defining characteristic of free time is effluents

Meade

[Big RR]

Poor people living in nursing homes on medicaid (US assistance to the poor for medical purposes) have nothing but free time available to them; they do not have prepare meals or keep house, and are rarely given much medical treatment--this absence of responsibility gives them unlimited "free time", often with very little to fill it. Are they then affluent?

[oldr_n_wsr]

In order for me to remain affluent, I need to keep working, seriously curtailing my free time.

Many retired people are no where near being affluent (but can and do live within their means), and they have plenty of free time.

I can agree that the affluent "could" have more free time than the poor or middle class person who is working from paycheck to paycheck, as they "need" to go to work every day in order to maintain their standard of living (or raise it). But the same can be true of the affluent. As we make more, we tend to spend more and constantly upscale our standard of living. In order to maintain that standard, we too (as with the poor) need to continue to work. Try not working for 7-9 months as I did, where I had plenty of free time and see how long you can maintain your affluent status (no fair if your wife continues to work).

I think only the close minded would argue otherwise.

[Lord Jim]

It must be awfully frustrating for rube to be confronted with so many people who are simply too stupid to understand that the defining characteristic of affluence is free time.....

[Gob]

And they all seem to be confused with facts and stuff....

[oldr_n_wsr]

FACTS!?!?
WE don't need no steeenkin FACTS.

[rubato]

In order for me to remain affluent, I need to keep working, seriously curtailing my free time.

Many retired people are no where near being affluent (but can and do live within their means), and they have plenty of free time.
... "

If you are forced to keep working then you are not affluent; you are barely keeping up.

If you are not making more than $200,000/ yr Mitt Romney does not think you are 'middle class'.


People who retire successfully on less have learned how to achieve relative affluence, hence freedom, by control of their appetites rather than more money.


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

The definitions of affluent presented all result in more free time than the non-affluent.

My statement is obviously true. If it is not obvious to you then the fault is yours.


yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

If you are not making more than $200,000/ yr Mitt Romney does not think you are 'middle class'.

Romney set that as the top of middle class same as Obama.

Only those who can't comprehend would deny that.

The definitions of affluent presented all result in more free time than the non-affluent.

People on welfare seem to have the most free time (aka no job to go to, not much to do all day, can pretty much do what they want). I guess they are the most affluent.

This is a tue fact, if you don't believe it, you and I can take a trip to Bedford Stuyvesant. I promise I won't be harmed.

[oldr_n_wsr]

If you are not making more than $200,000/ yr Mitt Romney does not think you are 'middle class'.

Romney set that as the top of middle class same as Obama.

Only those who can't comprehend would deny that.

The definitions of affluent presented all result in more free time than the non-affluent.

People on welfare seem to have the most free time (aka no job to go to, not much to do all day, can pretty much do what they want). I guess they are the most affluent.

This is a tue fact, if you don't believe it, you and I can take a trip to Bedford Stuyvesant. I promise I won't be harmed.