Lactivism

[Gob]

Fair enough BSG, we agree on all the main points and what the OP was about, we'll shake hands and leave it at that.

[Lord Jim]

Just because the most common usage is the only one known by you, doesn't make you right in declaring the other usages are wrong.

And right on cue comes the arrogant condescension....

As has been explained to you by others in this thread, if you want to use "affluence" in some non-standard way, in order to make yourself understood you have to use a modifier; you have to say: " time affluence" or "friend affluence" etc.

When you use the word "affluence" by itself, you will instantly be understood by any person even semi-literate in the English language to be referring to "wealth"; you will NOT have to say "money affluent" in order to make your meaning understood.

If you're not grasping this difference, I'm afraid I don't know any simpler ways to explain it to you. This is what makes wealth, "the defining characteristic" of "affluence". If you want to the word to have some meaning other than it's standard one, and you want to be understood by your reader, you have to add an additional word or words to make your meaning clear. If you say:

"Bob the hobo was an affluent man"

You will appear to anyone familiar with the primary meaning of affluence (again that would include anyone even semi-literate in the English language) to be speaking nonsense, unless you say something like "Bob the hobo was affluent in friends" (Which still wouldn't be a particularly well written sentence since virtually no one uses the word affluent in that way...99.9% would say "rich in friends" instead....but at least your meaning would be minimally intelligible, albeit in-artfully expressed.)

On the other hand, if you say:

"Bob was an affluent man" anyone even semi-literate in the English language will instantly understand you to mean, "Bob was a wealthy man" ; you won't need to to say "Bob was affluent in material wealth" to make your meaning clear.

I have already clearly stated that I did not weigh in here in defense of rubato's point

Excellent. I'm delighted to hear it. In that case, I assume you are prepared to admit that this statement, of his, the one that began this discussion, (along the insults that accompanied it):

"the defining characteristic of affluence is free time" was absolutely, positively, 100% WRONG.

[Joe Guy]

Why is it so important to repeat over & over that rubato may have misstated something?

Although I've never made a grammatical error I do understand that those things do happen.

I'm not defending or accusing anyone.

I'm just making an observation.

[Lord Jim]

Well Joe, here's how he "misstated" it:

The defining characteristic of affluence is free time. People with too much free time often use it to vex other people who are not so afflicted with affluence.

Gee I always thought "the defining characteristic of affluence" was wealth....

Shows what I know...

But you are a stupid person.

No one really expects you to understand anything important.

The defining characteristic of affluence is that you don' t have to spend all of your time trying to make a living, or solving the brute problems of existence, you have free time to do other things.

Only world-class stupid would not know that.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

And he didn't "misstate" anything. He misused the word, and then proved he didn't know what the word meant by posting a completely erroneous meaning.

Moreover, this thread was over and done with until someone, claiming they weren't coming to rube's defense, chose to revive it.

Why is it so important to repeat over & over that rubato may have misstated something?

A better question might be, "why did the person who revived this thread, choose to start it up again?"

And since that person says the reason wasn't to defend rubato, it seems completely fair game to me to ask them if they are then willing to admit that the statement he made that started all this was completely wrong.

[rubato]

Most of 5 pages which are driven by the hatred and stupidity of perfect morons.

It is hardly even arguable that the affluent have free time to a degree that the non-affluent generally do not; the latter are driven by a need to sustain themselves. But people who need to hate will argue points about which they are obviously wrong.

And the connection between sunlight and the need for vitamin D supplements is very well known.

Grow up girls. No one will ever really care about who you need to hate. You are an embarrassment to yourselves.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

It is hardly even arguable that the affluent have free time to a degree that the non-affluent generally do not

Which is of course, not in any way shape or form what you said. Here again, is what you said:

The defining characteristic of affluence is free time

Are you now, at long last, prepared to man up and admit that statement is completely wrong?



Didn't think so.....

ETA:

Most of 5 pages which are driven by the hatred and stupidity of perfect morons.

Actually, it was the hatred and stupidity of a perfect moron that started this discussion....

A moron so ignorant that first he misused a common word, and then proved he didn't know what the word meant by giving a bogus definition of the term. A moron who then slithered away from the conversation rather than own up to his fuck up (as is his usual habit)

[BoSoxGal]

LJ, you just argued ad nauseam that affluence = wealth, period.

Fine; have it your way (even though we linguists know you are simply wrong).

It doesn't follow that 'the defining characteristic of affluence is free time' is a shockingly wrong statement, as you keep insisting amidst a pounding of feet and stamping of fists that is the defining characteristic of your tantrums re: rubato.

As commonly accepted as the primary usage of affluence to mean wealth of financial resources, is the common understanding that the rich have a whole shitload of free time.

As to you and you obsession with rubato, and by extension because I dare to disagree about anything you declare as 'the LJ truth, damn the facts' - well, you make your own bed with the endless ranting. It does come off as petulant stomping of feet and pounding of fists.

Carry on:

[Sean]

Don't mind me, I just had to pop in to point this out:

It is hardly even arguable that the affluent have free time to a degree that the non-affluent generally do not; the latter are driven by a need to sustain themselves.

In this case the word 'affluent' is clearly being used by our good friend Ruato to signify wealth. In fact, he speaks of free time as a quite separate thing.


Carry on!

[loCAtek]

Obviously, those women in that neighborhood do not meet the standards of being wealthy ...or else they all would have sent the nanny!

[Rick]

I'm really enjoying this discussion, I truly believe it will change the world as I know it...

[Joe Guy]

The defining characteristic of this thread is repetition.

[Rick]

As the worm turns...

[The Hen]

Most of 5 pages which are driven by the hatred and stupidity of perfect morons.

And yet another post by Rube ignoring any of the points I have raised in relation to it so he can just pour his usual scorn on all posters.

You disappoint me deeply Rube. I thought we might have been able to discuss PND, beast feeding, and societies issues with both.

It seems like the rest of society, you just want to insult and abuse those of us who ventured into the public with both of these issues and tried to seek solace in those in similar circumstances.

Too bad. it could have made for an interesting discussion, but I see you are too busy with your fingers in your ears going "LA-LA-LA-LA"

[Joe Guy]

You disappoint me deeply Rube. I thought we might have been able to discuss PND, beast feeding, and societies issues with both.

What kind of beast feeding do you want to discuss?

Beasts of burden perhaps?

[loCAtek]

Well, they do take to proper training;

[Econoline]

BTW, if anyone here thinks I've tried to defend rubato's original post, I haven't. Even if I (and bsg) have defended his definition of the word "affluence" in a later post as an acceptable usage, that first post ("Excessive affluence. Not pretty. yrs, rubato") had nothing to do with the original topic of the thread and nothing to do with the women described in the quoted article. Just wanted to make that clear.

(edited to correct a punctuation error)

[Gob]

Cheers mate, I did wonder.

The whole idea that this protest could be seen in anyway as demonstrating "excessive affluence", is mind boggling!

[Lord Jim]

Even if I (and bsg) have defended his definition of the word "affluence" in a later post as an acceptable usage,

So you also want to say that this:

the defining characteristic of affluence is free time

Is something other than absolutely wrong? Despite the fact that not one single definition or synonym from any reputable source describes (or even mentions) "free time" as even a part of an acceptable definition for affluence, let alone, "the defining characteristic"?



Whatever you say Mr. (and Ms.) Muckle ....

[Econoline]

OK, just to finish this up, and then I'm not going to say anything more on this: What rubato said was overstating the case, and as such was incorrect. I think saying that free time is (or could be) a defining characteristic of affluence would be more accurate.