|
What I've learned from reading these replies:
- In my OP, I explicitly said: "You will be filthy rich, but have no friends, or you will have all the friends in the world, but no money. This is the dichotomy, and it's only one or the other." I said this. Even though I never typed those words in the OP, it's exactly what I meant.
- Because of what I explicitly stated above, the logical conclusion is that: financial wealth doesn't equal social poverty, so even though I explicitly stated that as a condition of the question, it's OK to ignore it and not consider it in your answer (please keep in mind that I explicitly stated that financial wealth with social poverty was a choice, even though you can't find the exact phrase I made in the point above (which is in quotes, signifying that it was stated somewhere in this thread, by me) or anything remotely similar to it. I did say this, according to everyone else in this thread).
- Also, social wealth equals financial poverty, which I did explicitly state, and since I explicitly stated that as a condition of the question, it's only logical to consider that in your answer, so the obvious decision is choosing financial wealth, which doesn't equal social poverty instead of social wealth which MUST equal financial poverty. Brilliant reasoning from our fine posters.
___________________
"If she's old enough to crawl, she's already in position." -- Pedobear
|