Living Small

[']['ear]

So you come crawling out for the Last Word?

Again: huge inflation of the seriousness of this. If you don't get that, then you (and Steely and Fuzzy) are way over-sensitive.

[']['ear]

Actually, this is really bugging me. You make a mountain out of a molehill, get all verklempt, run off and let other people fight your battles for you, then when it looks like the debate is shut down, you come in for the last word and to hurl a bunch of insults?

At this point I'm thinking I gave you too much credit for personal character. And no, I haven't forgotten your crazed flaming of me a while back, Herr Martyr. Hypocrisy isn't pretty. Loki's pegged you for one, and I've pegged you for another.

Originally Posted by Chaloobi

A couple thoughts after reading through the posts:

#1. I became uncomfortable in this thread because I felt the sentiment of your judgements was completely unjustified, the manner you chose to express them aggressively (ironically) crass and obnoxious, and your persistance in them startlingly arrogant and dense. Be assured, admitting discomfort was in no way some kind of mea culpa.

So much for taking the moral high ground and acting the martyr. It's always good to see hypocrisy in action, as you insult me more than I ever did you.

#2. Don't kid yourself that your attacks on me were a "minor insult." They were substantial assaults on my character; not light hearted and not in the context of some battle of wit. Reading the several ways you've tried to minimize what you've said, I have to wonder if maybe you really don't get it; don't understand how ugly your behavior really has been.

I'm think you're an hysterical drama queen. "Passive aggressive" also comes to mind.

#3. I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore. Seeing how you think, how you feel so comfortable forming and hurling judgements in such an obviously flawed and unfair way, without caring about, or apparently even understanding, what you've done wrong, I have recognized I've misplaced some respect. My expectations did not match reality. What you say or believe doesn't matter in this, and by extension probably doesn't in a lot of other things either.

1) You hardly argued with me at all in the first place, bub. So don't pretend like you did anything but toss out some lame rationalizations and run.

2) It's the internets. I can't believe I'm seeing somebody whine about being judged on the internets.

3) I said Steely's points had merit, not that I agreed with them. My opinions stand. I think you made a selfish home-buying decision. Welcome to the vast American majority; I can't guess what fraction buys selfish houses and cars.

4) It's not particularly enjoyable to watch a "debate coward" wrap himself in the flag of vindication here.

5) Hooray for tit-for-tat!


It's the internets. Should we show up and be polite yes men? Pfft. Everybody has opinions, and they all stink. It's lame for you to get bent out of shape about it. Get mad, start flaming, but ffs don't be hurt and pout.

And as I've said many times: this is where you say things you wouldn't say in person because you are a) too shy, b) too polite, or c) too kind. Me, I use CC as a sort of therapy--it's great for expressing anger. Some reflection on my life story my suggest to you why I might have some anger. And fact is, you don't know the half of my story.

And nobody here would recognize my personality in person. It's the way of the internets. That nice guy over their is a child predator, right? So ffs, get a grip.

[Steely Glint]

[Chaloobi]

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

You changed your avatar. Was your last one a Panda?

[Steely Glint]

The answer is no.

[[T]Baxter]

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Maybe that was to do with all the homophobic and other unpleasant stuff you liked to post? You'll have to forgive me if I don't provide examples, it was ages ago but if my memory serves your contributions seem to consist largely of racism, homophobia, other hatred towards people of differing faiths and 'hilarious' fat chick jokes.

Yes you only welcome here if you fit in and accept the same ideas as everone else. I can leave here for 2 years and come back and see the same people saying the same things they said a dozen times before.
Gay is good, hate Christians. As long as you support that mantra you will do well posting here...

[[T]Baxter]

Originally Posted by Chaloobi

To be fair, you do kinda hang it out there like a lightning rod. On the up side, you diversify the forum with a lot of color and flair. On the down side, you diversify the forum with a lot of color and flair.

Exactly my point. Wanna be accepted or even lets say taken seriously? Parrot the opinion of the majority...

Oh and there is a way cool house for sale here in Toronto for $23 Million on a street called the Bridal Path where the musician Prince had a home for awhile. It is 33,000 Square feet and has a Master Bedroom that is 3300 square feet alone.

[Chaloobi]

Originally Posted by [T]Baxter

Yes you only welcome here if you fit in and accept the same ideas as everone else. I can leave here for 2 years and come back and see the same people saying the same things they said a dozen times before.
Gay is good, hate Christians. As long as you support that mantra you will do well posting here...

Well, for the record, I don't hate Christians. I'm not of the Faithful myself, but just about everyone I know in RL is Christian and they're not all bad . I've known a number of gays too and they've all been generally nice.

[Steely Glint]

Originally Posted by [T]Baxter

Yes you only welcome here if you fit in and accept the same ideas as everone else. I can leave here for 2 years and come back and see the same people saying the same things they said a dozen times before.
Gay is good, hate Christians. As long as you support that mantra you will do well posting here...

Only myself, Nessie and a few others actively hate Christianity (note the distinction: you know that retarded "hate the sin, lover the sinner" thing some Christians say? it's like, that only not retarded since being a Christian is actually a choice), others are either neutral or Christians themselves.

If you're still managing to be so indignant about people daring to say unkind things about your own beliefs but see no problem with outright homophobia then, really, has the forum lost anything by your absence?

[Widows Peak Oz]

I know a thing or two about wayward, degenerative threads, and once again it's become about the characters, and not their arguments. The combatants now fume in limbo and it'll take a spectacular effort to re-ignite any motivation to once again pursue the actual discussion. I mean, either way it accomplishes nothing, asseverating perceived flaws in the other, castigating their style of interaction, dredging up other warped instances of conflict......perhaps one day a thread will conclude in the fashion of "Well done everyone, a most satisfactory and mutually beneficial showcase of positive discourse, we all look forward to future interaction."

But then, it wouldn't be as entertaining to follow.

[Chaloobi]

Originally Posted by Widows Peak Oz

I know a thing or two about wayward, degenerative threads, and once again it's become about the characters, and not their arguments. The combatants now fume in limbo and it'll take a spectacular effort to re-ignite any motivation to once again pursue the actual discussion. I mean, either way it accomplishes nothing, asseverating perceived flaws in the other, castigating their style of interaction, dredging up other warped instances of conflict......perhaps one day a thread will conclude in the fashion of "Well done everyone, a most satisfactory and mutually beneficial showcase of positive discourse, we all look forward to future interaction."

But then, it wouldn't be as entertaining to follow.

I agree with you on almost all counts except for the "actual discussion." There's been far more degeneration than discussion.

[[T]Baxter]

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Only myself, Nessie and a few others actively hate Christianity (note the distinction: you know that retarded "hate the sin, lover the sinner" thing some Christians say? it's like, that only not retarded since being a Christian is actually a choice), others are either neutral or Christians themselves.

If you're still managing to be so indignant about people daring to say unkind things about your own beliefs but see no problem with outright homophobia then, really, has the forum lost anything by your absence?

That's not the problem. You can say ANYTHING you want to about my beliefs. ANYTHING.

But when trash like Gentry can post in a thread that "all Christians should be taken out and shot" and not one poster can makes note of that in the next 20 posts, I am assuming (maybe wrongly), that silence means agreement. Yes, I have no problem in making derogatory gay remarks but never would I suggest that gays should be taken to a field and shot... (maybe just robbed)...

But what the hell, if people feel me coming back here is a bad thing ok then, I guess I can find other forums to post in. I was just looking for some familiarity...

[Steely Glint]

Gentry was a compulsive liar, an attention seeker and a obvious troll. That's why people pretty much ignored her.

[Chaloobi]

Originally Posted by [T]Baxter

That's not the problem. You can say ANYTHING you want to about my beliefs. ANYTHING.

But when trash like Gentry can post in a thread that "all Christians should be taken out and shot" and not one poster can makes note of that in the next 20 posts, I am assuming (maybe wrongly), that silence means agreement. Yes, I have no problem in making derogatory gay remarks but never would I suggest that gays should be taken to a field and shot... (maybe just robbed)...

But what the hell, if people feel me coming back here is a bad thing ok then, I guess I can find other forums to post in. I was just looking for some familiarity...

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Gentry was a compulsive liar, an attention seeker and a obvious troll. That's why people pretty much ignored her.

Yeah, I never believed a single thing she said after she claimed "Americans pay higher tax rates than any other country in the world." It was fun posting a dozen articles from sources like the WSJ contradicting her.

Her big claims that I always wondered about were:

#1. Was she really a she?

#2. Was she really elderly?

#3. Was she really rich?

In any case, she was as good for remarks like you're talking about as you are for fat chick jokes. You couldn't even get upset with her because she was just so full of **** all the time.

[']['ear]

Originally Posted by [T]Baxter

Yes you only welcome here if you fit in and accept the same ideas as everone else. I can leave here for 2 years and come back and see the same people saying the same things they said a dozen times before.
Gay is good, hate Christians. As long as you support that mantra you will do well posting here...

But that's not true. I'm not sure there are any two people here who agree on everything. You get almost the entire "western culture" gamut here, plus some non-western. It's a large part of why I like it--outside of big cities, you don't see that often, and even when you do, the discussion never have the candor of ours. A strength of CC is that one can express opinions one wouldn't express in RL. Granted, you may be metaphorically fed your socks afterwards....

But yeah, people climbed down your throat because of anti-gay jokes. It's not that most of us are gay lovers. We consider gays neutral , like anybody else. Those who don't like them will get beaten up on that point, just like they would if they expressed racist sentiments. Given that this is an unusually educated crowd who knows the science on homosexuality, I'm afraid you're stuck with that.

But I think I speak for others when I say that I enjoy the occasional Baxter utterly disgusting and non-PC bombshell. I frequently laugh. People were disappointed that you left, and pleased that you returned.

Originally Posted by [T]Baxter

That's not the problem. You can say ANYTHING you want to about my beliefs. ANYTHING.

But when trash like Gentry can post in a thread that "all Christians should be taken out and shot" and not one poster can makes note of that in the next 20 posts, I am assuming (maybe wrongly), that silence means agreement. Yes, I have no problem in making derogatory gay remarks but never would I suggest that gays should be taken to a field and shot... (maybe just robbed)...

But what the hell, if people feel me coming back here is a bad thing ok then, I guess I can find other forums to post in. I was just looking for some familiarity...

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Gentry was a compulsive liar, an attention seeker and a obvious troll. That's why people pretty much ignored her.

That's my answer, too. I don't remember that incident, but Gentry has never figured high on my radar. I think I've communicated less with s/he/it that Kathaksung. Ack.

There are plenty of religion friendly people here, including me as long as ugly things aren't said in the name of religion.

[[T]Baxter]

Originally Posted by ']['ear

But I think I speak for others when I say that I enjoy the occasional Baxter utterly disgusting and non-PC bombshell. I frequently laugh. People were disappointed that you left, and pleased that you returned.

Something for me to think about.

I'm surprized you would say that...

[']['ear]

Really? I thought that was pretty clear. Yes, you pissed people off (including me) with the anti-gay stuff. But I also always enjoyed your flavor. A good laugh goes a long way....

[-NGS-]

Originally Posted by [T]Baxter

Something for me to think about.

I'm surprized you would say that...

No one else could bring what you do to the table, Baxter. It's incomprehensibly refreshing.

Good to see you fartin' around again, by the way.

[Steely Glint]

Οχι!

[Widows Peak Oz]

Originally Posted by Chaloobi

I agree with you on almost all counts except for the "actual discussion." There's been far more degeneration than discussion.

It is a morbid, but entirely accurate assessment of what passes for 'the norm' in the CC, sadly.

But who knows, this place is so ****ed up you might yourself on the same side as Tear next colossal thread-warp.

Originally Posted by Chaloobi

In any case, she was as good for remarks like you're talking about as you are for fat chick jokes. You couldn't even get upset with her because she was just so full of **** all the time.

I never had the pleasure.....misfortune? Of encountering Gentry, was her persona that of a charlatan and a liar?

[GGT]

Anyway We don't really have to pick on each other personally to acknowledge our housing bloat. Drive around Americana and see the once rolling hills of trees, now covered in 2,500 sf cookie cutter houses looking like a monopoly board full of beige vinyl siding. Ugly, really.

Whether it's conspicuous consumption or poor planning and zoning, the scale of our homes and lifestyles are out of whack on all sorts of levels. Maybe we don't all agree on that.

[']['ear]

Originally Posted by GGT

Anyway We don't really have to pick on each other personally to acknowledge our housing bloat. Drive around Americana and see the once rolling hills of trees, now covered in 2,500 sf cookie cutter houses looking like a monopoly board full of beige vinyl siding. Ugly, really.

Whether it's conspicuous consumption or poor planning and zoning, the scale of our homes and lifestyles are out of whack on all sorts of levels. Maybe we don't all agree on that.

Shame on you! You are EVIL to question somebody's personal decisions!

[Chaloobi]

Originally Posted by Widows Peak Oz

It is a morbid, but entirely accurate assessment of what passes for 'the norm' in the CC, sadly.

Yes, it is a pattern. Have you noticed it doesn't seem to occur so much in the MegaThreads?

But who knows, this place is so ****ed up you might yourself on the same side as Tear next colossal thread-warp.

Well we agree on a hell of a lot more than we disagree, so far anyway.... The hidden nut that started this whole thing came as a bit of a surprise to me.

I never had the pleasure.....misfortune? Of encountering Gentry, was her persona that of a charlatan and a liar?

I thought she was a liar, but I never had anything but suspicion to go on. She claimed to be older and very wealthy, which begs the question how does someone in that demographic end up here?

Originally Posted by GGT

Anyway We don't really have to pick on each other personally to acknowledge our housing bloat.

No, we don't.

Drive around Americana and see the once rolling hills of trees, now covered in 2,500 sf cookie cutter houses looking like a monopoly board full of beige vinyl siding. Ugly, really.

America's actually much more rolling hills and trees than it is monopoly board cookie cutters. You should get out more.

Whether it's conspicuous consumption or poor planning and zoning, the scale of our homes and lifestyles are out of whack on all sorts of levels. Maybe we don't all agree on that.

Why does lots of space (by itself) = out of whack? Certainly "living beyond one's means" is out of whack and causes all kinds of problems, but what about people in big houses who are well within their means? What's the problem?

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Shame on you! You are EVIL to question somebody's personal decisions!

You know very well there's a big difference between questioning someone's decision and damning someone for their decision.

[[T]Baxter]

Originally Posted by -NGS-

No one else could bring what you do to the table, Baxter. It's incomprehensibly refreshing.

Good to see you fartin' around again, by the way.

Woot !!!

[Chaloobi]

Originally Posted by -NGS-

No one else could bring what you do to the table, Baxter. It's incomprehensibly refreshing.

Good to see you fartin' around again, by the way.

Originally Posted by [T]Baxter

Woot !!!

Incomprehensible, yes. But refreshing???

[']['ear]

Originally Posted by Chaloobi

You know very well there's a big difference between questioning someone's decision and damning someone for their decision.

And you know very well that there's a very big difference between damning someone's decision and damning someone for their decision.

I damned your decision. Everybody makes stupid and/or selfish decisions, for whatever reason. My dearest loved ones have. I have. St. Obama the Cool has. They reflect poorly on otherwise good people.

You don't receive some sort of get out of jail card. Sure, it's just my opinion. But there's nothing awful about sharing it in a forum like this.

[GGT]

Originally Posted by Chaloobi

...America's actually much more rolling hills and trees than it is monopoly board cookie cutters. You should get out more.

Why does lots of space (by itself) = out of whack? Certainly "living beyond one's means" is out of whack and causes all kinds of problems, but what about people in big houses who are well within their means? What's the problem?

Not that we don't still have lots of green space, open/empty space, rolling hills and all that. Depends on the region, of course. Maybe Michigan was better at planning its ex-urban sprawl than PA was.

Farmland was sold cheap to developers who crammed high density subdivisions, mostly crappily built ones, all over the region. It could have been done better, that's my opinion.

As for living within one's means, that's not really what I meant initially, but it is part of the whole short term mentality we have. Or at least how we've changed our ideas about homes, space, mortgages, mobility, security, consumption....all sorts of things.

[Chaloobi]

Originally Posted by GGT

Not that we don't still have lots of green space, open/empty space, rolling hills and all that. Depends on the region, of course. Maybe Michigan was better at planning its ex-urban sprawl than PA was.

There's lots of wonderful green space in Western PA at least. And no, nothing is planned in MI. That's sort of the American way, you know.

It could have been done better...

I can't think of a single instance, a single anything, where this statement wouldn't apply.

...we've changed our ideas about homes, space, mortgages, mobility, security, consumption....all sorts of things.

Well, I can tell you space is wonderful.

[-NGS-]

Originally Posted by Chaloobi

Incomprehensible, yes. But refreshing???

A nice change of pace from the dullNess (), head-banging, and tomato-throwing sometimes found here.

[']['ear]

Originally Posted by Chaloobi

Go back and read the posts.

yes, let's do so.

Every slur you used was directed at me as a person, my character. Not "hey, that sounds like a dumb idea, why'd you do that?" It was you're a disgusting hypocrite, etc etc etc. Maybe there is a disconnect between your intent and your action.

Reading comprehension FAIL. Please observe how this debate started out.

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Dude, that's disgusting.

Note: "that" is an impersonal pronoun.

Originally Posted by Chaloobi

Actually, its great.

So is "it."
The rest of your post was directed primarily at Loki, so deleted.

Originally Posted by ']['ear

No doubt. Look, you seem like a decent guy,

First reference to you, and positive.

but I'm going to tell you straight up: conspicuous consumption is gross.

Not you, conspicuous consumption. An action, not a person.

It's narcissistic. It's self-indulgent. I consider it similar to people who are obese because they overeat to indulge themselves. No self control. It's financial masturbation.

Again note the impersonal pronoun.

I think he was pointing out that you are a hypocrite.

Interpretation of what Loki was trying to say. You'll also note that I defend you against that particular charge, wrt to his taxation argument.

That is generally true, yes. We can all look forward to lewk becoming more conservative.

Unrelated about how people get more conservative as they age.

All true. All good reason to be frugal and wise with your money. See below.

And here it comes. Homo rationalicus strikes again....

My responses to your defense of your decision. Again, see that I am addressing your decision. The only place I imply that you are dumb is in claiming a larger house as being a wise investment. I note that nobody tried to argue that point with me. Also, I still didn't call you a dumb person, just said you made a dumb debating point.

Complete and utter BS. Yes, you want a house that will hold its value, increase if possible. By far the biggest factor in this is location, not size. In fact, the McMansion neighborhoods tend to be located further out from the center, and thus are far more subject to market fluctuation.

Furthermore, the truly huge houses (and yours qualifies), are most subject. Perhaps you haven't read about various star athletes and actors losing 50% on their homes? It's true in all parts of the country, not just the coasts. It's because demand for the gargantuan home is FAR narrower than others.

So, not knowing the specifics of your life, I find it very hard to believe you bought for fiscal security. If so, you were a damned fool. I think you bought for ego and self-indulgence. It's like some pimped out rapper or pro athlete.

1) I tear down the notion that a) a house is a great investment (beyond it's being better than renting), and b) that bigger houses are better investments. Again, this is a very solid argument.
2) Yup, I call you foolish, in a conditional statement linking that to your fiscal rationalization.
3) Then I express my opinion that fiscal was NOT why you bought, but rather to impress and satiate. Implicit in this, in the context of previous statements, is that your decision was not financial dumb, and that you aren't dumb. Rather, I'm saying that you are showing off and pampering yourself.
4) Another conditional: "Not knowing the specifics of your life." So much for the wild accusations of "assumptions," eh? I added that caveat in case I was wildly wrong and had mis-evaluated the likely situation (which, after all, applies to a healthy majority of Americans.)

They never did. Anybody who knows finances will tell you that homes are bought to be lived in, not as an investment. Of course, you want to maximize your investment, like any other, but its primary purpose is as a living space, unless you are in the real estate biz.

More fiscal blahblahblah.

Absolutely. And the best way to make sure you have it is by investing it in very diverse ways. A trophy home (and there's really no other way to describe one of your size) is not diverse or wise investment. It's foolhardy. In fact, I suspect that "investment" is merely your rationalization. It's a familiar refrain: "I need this." Bull. Nobody needs that. You want that, and it says a lot about you. At least man up and own it, and don't insult us with transparent rationalizations.

1) More fiscal.
2) Calling you on your fiscal rationalization. Again, implicit benefit of the doubt that you are NOT so dumb that your decision was mostly financial. The alternative being a much more human self-indulgence, which most people do. Right?

To translate Loki: he's mocking you for not living your professed values. It's called "limousine liberal," or "lexus liberal."

Again, a translation of Loki (he made no objections to my translations). I'm making no judgment there, but you kept saying he meant something he clearly did not.

Apparently I don't make what you do (or maybe I do, but you're just financially insane, like so many other Americans). I do pretty well: I'd guess 85-90th percentile.

Again, the foundation assumption is that you are not dumb.

But I was taught that excess was crass and gross.

This is my opinion about this class of decision. You have never addressed it, have you? You have also not countered that your house is excessive.

I live in 1800 feet and am proud of it.

Statement that I live my opinions.

Fiscally, I could have twice the house and twice the yard in nearby town. But my modest house continues to appreciate. It's plenty for me and the wife. We could even fit in a kid. Two, we might add a few hundred feet. But my wife and I firmly maintain that any more is a waste. In fact, we consider more greedy.

Explication of said opinion.

Sorry man, I know that's harsh and judgmental. But conspicuous consumption strikes a real nerve with me. I consider it the ugliest side of American culture. It's why I hate Hummers and ostentatious sportscars. It's greed.

Again, I attack conspicuous consumption (what Steely probably rightly notes that I should call "excessive consumption," a more inclusive term.) That is an indictment of one decision that you have made. It is not an indictment of your entire person or life, like you pretend. Your translating my statements into an attack on your being is why I called you a martyr and everything else. You grossly misrepresented my points and my intent. I reacted.

Edit: perhaps you don't realize how excessive almost 6000 sq feet is (not including your walkout basement ). There are lots of star entertainers/athletes who have smaller houses. what do you do for a living, again?

Simply looking at the facts. ~6000 is big.

Edit 2: And we all know I'm a jerk, right? So take it with a grain of salt.

Just telling you to blow it off if you want. Seriously. As I pointed out elsewhere, you could have said "So what? Jealous" and it would have ended in a little hurfa durfa (to quote Nessie) and nothing else.

But think about the values you profess versus those you live. Then again, I was taught that frugality is a conservative value. So profligacy is liberal? Meh.

This offers the possibility that your decision was not hypocritical (and counter sLoki). Personally, I think the issue does not break down along political spectrum lines. I think it's a taste thing, and doesn't necessarily even break down along class lines.

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Hmm, you seized on the liberal part, which was a tiny part of my post, and really immaterial. The fact is, I'm disgusted by conspicuous consumption regardless of somebody's politics. It's crass. It's shallow. And the more dramatic, the more crass and shallow. I can sort of understand it in certain circles (OK, not really, but I try to be understanding), but for average Americans it's got a certain grotesquerie.

I also enumerated why it's dumb on multiple levels, unless you are the kind of rich that can essentially throw money away.

Again, impersonal pronouns.

These were the central points. You danced around them.

And I still maintain that. You have yet to offer anything but easy rationalizations, and then failed to back those up. That's fine if you just tell me to go to hell. But you played the martyr card, acted all hurt, and then called me all sorts of evil things. As I'm showing by revisiting these posts, your degree of personal hurt is not justified. And I think it's fair to say that if you are going to try to justify it, you need to show how unreasonable my arguments are.

<insert defense of you here. I don't agree with Loki's calling you a hypocrite based on your fiscal beliefs. He way over-inflated everything, as far as I could tell.>

Which reminds me Chaloobi. Not only is it generally dumb to buy a house like that, it's doubly so in Michigan, even before the pop of the housing bubble. Again, I don't know your income, but unless you are truly wealthy, that's not just a crass home, it's a dumb home. I thought you were smarter than that.

I'm guessing this angle pisses you off more than any. but the point is honestly that the fiscal rationalization is hogwash. You may have believed that, but the default assumption throughout here is that you're offering a rationalization, and that you aren't dumb enough to believe that.

Hey, maybe I was dead wrong. Maybe you did make a dumb call, and how hard I hit that really smarted. If so, sorry to belabor the point, but I recommend that you man up and deal with your mistakes. But we all do it, and somebody telling you so obliquely is not an assault on your being.

Originally Posted by Chaloobi

Ok, so your issue is you don't like people that own big houses strictly because they own big houses. You believe the only reason to own a big house is to say "hey look at me" and to rub the average American's nose in it. All apparent personal insecurity aside, you choose a very shallow criteria by which to judge the character of other people. You jump to a lot of conclusions and yet are so certain of them. I want to say you ought to know better, but I don't have anything to base that on, I guess. Disappointing though.

1) You're distorting what I said. I did not say those intro thngs.
2) You're taking attacks on a decision you made or a value you old and transmogrifying it into an attack on your character. I point out this fallacy multiple times later, and it remains bogus. You may have misread, but I have clearly demonstrated that is NOT what I said. I'm frequently sloppy here in CC, and in retrospect I'm surprised by how carefully worded my statements are. Seriously, look at them. You are responsible for reading comprehension, not me. Not when it is stated this clearly.
3) But you went ahead and made it an attack on my character, didn't you?

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Did I say I didn't like you? You seem like a pretty nice guy. If I liked nobody with a trophy house or a monster SUV, I'd have to close half my relatives and friends out of my life.

I continue to try to point out this is not a character attack in response to your clearly saying it was.

But I do think less of them for doing so. Just like I'd think less of them for throwing trash out their car window. This is wrong of me, somehow?

And so it is. When somebody, even a loved one, does something we don't like, we are disappointed. We even think less of them. This doesn't mean we don't like them, and value everything else about them.

No, you keep trying to direct my comments down certain paths, but that's not it. You need to make a better study of Loki's posts for reality jujitsu.

I was justifiably frustrated by your misinterpretation of what I said.

Yes, showing off is part of it. Trying to feel good is part of it ("I must have done well, because look how many possessions I have!") And self indulgence is part of it (did you miss the bit about over-eaters? How do you consider that to be "hey look at me?")

I'm trying to express how I view "excessive consumption." WHY I view it that way. In spite of what others said, I AM defining the basis of my opinion.

What I don't consider is financial, because it is financially dumb to spend you money that way. Claim that excuse if you want; it won't impress anybody.

Again, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt intellectually.

That would be true if it were my only criterion. But starting my post with "Look, you seem like a decent guy" argues that this is just one data point.

Well, not sure if there's a point after this. You seem to have taken my judgment of your decision as a condemnation to hell, though again I am surprised, given what others have said to you in the past. It is, FYI, why I thought I had struck a specially sensitive nerve that reflected that YOU know that Excessive consumption is crass. Why? Because you don't react this strongly to far worse insults. Suggests there's something particularly uncomfortable about this topic. I'm not certain I'm correct, but there IS a weird contradiction here.

Besides, you've just accused me of being shallow for judging somebody for being shallow.

Here on out it's just the usual forum idiocy tit-for-tat from all of us.

If you have 12 children, I will grovel and beg for your forgiveness. Actually, since you are so charming, 10 will do.

You understand what smiley faces mean? This was not sarcasm.

Not much point in much more, so just a highlight or two.

Look, I openly acknowledge the warts in my judgment, right? Judging isn't pretty. Judging doesn't make me feel particularly good. But I call it like I see it.

I feel like I'm being honest here.

There are certain behaviors that make many people roll their eyes. Balding guys divorcing their wives, getting some arm candy and driving a red sports car, for example.

Do you roll your eyes at these things? Most guys under a certain age do, since they are symptoms of a midlife crisis. Why do people roll their eyes? I do it because the behavior seems silly to me. Yet a lot of guys do it. I hope I won't.

While buying a trophy house may be a different phenomenon, people still roll their eyes (or at least those who don't run out and buy trophy houses.) It's judgment. We all make them. The trophy house seems silly to me. It's motivation is different, but still seems silly.

Now, back to the liberal part. I find it hypocritical for a liberal to embrace a gigantic house not because of Loki's explanation, which I find to be fiscally suspect. Rather, it violates several traditionally liberal sacred cows. Remember people railing on Al Gore for the size of his house (inaccurately, it turns out, since he was running a very large organization from that house.)

I boliquely refer to the environmental thing here. Along with the other (below), it is a substantial part of my motivation. Since environmentalism is one of my most liberal conceits, I think it is source of potential hypocrisy in your house-buying decision. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Of course, I'll note that a lot of my reaction was from my conservative upbringing: ostentation is ugly and selfish. This is a pretty strong strain in certain religious traditions and certain old-style conservative strains (oddly, the opposite is true in certain new conservative strains, where "consuming for Jesus" oddly enough seems to be doing well as a credo.)

God's honest truth. this is a substantial part of my motivation.

You're the one who needs to reconcile things in your life, not me. Do you honestly look at homes like that and feel your heart swell with pride and get a warm fuzzy feeling inside? Why do you feel that way?

I'm trying to get you to debate. You wouldn't.

But if you try to explain yourself so lamely, don't expect me to let it slide. Plus, I'm always happy to point out humanity's ability to rationalize things. It's one of our biggest weaknesses. Not saying I don't do it too, but I don't think you'd find many inconsistencies in my life. I tend to correct them. The internal shame of my lying in CC was enough to drive me to out myself. It has been a non-stop hassle since, but I resolved that hypocrisy in my life, didn't I?

I also point out my own **** up. This is not an ego trip. Sure, I judge, but I focus it on your decision, which I consider to be a bad one. I do not extend it to your whole character. If anything should illustrate this, it should be mentioning my own stupid decision. Had you not been so wrapped up in your own emotionalism, you would have seen this.

Finally, I have taken the time throughout as a sign of respect. There's not personal insult and flaming here. Imagine a comparable "discussion" with Cain. I went to great lengths to protect your ego while expressing myself on a subject that I consider important, you misbegotten son of a bandersnatch.

Taken together, I think the degree of offense you have taken is unreasonable. You're showing a thin skin, or a chip on your shoulder. Maybe you misunderstood things, but I think I went to great lengths to keep the boundaries clear. Had I been less considerate, I would have just called you a loser, idiot, etc. The usual stuff. It would have saved me a lot of time, but that's not what I meant. CLEARLY.

Originally Posted by GGT

Anyway We don't really have to pick on each other personally to acknowledge our housing bloat. Drive around Americana and see the once rolling hills of trees, now covered in 2,500 sf cookie cutter houses looking like a monopoly board full of beige vinyl siding. Ugly, really.

Whether it's conspicuous consumption or poor planning and zoning, the scale of our homes and lifestyles are out of whack on all sorts of levels. Maybe we don't all agree on that.

But we can only criticize it in general, and not specifically? Demand drives supply, after all.