-hh
David Fritzinger wrote:

David Fritzinger
Nashton <nonna@nana.ca>wrote:

Nashton
[usual diatribe]

David Fritzinger
My word, but your are self-centered, Nashton. Your>argument works just as well when people say they>don't mind if you spend way more than you need on a car, but they are buying the computer they want.

-hh
Yup, Nicolas is quite blind to his own hypocrisy.

Nashton
You bought an anemic, run off the mill, North American rust bucket, rental car fleet car,>>that drives like crap, looks like crap and will>>probably leave you stranded in the middle of nowhere.

David Fritzinger
God, you really can't stand the fact that reasonable people don't all agree with you. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that they could be right,>and you wrong.

-hh
Nicolas's fragile ego can't even contemplate such a thought; that's why he lashes out so readily. Unfortunately, he's forgotten the old saying:

"If everyone around you is an asshole, it's probably not them."

<http://mommasunshine.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/when-everyones-an-asshole-maybe-its-not-them/>

David Fritzinger
I realize that buying a car is a very personal>choice, but the way you go on and on about it>just makes you look very self centered and very involved in things, and that you judge>your life by what you own.

-hh
It is, but he tries to wear his choice on his sleeve, in a quite shallow and superficial attempt to use a materialistic object as a crutch on his self-worth to boost his fragile ego.

By defining himself materialistically isn't new: he also did it with his Macs and now with his Windows PC. It is also why it utterly pisses him off to no end when people decline to play his game: doing so denys him the ability to try to use it as a comparison ruler, to try to claim 'winners' (only himself) and 'losers' (everyone else).

David Fritzinger
Pretty pitiful, if you ask me.

-hh
True, but his escape clause is that he _won't_ ask. That's his way of avoiding the inevitable Ego bruising that would result from actual objective honesty.

So he's free to spend whatever he wants on a big old SUV, since that's his personal choice. He's also welcome to his opinions on if he believes Product A or B is better/worse ... but the line that he can't cross is in claiming that anyone else's priorities list is "wrong". Sure, a requirement can be questioned for its rationale, but ultimately the only right answer is whatever the actual person who's laying down the bucks says is the right answer - - even if their rationale is nothing more than "because its what I want". Of course, even this can get into some slippery slopes, when individuals try to fake a rationalization 'need' attempt for what's simply a 'want' - particularly when they get called on mischaracterizing stuff. For the most part, one's transporation 'needs' are pretty universal: the technical 80% solution can be satisfied with a not-quite-rusted-out twenty five year old Yugo. What that ultimately means that anything greater than said unit of 'basic transportation' is simply a satisfaction of a "want" which was based on one's personal whims.

-hh