Are you ~not interested~ in money?

i am interested in money (with caveats) so that's the 3rd option i think

i hate money i want more of it so i can forget there is such a thing

^^

to me it seems like the chief thing money can buy is time, so that you don't have waste time doing things you don't want to do

^^^

"I somewhat agree, with cravats..." http://www.simon-james-menswear-hire.co.uk/images/montages/cravats315715.jpg

I don't want to care about money but i want the freedom and security that comes with it which achievable any other way.

*which isn't achievable any other way*

I sort of envision accumulating money like accumulating resources in starcraft, like it just feels nice to have 10000 minerals and 4000 vespene gas in the bank, but then the other guy rushes you with a bunch of hydras and lings and you have to pump out tanks and marines and firebats and all of a sudden you're down to 500/100 and your base is running out of minerals and you didn't expand and you just lost all your SCVs oh god oh god oh god

base oh god

not entirely sure which way round these poll options are meant to operate

zerg rush

money is disgusting but mainly because it rules everything around me so option 3 for me

Somewhat disagree, with (big) caveats.

how do i answer this poll?

"I completely agree" is that to

"Are you ~not interested~ in money?" (thread title)
or
"is there a limit to how much (money) you'd want?" (first part of quote)
or
"what do you think when people say "i'd never want that much money" or say they aren't interested in money?" (second part of quote)

It's hard to agree/disagree with a question also as surely questions do not hold opinions..

Do you agree or disagree with the opinions "I'd never want that much money" (i.e. money beyond the limit you might have set in the previous question) and "I'm not that interested in money."

I was originally going to call the thread "are you ~interested~ in money" but realised that was the exact opposite of the question I was asking.

I suppose it's like

"There's a limit to how much money I'd want" is the nub of the matter that you're agreeing or disagreeing with.

Sorry, the whisky I drank last night really seems to be mangling my brain worse as the day goes on.

I still have no idea how to answer this.

Also, I took "I'm not that interested in money" to mean "money is not my primary motivation" and "money is not in itself inherently interesting" - lots of people seemed to interpret that statement in quite different ways.

To me, "I'd like to have enough money not to have to think about money" does NOT mean "I'm ~interested~ in money" it means the reverse?

But my head hurts too much to get at those shades of meaning.

Blame Ronan if it's a confusing question, because he asked it with that phrasing on that other thread, ha!

I would like ALL the money, please.

i always liked john waters's take, i.e. the best kind of "wealthy" is being able to buy whatever books you want, whenever you want, without looking at the sticker.

i don't want a jewel-encrusted throne or anything. i just want to be able to buy a book without having to do mental math as to how it's going to affect the food/transportation-to-work budget by the end of the week.

imo the whole thing becomes a lot more nuanced in ways that the question doesn't really address when you have a spouse and kids and can literally watch on a day to day basis how being someone who is ~not interested~ in money can be pretty shitty for the people that you love and that not caring about money is its own kind of selfishness

i mean i guess that falls under "with caveats" or w/e

Also, to have the time to read all those books! Without having to stress about how you should be "working" or thinking about your career in some way rather than being able to spontaneously take an evening or entire day to sink into a book that won't directly earn you money

Xps

I wouldn't say that money is my primary motivation, but I wouldn't fully reduce it to other motivations either. It's nice to have more money, in the same way that it's nice to feel healthier or stronger. You feel that your field of action is enlarged.

I dunno, I grew up in a family with someone who was ~not interested~ in money. And seeing how one person's refusal to be interested in money lead to the other partner's having to compensate by appearing to become *obsessed* with money. There was selfishness on both sides, I think.

But you can really see the difference in how people react to this, between my brother and I. That he ended up becoming so ~interested~ in money that he now studies it for a living. Money is something that really *matter* to him. And I became a fucken hippie. Kids can be astonishingly resilient. It wonder if it was the conflict over attitudes over money that caused structural issues as much as not having money.

But it's easy for me to say this, as I haven't got kids, and never will.

x-posts

I think right now if I was actually that interested in money I'd have become an investment banker or management consultant or something that actually pays serious money, or even done what I do now at a higher level, but, well, I'm not.

But yeah I think the prospect of having kids kinda changes that. There's always the possibility at the back of the mind of being in a situation where you have a family who want and need stuff that you may not be in a position to provide and that's certainly a driver of caring more about money in the longer term. Especially given how stupidly expensive something like a British university education is likely to be in the future.

Also I know people who are so ~not interested~ in money that they have to constantly borrow off people who know they're never going to get it back, which is kinda a dick move in its own right.

When watching the TV "Batman", I used to wonder about The Joker's motivation. Getting the money, all he seemed to want to do with it is throw it in the air and go "whoo". And give a handful to a girl and go "here you are, go get some jewels"

irl professional troll behaviour

Ha, OK, people who are so "not interested" in money that they wilfully become sponges on the individuals around them is a valid point. That is definitely a kind of selfishness. Wanting to distance oneself from that kind of attitude is a definite caveat.

I'd say that was being "not interested" in one's own money, but being *very* interested in everyone else's money which is kind of a hypocrite way to operate. But, y'know... hippies.

But you can really see the difference in how people react to this, between my brother and I. That he ended up becoming so ~interested~ in money that he now studies it for a living.

being an economist is not being 'interested in money' really

not in the sense of this thread

Getting the money, all he seemed to want to do with it is throw it in the air and go "whoo". And give a handful to a girl and go "here you are, go get some jewels"

You have to admit that that sounds fun.

I have this recurring dream where I find I have won a massive Euromil amount, and spend the rest of the dream making sure everyone remains on a mental 'even keel'.

My brother became an economist after a career on Wall St and in Investment Banking, and becoming so obsessed with wanting to have money and the power/respect/fuck-you that it could buy, that he went beyond being obsessed with money for its own sake, to wanting to know how it *worked*.

I think. I mean, maybe I'm doing my brother a massive disservice in representing him that way, but this has been the basis of a long-standing massive philosophical gulf between us.

Anyway I need to stop brining my family into it, but I think it's v obvious that I picked up my attitudes towards money off my family - as I think most people do. It's just that my family are, well, peculiar. So maybe that's why I end up with attitudes that are incomprehensible to others.

Ha, OK, people who are so "not interested" in money that they wilfully become sponges on the individuals around them is a valid point. That is definitely a kind of selfishness. Wanting to distance oneself from that kind of attitude is a definite caveat.

― Popcorn Supergay Receiver (Masonic Boom), Thursday, 19 April 2012 14:44 (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't see this as "disinterest in money" as disinterest in work.

I have a dayjob in sales, so money should be important to me, but really as long as I can pay the rent and do some of the things I want, I'm quite happy on the whole. I get more interested in money when I'm broke. I'm more interested in job satisfaction and "profile" at the end of the day (you get neither in sales), and a lot of what I do outside the day-job (writing, promoting, festival organisation, and whatnot) do not provide fiscal rewards.

My own brother left university saying "all I care about is money", which I thought was an admirably honest thing for him to say.

Not interested in money (as in "money is not my primary motivation", in fact it's nowhere near it) but "I'd never want that much money" sounds lame to me

If we're really burrowing down, then all I'm interested in is being happy. Money is a tool which can facilitate some degree of happiness. That's all. (To me.)

But there are many paths to happiness. Not all of which involve ~money~.

::tosses lotus petals about and dances like a fucken hippie::

My particular paths involve bicycles and speakers and sausages from the posh butcher, though.

Anybody who works as a freelance journalist can safely say they're not excessively interested in money. Or if they are then they're going the wrong way about it.

Disappointed that poll options aren't song titles TBH

C.R.E.A.M.
Money Is Not Our God
To Hell With Poverty!

Etc

Not sure which would measurably improve my happiness more, though. £97 million in a trust fund, or Thom Yorke in my... y'know.

WAIT WHO AM I KIDDING.

(I should ban myself from mine own thread. I'll stop that now.)

x-post to Sick

Would the £97 million allow you to put Thom Yorke in your... y'know... though? Is the question.

Actually my mum, who plays the lottery religiously, says "i'd never want that much money" whenever anyone actually wins any large amount, errrrrr, playing the lottery

maybe not thom yorke - he wouldn't even play concerts in china or hong kong because he doesn't support the chinese regime

If you play the lottery, I suppose you should plan for winning a very large sum. Although I wouldn't spend too much time "planning".

China is not, as far as I know, a reasonable comparison for MB's... y'know.

Well, he took £4 million to play Coachella so I wonder if he'd take £97 million to play in ~my~ Coachella...?

depends on your... 's human rights records

Put your £97 million down, flip it, and reverse it.

I'd pick up a Flag Post if I made the joke I'm dying to make right now. So you are all spared it. And also spared rhyming "vagina" with "China."

Let's move on. Swiftly.

Oh, I think I already did on another thread...

OMG at ~my~ Coachella

Best vaginal euphemism, will use

not worrying about money is a luxury i can't afford

Put your £97 million down, flip it, and reverse it.
― Sick Mouthy (Scik Mouthy), Thursday, 19 April 2012 14:30 (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^ Elizabeth II Regina

I remember reading a story about diddy, diddy was dissatisfied, why, well it was because that despite all of diddy's wealth, on some mornings he would wake up and there would be crust on his lips, you know, the kind that sometimes forms, and no matter how much money he had he couldn't make that problem go away

has he not heard of creme de la mer?

diddy is like the gatsby of (...)

is that a .. coachella?

Alright, alright, enough with the coochella jokes.

Though perhaps we have established that although not everyone in interested in money, sex is a much more universal motivating factor, and sex jokes have a near universal interest. Sigh.

that's because money's no joke

Also, I took "I'm not that interested in money" to mean "money is not my primary motivation" and "money is not in itself inherently interesting" - lots of people seemed to interpret that statement in quite different ways.

this is how I took it to mean so I voted (a), but also because the majority of totally loaded people I know are fairly miserable/unhappy and it's abundantly clear to me that past a certain point money doesn't just NOT buy happiness, it actively contributes to your unhappiness.

i know some rather happy loaded people. maybe money is some multiplication function for happiness? or just irrelevant altogether?

Money is a magnification factor for damn near everything, both good and bad.

I continue to hold to the theory that once you get lifted out of poverty to the point where basic needs and creature comforts are no longer a concern (not having enough money to get these things met is a sure-fire cause of unhappiness) then there is a pretty much a disconnect between more money and happiness.

Happiness and unhappiness seem to be spread in the same proportions in the middle class and the super-rich. Which leads me to think it is something other than money itself which causes happiness.

Feeling like a broken record at this point, though.

^^ I agree entirely with Ms. Boom on this point.

Money does multiply power, but power doesn't make a person happy, only powerful. Power allows one to materially propagate one's values and ideas into the world, which covers both the power to do good and the power to spread misery and disfunction. The money is just the vehicle for these, not the determiner.

I think you're right, MB, but I don't think very many people in this day and age of income stagnation, under-employment, etc, can imagine being anywhere near the point where more money would begin to result in diminishing returns. It's a fantasy for most of us to even contemplate.

would still love a boat, though

Yes, Laurel, I do get that. That the huge disparities in income inequality and years of recession and austerity measures have pushed huge numbers of people under that line of "basic needs and creature comforts not getting met."

It's just (yeah, call me LOL hippie for this) I feel this kind of sadness at the idea, that people seem to respond by fantasising "I want unimaginable amounts of money/to join the super-rich" rather than fantasising about the hippie-socialist-paradise where money matters... less. I'm not going to tell other people what their fantasies should be, but it just seems to me "why do you want to jump in with that thing that is causing the exact problem you are suffering under?" but I'm hardly the first person to have noticed that one. The fantasies of the desperate, annoying over-privileged idealists since 1848.

But this is the argument that I've been having with my brother since I was 15 and he was 17.

I just get annoyed when people essentially accuse me of *lying* for having different priorities or ideals.

in the article about the spanx billionaire, she said that crazy wealth lets you be who you really are. so if you are really a happy person shackled by non-crazy-wealth, it's totally conceivable that crazy wealth can let you truly express your true happiness. maybe the real reason happiness drops off after a certain income level is that most people are truly in their heart of hearts just upper-middle-class.

No, that's bullshit. I'm sure that crazy wealth can let you express who you truly are. But if *who you truly are* is a mean, paranoid, grudge-holding asshole, then even crazy wealth isn't going to make you happy. Most people need circumstances and constraints to hold back ~who they truly are~ in order to be properly functioning members of a community or family or group of people.

Yes, that's cynical and not entirely serious, but still.

i'm just eating a box of prunes here and i'm thinking if i had a billion dollars my true nature would have me eating a burrito instead, SOCIETY BE DAMNED

(i ended up buying a meatball sandwich as befits my non-billionaire status)
i was thinking that the fast food analog of the thread question is if the small medium and supersize drinks were all the same price, which one do you get?

i'm only interested in money to pay my rent and student loans and feed myself.

I'd love to be rich, because I'd have a shit-ton of fun travelling with my friends and starting my own small record label and having an art gallery and stuff.

But since my predilection toward money is "I'd use it to have a ball," I'll never rich. Unless I hit the lottery.

I can see potential money traps, though - right now when I see real estate porn I think the $6mn places in NYC are generally pretty amazing, but once I hit the lotto would I suddenly need a $20mn place and would that feel inadequate compared to my neighbors in $40mn places?

^^^ reading my mind
xpost

well the trick is to buy your apartment and all the apartments around it, so you can't be jealous of your neighbors

Owning a minor league baseball team would be fun.

brewster's millions made it seem like a drag. typical hollywood un-romanticization?

voted 'i don't care about social stats'

Paraphrasing Citizen Kane because I can't be arsed to google the correct quote:

"Yes, sir. This newspaper is losing two million dollars a year. At that rate I'll be flat broke... in 130 years!"

This was when Charles Foster Kane was still young, foolish and bubbling over with exuberance. Later, of course, he gets his comeuppance.

After reading a Lucy Mangan op-ed piece which had me gnashing my teeth with frustration at its heteronormativity and also its assumption that all adult women are in ~relationships~ (let alone relationships with men) I suddenly had to wonder if this question was gendered.

Because perhaps "I wouldn't want that much money" takes on a different meaning if uttered by a man or a woman, on account of how women and men are socialised to *think* about money.

And I have read depressing studies about how, when the same job is advertised at a pay grade of £25k it will get twice as many female applicants at one advertised at £50k - whether because women lack the confidence to apply for presumably more senior roles with more responsibility, or because we fear that well paid a role will consume more time that we have, or if it's because women are socialised not to think of ourselves as worth too much, and fear that we'll be slapped down as ~unmarriagable ballbusters~ if we earn more money than our male counterparts, etc. etc etc.

I suddenly realised that it was just weird that I asked this question, given my bents and my interests, and never wondered if there was a gendered aspect to it.

imo the whole thing becomes a lot more nuanced in ways that the question doesn't really address when you have a spouse and kids and can literally watch on a day to day basis how being someone who is ~not interested~ in money can be pretty shitty for the people that you love and that not caring about money is its own kind of selfishness

this was how i interpreted "caveats" and it is horribly otm

but hey, money is still shit to me

A poll of how much people earn relative to their partners might be interesting. Same as, less than, more than, partner doesn't work but I do, I don't work but partner does, etc. So many permutations to consider though -cohabiting, mortgages, etc etc.

prolly mostly less than as we are all wasting all our days on ilx rather than doing actual work.

yeah but i'm still getting paid tbf

until they sack my gedrunken ass

There you go again with the "assuming everyone has partners" thing when "living alone" is the fastest rising group in most Western countries. (read that in several new sources recently - that Erik K-something's research.)

Not that living alone is automatically indicative of being un-partnered, but it's becoming increasingly true that partnered is no longer the default state for western adults.

i'da said that i'm in an income bracket where more money/spending power *should* still be v important to me, but i just moved to a city where my real income will be probably stretched a lot more than was the case, so i guess i'm not as bad as i feared.

I thought the partners-earning-differential would be an easy-ish way to look at whether attitudes to money are gendered. I wasn't assuming they'd live together - hence the cohabiting permutation - and I only suggested partners because it gives a direct comparator (which would usually be) across genders.

People's partners are a self selected group, and therefore not likely to be random, or even indicative of any general pattern.

This is so often the problem with talking about gender, that people generalise from "my partner does X..." to "all women do X..." and it's a dangerous trap to fall into.

True, true, and ILX is a self-selecting group as well (arguably even more so).

I tend to specialise, in that "from "my partner does X..." as opposed to "most women do X..." "

Which is also wrong, but.

i hate money i want more of it so i can forget there is such a thing

― coal, Thursday, April 19, 2012 7:40 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^ this

also you'd need two polls one for men and one for women if the question is about whether you are more/less interested than your partner in order to get info on whether it is gendered ?

I tend to think "not caring about money" is often the result of being raised comfortably unaware of money. I say this as someone who grew up kind of comfortably unaware of money -- not trust-fund rich or anything, but comfortable and with parents whose attitude was that everything was always fine. When I was in my early 20s and watched my parents start to have real financial problems as my dad lost his once super stable job, my attitude about money shifted pretty quickly.

I tend to think "not caring about money" is often the result of being raised comfortably unaware of money

Agreed.

hating money's death grip is not the same as lofty disdain tho

yes because one is caring and another is not caring

partly i hate its death grip on my dad's sense of the world i think, if ever anybody was an Oscar Wilde definition cynic then it's the guy who tried to fill me with his world-view

Like when it hit me that "Oh wait, you can't afford to fix the kitchen cabinets that are falling apart right now? Oh wait, you have to make choices between trips to visit us and trips to visit your mother?" etc. it finally hit me what money is really about. I mean I was living in run-down apartments and wearing thrift-store clothes and not doing anything extravagant, and in my mind that was "not caring about money." But I still had this vague sense of security, probably with an assumption that my parents could help me if I really needed something.

If you call your dad he can stop it all...

I see how those brought up in a financially comfortable environment could not care about money in many ways. But there also seems to be a subset of the lower middle class youth who are flippant about it. Maybe because there is the realization that they may never be in a position where they have a lot of money. Best to say that you don't care about it. Otherwise it could just be depressing.

"not being interested in" != "not caring"

There is some serious semantic wiggling going on in this thread to change the question being asked.

I care about having enough money to live, but I couldn't give a fuck about the stuff itself and how it moves around. As evidenced by the fact that I've been paying into a pension for nearly ten years but have no idea how it works, for example.

Because I tend to see "being interested in money" as v v much a "rich person thing." So how can that, and "not caring about money" (as a "rich person thing") be conceptually the same thing at all?

"Not interested" implies not caring to me, a kind of disinterest as opposed to merely being not avaricious or whatever.

A lot of poor people are pretty interested in money if you ask me.

there are different kinds of rich people?

I mean at some basic level the flow of money around the world affects everyone's lives unless you're living in a hut self-sufficiently on a mountain or something. Not being interested in it on that level is a bit like not being interested in the weather or the environment or something.

This is my perspective on money; it’s different to what it was at the beginning of the year.

Looking back it’s pretty clear that the main reason why I stuck with the job I had was because of what it paid. The job was killing me every which way – there’s no need to go into details here – and I was clearly driving towards a brick wall at 300 mph but would I pay any attention?

The stroke was a huge shock and a greater jolt; it’s the biggest kick up the backside I’ve ever had in my life (and believe me, I’ve had some kicks). Really, I’m lucky to be anywhere, let alone on ILx. It became clear that not only could I not go back to my old job – it transpired that I didn’t want to. So I took less pressurised/stressful work and now I work four days a week (I get Wednesdays off to go to the Anticoagulant Clinic and get a bit of rest). And yes, it represents a 20% loss in earnings but actually I have found that it doesn’t matter that much; we (as in my wife and I) have continued to live a good and plentiful life even with the reduced income. The money is less but the quality of life is immeasurably better.

Make no mistake, the stroke was the medical equivalent of a final written warning; change your ways, or that’s it. So I have, and I feel so much better for it; people I know keep coming up to me and remarking how much younger I look now! I guess, therefore, that the answer would be: I care for what money can get you, but interest in money in and of itself – I don’t really have any. I understand why some (richer) people would have interest in the currency, its moving and handling, but yes, as long as we have enough to pay for a roof over our heads and food on the table then that's fine by me. I don't know if that answers the conceptual dilemma but it's the best I can think of at the moment.

I read that Lucy Mangan piece as well and agree that it’s ridiculously over-generalised. Then again, remember she’s Boris Johnson’s sister-in-law!

I have been using caring and interested interchangeably. Can see how there could be a differentiation though.

"Caring" to me is a kind of "have to." "Interested in" to me is a kind of "want to." There's a definite difference in focus there.

Yeah it's more the negatives that feel interchangeable "I don't care" and "I'm not interested" mean more or less the same thing to me, although maybe "I don't care" is a bit harsher. It's all semantics, there are loads of interesting interpretations of the question.

Yes, I’d agree with that differential. “Have to” is still essential for me, but “want to” means something different to me than the craving for acquisition, for notches on one’s financial belt. It’s amazing in everyday life how often I come across “want to” types and it’s not confined to the rich. It’s this Medusa thing some people have; they idolise money, will do anything they have to, even at the risk of their own health, to get as much of it as possible.

"I don't care" and "I'm not interested" are distinctly NOT the same to me.

"I don't care" = "I don't have to" while "I'm not interested" = "I choose not to."

"I don't care about money" = that person is either super rich, or lives in a cabin with a goat.

"I'm not interested in money" = that person has made a choice not to make money the primary focus of their life.

Imagine a football match on TV.

Who do you want to win?

"I don't care" = "I am enjoying watching the match"

"I'm not interested" = "I am enjoying reading this book"

"I don't care about money" = that person is either super rich, or lives in a cabin with a goat.

"I'm not interested in money" = that person has made a choice not to make money the primary focus of their life.

Well I don't qualify on either count for the first one, so it has to be "I'm not interested" and that's how I've cast my vote.

It'd take a massive amount of money for having money in and of itself to be worth it, imo. Difference b/t 60k and 160k is what ... slightly nicer versions of the same stuff? and you'd probably have to work 60-80 hours a week for that privilege of slightly nicer. For money to be worth it it'd have to be enough to live like a debauched Roman emperor or effete world-traveling eccentric.

Imagine a football match on TV.

Who do you want to win?

"I don't care" = "I am enjoying watching the match"

"I'm not interested" = "I am enjoying reading this book"

This doesn't actually make sense but whatever. I suppose the point stands that people who are interpreting the question in different ways aren't interpreting it wrongly.

xp The difference between 60k and 160k would probably be retiring ten years earlier.

Probably. But you're just taking away the hours and years of your youth and tacking it onto the years when you're older, though wiser I suppose... if you're lucky to make it that far. This is assuming you have to spend most of your waking day working for that 6-figure salary. Retirement is the victory lap around your own death. Definitely looking forward to that.

Yeah you're losing out on youth but I dunno, being able to retire at 55 and not work while you're older and frailer has its appeals as well.

but what about

"I'm doing it because I care"

vs

"I'm doing it because I have to"

different things???

xp Retiring at 55 definitely sounds appealing, but what I worry with that is the longer in the future we plan, the more unexpected and unpredictable things are likely to happen. Plan at 25 ... plan depends on constants through 55. I had a friend who was on the retire-at-55 plan, then he suddenly met a girl, and a year later he's now a husband and a father.

"I'm doing it because I am interested" is altogether different

I think, even when semantics are disputed, one can still be interpreting the question wrongly.

Like, if the question were "Do you love money?" and people started debating "well, yeah, I like money, I like having it, it's useful, so yes I like money" it would be valid to say "the question was not whether you *like* money, but whether you *love* it."

Semantic differences in words can still be salient.

yeah, and then you can get to the territory of people collecting coins and notes.

<3 Aussie money, for example.

great thread

You are a terrible poster.

when younger totally had plans when I was young to earn £1m and retire at 40.

totally didn't appreciate how far/not far £1m gets you when younger

sorry about that superfluous "when I was young" bit

actually i suppose it's doable. £25000 a year assuming i die at 80

if it's in your capacity to get ludicrous amounts of money, i'd think you'd have a social obligation to be interested in it so you can disperse it to those in need. i think bono's doing the right thing, basically.

but the man is mentally ill!

mentally ill... like a fox?

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

I wanna say I completely agree, but growing up in the US in modern times there is a psychological/emotional attachment I have to money that is deeply, subconsciously ingrained. Whenever I'm in a situation where I'm broke and depressed, the minute some money starts to come back my way I instantly feel better, and it's kind of scary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6uCyrnhG90

i figure i could be happy with a billion dollars

I'm interested in money up to a point. Anything over 2 million starts to become overkill but I wouldn't call this a caveat

so did I just vote "I completely agree" that I'm interested in money or "I completely agree" that I'm not interested in money?

who's bright idea was it to stick ~not~ in the thread title?

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

caveats win in a landlside

otoh, money-loving disagreement wins in a landslide

Prince told me in a dream that money can be used to buy heaven

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqgu3Z9N6t4

http://wfmu.org/365/2003/256.shtml