"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


I ran across the following snippet in an online publication. It
reeks of sinfulness and pride and avarice and lust. Naturally, you
'borgs will start clucking like the austerity-loving monks you
pretend to be.


"If all that mattered in choosing a wris****ch was its ability to
track minutes and hours with reasonable accuracy, a Timex would be
the equal of a Rolex. But factors beyond basic utility - style,
pride of ownership or whatever you want to call it - influence
buyers, too, motivating them to spend thousands of dollars on fine
mechanical timepieces that are also investments in precious metal
and in self-esteem."


Isn't that just shameful as all get-out?


If it will appease a mugger, I'm all for the Rolex.
In general, however, I don't like Rolex people.

One of his grad school advisors must have worn one.


Engineers and faculty can't afford such baubles.
Perhaps I was too strong.
I can't RELATE to Rolex people. I don't run with that crowd.
George's comparison of audio with jewelry falls short.
Audio equipment, even very expensivse equipment, has a functional purpose.

I'll bet Rolexes aren't popular with the audiophile crowd.

Self esteem, in my opinion, should be based on what one does, not what one
wears.