According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry is now so
large, that were it a Fortune 500 company, it would be number
six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year.

The average wedding now costs out at $22,000 US, which is about
an average half year's pay.

Only 30% of marrying couples pay for the whole thing themselves.
50% have a part of it paid for by their families ( IOW, parents ),
and one would then conclude that the remaining 20% have it all
paid for by the parents.

Nina Lawrence, of Conde Nast's Bridal Group, said that the
higher costs are an example of the modern woman being " willing
to spend what she earns on _herself_. "

That certainly shows why so many marriages fail. Because, a
marriage is *unlike* a wedding; Its NOT about just her.
We'll let her claim of " what she earns ", belied by the 70%
number who *don't*, pass for now...

A Bridal Seminar that was shown had one speaker tell the
grrls " This is all about _you_. " More proof of that point...

It was also pointed out that the average lengths of engagements
is now up to 16 months, in prime part due to the *increased*
logistical demands of weddings, and the time needed to plan
them out.

Oh, and wedding dresses are up 50% in price in the last decade...

Free Clue: Marriage *isn't* about partying. Thats what single
life is for.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bqjab3$cpd$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry is now so large, that were it a Fortune 500 company, it would be number six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year. The average wedding now costs out at $22,000 US, which is about an average half year's pay. Only 30% of marrying couples pay for the whole thing themselves. 50% have a part of it paid for by their families ( IOW, parents ), and one would then conclude that the remaining 20% have it all paid for by the parents. Nina Lawrence, of Conde Nast's Bridal Group, said that the higher costs are an example of the modern woman being " willing to spend what she earns on _herself_. " That certainly shows why so many marriages fail. Because, a marriage is *unlike* a wedding; Its NOT about just her. We'll let her claim of " what she earns ", belied by the 70% number who *don't*, pass for now... A Bridal Seminar that was shown had one speaker tell the grrls " This is all about _you_. " More proof of that point... It was also pointed out that the average lengths of engagements is now up to 16 months, in prime part due to the *increased* logistical demands of weddings, and the time needed to plan them out. Oh, and wedding dresses are up 50% in price in the last decade... Free Clue: Marriage *isn't* about partying. Thats what single life is for.

I think it's hilarious. Buncha idiots...

In article <bqjab3$cpd$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg411
@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says... According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry is now so large, that were it a Fortune 500 company, it would be number six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year.

The stats I found on this are bit contradictory:

at http://honeymoons.about.com/library/weekly/aa080700.htm
there are the following stats:
* Every year an average of 2.4 million weddings are performed in the
U.S.

* $22,000 is the average amount spent on a traditional American wedding.

* A total of $72 billion is spent on weddings annually in the U.S.

* $19 billion is spent buying presents at wedding gift registries.

I don't know how PBS got to almost double that figure---but I would
bet that they included the gifts and honemoons. Those are the parts
of a wedding that I think are actually worthwhile and often benefit
the husband as much as the wife. The average wedding now costs out at $22,000 US, which is about an average half year's pay.

$22,000 times 2.4 million is only about $53 billion. What are they
missing?

It might also be interesting to see the median spending instead of
the average (mean). I'll bet Jennifer and Brad ran up the averages
quite significantly!

To keep it in perspective---the spending per wedding is about three
times as high in Japan. (about $60K/wedding).
http://www.afwpi.com/wedstats.html

I wonder if the increasing spending in the US is related to the
decreasing marriage rate and the increasing age of the bride
and groom at first marriage. Older brides would (and their
parents) might have significantly more money to spend on
weddings.

I think my own wedding (some 15 years ago) cost less than
1/4 the current average. Of course we rented tuxes, rather
than buying them, and we had the wedding in a church and
the reception in a church social hall. Our honeymoon in
Hawaii was probably half the total cost.
Only 30% of marrying couples pay for the whole thing themselves. 50% have a part of it paid for by their families ( IOW, parents ), and one would then conclude that the remaining 20% have it all paid for by the parents. Nina Lawrence, of Conde Nast's Bridal Group, said that the higher costs are an example of the modern woman being " willing to spend what she earns on _herself_. "

Hey---better than having the groom spend the money! That certainly shows why so many marriages fail. Because, a marriage is *unlike* a wedding; Its NOT about just her. We'll let her claim of " what she earns ", belied by the 70% number who *don't*, pass for now... A Bridal Seminar that was shown had one speaker tell the grrls " This is all about _you_. " More proof of that point...
Anecdotes are not proof. This was the opinion of the speaker. It was also pointed out that the average lengths of engagements is now up to 16 months, in prime part due to the *increased* logistical demands of weddings, and the time needed to plan them out.

I'll bet the engagements start several years later than they
did a few decades ago also. Oh, and wedding dresses are up 50% in price in the last decade...

Hmmm, I wonder how that compares with the rise in prices for
Beer, hockey tickets, and snowmobiles? Free Clue: Marriage *isn't* about partying. Thats what single life is for.

Yup, that's why we have bachelor parties! ;-)

Mark Borgerson

On 3 Dec 2003 00:21:55 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry is now solarge, that were it a Fortune 500 company, it would be numbersix, taking in some $120 *billion* a year.The average wedding now costs out at $22,000 US, which is aboutan average half year's pay.Only 30% of marrying couples pay for the whole thing themselves.50% have a part of it paid for by their families ( IOW, parents ),and one would then conclude that the remaining 20% have it allpaid for by the parents.Nina Lawrence, of Conde Nast's Bridal Group, said that thehigher costs are an example of the modern woman being " willingto spend what she earns on _herself_. "That certainly shows why so many marriages fail. Because, amarriage is *unlike* a wedding; Its NOT about just her.We'll let her claim of " what she earns ", belied by the 70%number who *don't*, pass for now...A Bridal Seminar that was shown had one speaker tell thegrrls " This is all about _you_. " More proof of that point...It was also pointed out that the average lengths of engagementsis now up to 16 months, in prime part due to the *increased*logistical demands of weddings, and the time needed to planthem out.Oh, and wedding dresses are up 50% in price in the last decade...Free Clue: Marriage *isn't* about partying. Thats what singlelife is for.Andre


Hey go easy now, I'm starting a videography business and it's main
income comes from wedding video's. At least what I offer has some
staying power, when are those brides maids ever going to where those
dresses again.

I have to agree, though, the amount of money spent is incredible. It
makes you wonder why.




Don't buy diamonds.

"Framester" <chrisframe1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Hey go easy now, I'm starting a videography business and it's main income comes from wedding video's. At least what I offer has some staying power, when are those brides maids ever going to where those dresses again. I have to agree, though, the amount of money spent is incredible. It makes you wonder why.

Many feel they "have" to do it. Families and friends expect it. Some just
don't know better.

I feel it's the dumbest thing in the world - to spend that kind of money on
a one day party.

Andre Lieven wrote: Nina Lawrence, of Conde Nast's Bridal Group, said that the higher costs are an example of the modern woman being " willing to spend what she earns on _herself_. "

How selfless of her.
A Bridal Seminar that was shown had one speaker tell the grrls " This is all about _you_. " More proof of that point...

The same error in judgment often happens when the kids arrive.
In the wife's drive to "focus on the kids" she's forgotten that
her marriage isn't to the kids.
Oh, and wedding dresses are up 50% in price in the last decade...

That's only about 4% annual inflation. Not too bad, were wedding
dresses not overpriced to begin with.

Mark Borgerson wrote: In article <bqjab3$cpd$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg411 @FreeNet.Carleton.CA says...Nina Lawrence, of Conde Nast's Bridal Group, said that thehigher costs are an example of the modern woman being " willingto spend what she earns on _herself_. " Hey---better than having the groom spend the money!

That would imply that weddings were getting cheaper because of
the wife's economic contribution. I see no evidence of that.

"Mark Borgerson" <m-a-r-k@oes.to> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a36f7dad71cfce1989c62@Netnews.Comcast.ne t... Andre Lieven noted for the record... According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry is now so large, that were it a Fortune 500 company, it would be number six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year. The stats I found on this are bit contradictory [...]

Then, Borgerson, go look at how each of your
sources did their measurements and get back
to us when you have something solid.
The average wedding now costs out at $22,000 US, which is about an average half year's pay. $22,000 times 2.4 million is only about $53 billion. What are they missing?

Hmmm. Good eye there, Borgerson! Wouldn't be
the first time a media droid has been caught out
as thoroughly innumerate, would it? :-)
It might also be interesting to see the median spending instead of the average (mean). I'll bet Jennifer and Brad ran up the averages quite significantly!

Good point there about the median vs. the mean.
OTOH, there's likely a lot of couples who have
a wedding before a judge (for example) and are
pulling the median down.
To keep it in perspective---the spending per wedding is about three times as high in Japan. (about $60K/wedding). http://www.afwpi.com/wedstats.html

The Japanese have long been crazy about spending
on weddings. So what?
I wonder if the increasing spending in the US is related to the decreasing marriage rate and the increasing age of the bride and groom at first marriage. Older brides would (and their parents) might have significantly more money to spend on weddings.

Good point, Borgerson. Also, take note of the number
of divorcees who go for another big production number
complete with yet another white dress (!) on their
second wedding.
Only 30% of marrying couples pay for the whole thing themselves. 50% have a part of it paid for by their families ( IOW, parents ), and one would then conclude that the remaining 20% have it all paid for by the parents.

I like the tradition of the bride's parents footing the bill.
Keeps money arguments between bride and groom
to a minimum at the start of the marriage. :-)
Nina Lawrence, of Conde Nast's Bridal Group, said that the higher costs are an example of the modern woman being " willing to spend what she earns on _herself_. " Hey---better than having the groom spend the money!

Yup, Borgerson, and I guess that means the pre-modern
woman was willing to spend only what her man earns
on herself! ;-) Today's "modern woman" fully expresses
the credo that what's hers is hers and what's his is hers too.
Feminists call that 'progress for women'.
That certainly shows why so many marriages fail. Because, a marriage is *unlike* a wedding; Its NOT about just her. We'll let her claim of " what she earns ", belied by the 70% number who *don't*, pass for now... A Bridal Seminar that was shown had one speaker tell the grrls " This is all about _you_. " More proof of that point... Anecdotes are not proof. This was the opinion of the speaker.

As the saying goes, Borgerson, the proof of the pudding
is in its taste. Taste is an opinion, don'cha think? ;-) Clearly
that was the meaning Andre intended by his use of the
word "proof". (Whaddya suppose Q.E.D. means,
Borgerson? :-)

"This is all about you" has long been how many (most?
virtually all?) women have described weddings to young
brides and even younger girls. And of course the wedding
industrial complex would run with that theme in their
advertising and pitches for binging to brides and mothers
of brides. What Andre's article described is nothing new,
tho' likely a more pathological form of gigantism-mania
these days..
It was also pointed out that the average lengths of engagements is now up to 16 months, in prime part due to the *increased* logistical demands of weddings, and the time needed to plan them out. I'll bet the engagements start several years later than they did a few decades ago also.

Hmmm. Given the rising average age of people who
marry for the first time, Borgerson, I'd say that's a safe
conjecture on your part. Getting back to the lengthened
time from start to finish for wedding preparation and
execution, what I wonder is how the percentage of
couples who start planning a wedding but never make
it through to completion has changed. With more time
to get stressed and to back out before zero hour, I'd
expect the number of brides and grooms to be who
bail to have gone up.
Oh, and wedding dresses are up 50% in price in the last decade... Hmmm, I wonder how that compares with the rise in prices for Beer, hockey tickets, and snowmobiles?

The more appropriate comparison, Borgerson, would be
with comparables such as other special occasion dresses.
Free Clue: Marriage *isn't* about partying. That's what single life is for. Yup, that's why we have bachelor parties! ;-)

Well put, gentlemen! ;-)

If men really ran everything as feminists (and other
womenfirsters claim), the national flower would be
the wild oat and weddings would not be such
huge phony Cinderella princess productions. Ha ha.

--
"Men's opinions should count too?!!" shrieked the feminist
in disbelief. "What do you mean by that???"

Society wrote: "Mark Borgerson" <m-a-r-k@oes.to> wrote in message news:MPG.1a36f7dad71cfce1989c62@Netnews.Comcast.ne t...Andre Lieven noted for the record...According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industryis now so large, that were it a Fortune 500 company,it would be number six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year.The stats I found on this are bit contradictory [...] Then, Borgerson, go look at how each of your sources did their measurements and get back to us when you have something solid.The average wedding now costs out at $22,000 US,which is about an average half year's pay.$22,000 times 2.4 million is only about $53 billion.What are they missing? Hmmm. Good eye there, Borgerson! Wouldn't be the first time a media droid has been caught out as thoroughly innumerate, would it? :-)


Must have the bride doing the math.



It might also be interesting to see the median spendinginstead of the average (mean). I'll bet Jennifer and Bradran up the averages quite significantly! Good point there about the median vs. the mean. OTOH, there's likely a lot of couples who have a wedding before a judge (for example) and are pulling the median down.To keep it in perspective---the spending per weddingis about three times as high in Japan. (about $60K/wedding).http://www.afwpi.com/wedstats.html The Japanese have long been crazy about spending on weddings. So what?I wonder if the increasing spending in the US is related to thedecreasing marriage rate and the increasing age of the brideand groom at first marriage. Older brides would (and theirparents) might have significantly more money to spend onweddings. Good point, Borgerson. Also, take note of the number of divorcees who go for another big production number complete with yet another white dress (!) on their second wedding.Only 30% of marrying couples pay for the whole thingthemselves. 50% have a part of it paid for by their families( IOW, parents ), and one would then conclude that theremaining 20% have it all paid for by the parents. I like the tradition of the bride's parents footing the bill. Keeps money arguments between bride and groom to a minimum at the start of the marriage. :-)Nina Lawrence, of Conde Nast's Bridal Group, said thatthe higher costs are an example of the modern womanbeing " willing to spend what she earns on _herself_. "Hey---better than having the groom spend the money! Yup, Borgerson, and I guess that means the pre-modern woman was willing to spend only what her man earns on herself! ;-) Today's "modern woman" fully expresses the credo that what's hers is hers and what's his is hers too. Feminists call that 'progress for women'.That certainly shows why so many marriages fail. Because,a marriage is *unlike* a wedding; Its NOT about just her.We'll let her claim of " what she earns ", belied by the 70%number who *don't*, pass for now...A Bridal Seminar that was shown had one speaker tell thegrrls " This is all about _you_. " More proof of that point...Anecdotes are not proof. This was the opinion of the speaker. As the saying goes, Borgerson, the proof of the pudding is in its taste. Taste is an opinion, don'cha think? ;-) Clearly that was the meaning Andre intended by his use of the word "proof". (Whaddya suppose Q.E.D. means, Borgerson? :-) "This is all about you" has long been how many (most? virtually all?) women have described weddings to young brides and even younger girls. And of course the wedding industrial complex would run with that theme in their advertising and pitches for binging to brides and mothers of brides. What Andre's article described is nothing new, tho' likely a more pathological form of gigantism-mania these days..It was also pointed out that the average lengths of engagementsis now up to 16 months, in prime part due to the *increased*logistical demands of weddings, and the time needed to planthem out.I'll bet the engagements start several years later than theydid a few decades ago also. Hmmm. Given the rising average age of people who marry for the first time, Borgerson, I'd say that's a safe conjecture on your part. Getting back to the lengthened time from start to finish for wedding preparation and execution, what I wonder is how the percentage of couples who start planning a wedding but never make it through to completion has changed. With more time to get stressed and to back out before zero hour, I'd expect the number of brides and grooms to be who bail to have gone up.Oh, and wedding dresses are up 50% in price in the last decade...Hmmm, I wonder how that compares with the rise in prices forBeer, hockey tickets, and snowmobiles? The more appropriate comparison, Borgerson, would be with comparables such as other special occasion dresses.Free Clue: Marriage *isn't* about partying.That's what single life is for.Yup, that's why we have bachelor parties! ;-) Well put, gentlemen! ;-) If men really ran everything as feminists (and other womenfirsters claim), the national flower would be the wild oat and weddings would not be such huge phony Cinderella princess productions. Ha ha.

In article <bqjab3$cpd$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg411
@FreeNet.Carleton.CA spoke thusly... That certainly shows why so many marriages fail. Because, a marriage is *unlike* a wedding; Its NOT about just her. We'll let her claim of " what she earns ", belied by the 70% number who *don't*, pass for now...

You go, Andre! Agreed.
Free Clue: Marriage *isn't* about partying. Thats what single life is for.

I agree again.

--
Say no to fixed width tables. They look terrible.

spammy (spammy@nospam.invalid) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: Nina Lawrence, of Conde Nast's Bridal Group, said that the higher costs are an example of the modern woman being " willing to spend what she earns on _herself_. " How selfless of her.

Indeed. It follows that a woman, who goes *into* a marriage, with an
" Its all about me ! " 'tude, will leave it with the same 'tude, once
she finds that the marriage, a mutual matter, *isn't* all about her.
A Bridal Seminar that was shown had one speaker tell the grrls " This is all about _you_. " More proof of that point... The same error in judgment often happens when the kids arrive. In the wife's drive to "focus on the kids" she's forgotten that her marriage isn't to the kids.

I've lost count of how many times I've seen Dr. Phil tell *wives*
that their failure to nurture their *marriages* is harm of their
children...
Oh, and wedding dresses are up 50% in price in the last decade... That's only about 4% annual inflation. Not too bad, were wedding dresses not overpriced to begin with.

Exactly. At least a nice set of headers get used more than once... <g>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Society" (Society@feminism.is.invalid) writes: "Mark Borgerson" <m-a-r-k@oes.to> wrote in message news:MPG.1a36f7dad71cfce1989c62@Netnews.Comcast.ne t... Andre Lieven noted for the record... According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry is now so large, that were it a Fortune 500 company, it would be number six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year. The stats I found on this are bit contradictory [...] Then, Borgerson, go look at how each of your sources did their measurements and get back to us when you have something solid.

<g> He's still posting here ?
The average wedding now costs out at $22,000 US, which is about an average half year's pay. $22,000 times 2.4 million is only about $53 billion. What are they missing? Hmmm. Good eye there, Borgerson! Wouldn't be the first time a media droid has been caught out as thoroughly innumerate, would it? :-)

Indeed. I only report 'em as I get 'em...
It might also be interesting to see the median spending instead of the average (mean). I'll bet Jennifer and Brad ran up the averages quite significantly! Good point there about the median vs. the mean. OTOH, there's likely a lot of couples who have a wedding before a judge (for example) and are pulling the median down.

It does work both ways...
To keep it in perspective---the spending per wedding is about three times as high in Japan. (about $60K/wedding). http://www.afwpi.com/wedstats.html The Japanese have long been crazy about spending on weddings. So what?

Apples... Buicks...
I wonder if the increasing spending in the US is related to the decreasing marriage rate and the increasing age of the bride and groom at first marriage. Older brides would (and their parents) might have significantly more money to spend on weddings. Good point, Borgerson. Also, take note of the number of divorcees who go for another big production number complete with yet another white dress (!) on their second wedding.

Amazing, innit ? Party uber alles...
Only 30% of marrying couples pay for the whole thing themselves. 50% have a part of it paid for by their families ( IOW, parents ), and one would then conclude that the remaining 20% have it all paid for by the parents. I like the tradition of the bride's parents footing the bill. Keeps money arguments between bride and groom to a minimum at the start of the marriage. :-)

<bg>
Nina Lawrence, of Conde Nast's Bridal Group, said that the higher costs are an example of the modern woman being " willing to spend what she earns on _herself_. " Hey---better than having the groom spend the money! Yup, Borgerson, and I guess that means the pre-modern woman was willing to spend only what her man earns on herself! ;-) Today's "modern woman" fully expresses the credo that what's hers is hers and what's his is hers too. Feminists call that 'progress for women'.

Quite. Another DR. Phil, on this topic, showed a couple whose
projected wedding had passed $30K and was closing on $40K, while
their *combined* savings was under $2K...

But... She had to have _her_ day...
That certainly shows why so many marriages fail. Because, a marriage is *unlike* a wedding; Its NOT about just her. We'll let her claim of " what she earns ", belied by the 70% number who *don't*, pass for now... A Bridal Seminar that was shown had one speaker tell the grrls " This is all about _you_. " More proof of that point... Anecdotes are not proof. This was the opinion of the speaker. As the saying goes, Borgerson, the proof of the pudding is in its taste. Taste is an opinion, don'cha think? ;-)

Borgerson " think " ? Well, can't prove that by his posts... :-)
Clearly that was the meaning Andre intended by his use of the word "proof". (Whaddya suppose Q.E.D. means, Borgerson? :-)

Indeed. Good that for you, Society, English comprehension
isn't a lost art...
"This is all about you" has long been how many (most? virtually all?) women have described weddings to young brides and even younger girls. And of course the wedding industrial complex would run with that theme in their advertising and pitches for binging to brides and mothers of brides. What Andre's article described is nothing new, tho' likely a more pathological form of gigantism-mania these days..

Indeed.
It was also pointed out that the average lengths of engagements is now up to 16 months, in prime part due to the *increased* logistical demands of weddings, and the time needed to plan them out. I'll bet the engagements start several years later than they did a few decades ago also. Hmmm. Given the rising average age of people who marry for the first time, Borgerson, I'd say that's a safe conjecture on your part. Getting back to the lengthened time from start to finish for wedding preparation and execution, what I wonder is how the percentage of couples who start planning a wedding but never make it through to completion has changed. With more time to get stressed and to back out before zero hour, I'd expect the number of brides and grooms to be who bail to have gone up.

Sure. A set of examples of that sort of thing was seen in the
wonderful Fox special " Bridezillas "... SEveral of the brides
were clear on their view that their man was secondary to their
_party_...
Oh, and wedding dresses are up 50% in price in the last decade... Hmmm, I wonder how that compares with the rise in prices for Beer, hockey tickets, and snowmobiles? The more appropriate comparison, Borgerson, would be with comparables such as other special occasion dresses.

Of course. Beer, hockey tickets and snowmobiles didn't start as
overpriced, one consumption, luxury items.

Again, Society, you understand comparing *like to like*, while
poor Borgerson fails that simple task, as well as his others.
Free Clue: Marriage *isn't* about partying. That's what single life is for. Yup, that's why we have bachelor parties! ;-) Well put, gentlemen! ;-)

Hmm... Is the average price of bachelor parties in the
five digits ? I'm willing to bet " no "...
If men really ran everything as feminists (and other womenfirsters claim), the national flower would be the wild oat and weddings would not be such huge phony Cinderella princess productions. Ha ha.

And, Bachelor Party Monthly would sell millions of copies
a month... complete with ads for strippers, et al...

Not to mention TV ads, and wistful spots for their wares,
as with DeBeer's bloody goods...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

A man (uce@ftc.gov) writes: In article <bqjab3$cpd$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg411 @FreeNet.Carleton.CA spoke thusly... That certainly shows why so many marriages fail. Because, a marriage is *unlike* a wedding; Its NOT about just her. We'll let her claim of " what she earns ", belied by the 70% number who *don't*, pass for now... You go, Andre! Agreed.

I am just a force for good in my times... <g>

Thank you.
Free Clue: Marriage *isn't* about partying. Thats what single life is for. I agree again.

The whole point of this, would be to suggest that if anyone is
with a bride to be, who demands all this folderol, then you
have a great example of where her marital life values really
are.

In " party _over_ marriage ", and thus, showing that she values
short term self gratification ( As it's clearly *not* about what
her man might want.. ) over long term efforts.

Such women are terrible choices for matrimony. Best to use
them on their own terms... short term gratification.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

my husband and I spent about $6000 on our wedding..including our rings and
our honeymoon!


that was 3 1/2 years ago...


Kass


"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bqjab3$cpd$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry is now so large, that were it a Fortune 500 company, it would be number six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year. The average wedding now costs out at $22,000 US, which is about an average half year's pay. Only 30% of marrying couples pay for the whole thing themselves. 50% have a part of it paid for by their families ( IOW, parents ), and one would then conclude that the remaining 20% have it all paid for by the parents. Nina Lawrence, of Conde Nast's Bridal Group, said that the higher costs are an example of the modern woman being " willing to spend what she earns on _herself_. " That certainly shows why so many marriages fail. Because, a marriage is *unlike* a wedding; Its NOT about just her. We'll let her claim of " what she earns ", belied by the 70% number who *don't*, pass for now... A Bridal Seminar that was shown had one speaker tell the grrls " This is all about _you_. " More proof of that point... It was also pointed out that the average lengths of engagements is now up to 16 months, in prime part due to the *increased* logistical demands of weddings, and the time needed to plan them out. Oh, and wedding dresses are up 50% in price in the last decade... Free Clue: Marriage *isn't* about partying. Thats what single life is for. Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Whisper" (whisperishere@bctonline.com) writes: my husband and I spent about $6000 on our wedding..including our rings and our honeymoon! that was 3 1/2 years ago...

Thank you for once again, proving the phrase that:

" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

So, you two were exceptional. Do you understan that that means that
your experience is NOT mass-replicatable, as it flies in the face
of the societal data ?
Kass "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:bqjab3$cpd$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry is now so large, that were it a Fortune 500 company, it would be number six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year. The average wedding now costs out at $22,000 US, which is about an average half year's pay. Only 30% of marrying couples pay for the whole thing themselves. 50% have a part of it paid for by their families ( IOW, parents ), and one would then conclude that the remaining 20% have it all paid for by the parents. Nina Lawrence, of Conde Nast's Bridal Group, said that the higher costs are an example of the modern woman being " willing to spend what she earns on _herself_. " That certainly shows why so many marriages fail. Because, a marriage is *unlike* a wedding; Its NOT about just her. We'll let her claim of " what she earns ", belied by the 70% number who *don't*, pass for now... A Bridal Seminar that was shown had one speaker tell the grrls " This is all about _you_. " More proof of that point... It was also pointed out that the average lengths of engagements is now up to 16 months, in prime part due to the *increased* logistical demands of weddings, and the time needed to plan them out. Oh, and wedding dresses are up 50% in price in the last decade... Free Clue: Marriage *isn't* about partying. Thats what single life is for.

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:30:47 GMT, "Whisper"
<whisperishere@bctonline.com> wrote:
my husband and I spent about $6000 on our wedding..including our rings andour honeymoon!that was 3 1/2 years ago...Kass
My husband and I spend about $200.00 on our wedding. Now the wedding
rings were a lot more expensive. Approximately $400.00 each.

And remember some of those big wedding are wanted by the parents.
Sometimes by the husband to be.


Life is not the way it's supposed to be. It's the way it is. The way you
cope with it is what makes the difference.

Virginia Satir

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bql40n$mec$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Whisper" (whisperishere@bctonline.com) writes: my husband and I spent about $6000 on our wedding..including our rings
and our honeymoon! that was 3 1/2 years ago... Thank you for once again, proving the phrase that: " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. " So, you two were exceptional. Do you understan that that means that your experience is NOT mass-replicatable, as it flies in the face of the societal data ?

What difference does it make if it's mass-replicatable or not? All this
shows is that sensible practical people will not follow rediculous trends.
The fact is that most of the world is completely idiotic. If idiotic
people want to have expensive weddings rather than put the money into
something reasonable like a huge downpayment on a house, then what
difference does it make? Most people carry huge debts, whether those
debts came from their weddings or from expensive vacations they couldn't
afford or expensive cars they didn't need.

We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it was
up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. I also do
not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of
wedding expenses.

i

"Ignoramus11065" <ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid> wrote in message
news:bql6rr$pk1$2@pita.alt.net... We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. I also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of wedding expenses.

Just curious - why did you spend the $ then? Did you wife *have* to have the
wedding? If so, why? Parents expected it?

I hear a lot of men say that if they had their way, they'd spend very little
on the wedding, making me think this is mostly female-driven with men
basically going along to avoid a fight (let's just say now that I'm aware
exceptions exist)

JWB

In article <Cbpzb.183962$Gq.22516680@twister.nyc.rr.com>, JWB wrote: "Ignoramus11065" <ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid> wrote in message news:bql6rr$pk1$2@pita.alt.net... We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. I also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of wedding expenses. Just curious - why did you spend the $ then? Did you wife *have* to have the wedding? If so, why? Parents expected it?

She wanted it, I agreed. I am sure that she wanted it for a variety of
reasons. I figured, it would be nuts to deny her a wedding.
I hear a lot of men say that if they had their way, they'd spend very little on the wedding, making me think this is mostly female-driven with men basically going along to avoid a fight (let's just say now that I'm aware exceptions exist)

Well, you are kind of right in my instance, except that I did it not
only to avoid a fight, but also to just make it a nice memory for her.

i

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message
news:Cbpzb.183962$Gq.22516680@twister.nyc.rr.com.. . "Ignoramus11065" <ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid> wrote in message news:bql6rr$pk1$2@pita.alt.net... We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. I also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of wedding expenses. Just curious - why did you spend the $ then? Did you wife *have* to have
the wedding? If so, why? Parents expected it? I hear a lot of men say that if they had their way, they'd spend very
little on the wedding, making me think this is mostly female-driven with men basically going along to avoid a fight (let's just say now that I'm
aware exceptions exist) JWB

The parents are often a major factor. A lot of times the engaged couple
is beseiged by family members who keep wanting to enlarge the guest list
and take over the planning. If as is customary, the parents are
contributing part are all of the money, this gives them a lot of power to
influence things.

In article <bql40n$mec$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg411
@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says... "Whisper" (whisperishere@bctonline.com) writes: my husband and I spent about $6000 on our wedding..including our rings and our honeymoon! that was 3 1/2 years ago... Thank you for once again, proving the phrase that: " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. " So, you two were exceptional. Do you understan that that means that your experience is NOT mass-replicatable, as it flies in the face of the societal data ?

That conclusion is not supported by the data. The posted data
was for average (or mean cost) of weddings. It showed no
data on the distribution of costs. A $6000 wedding may well
be at or near the median cost. That would make it an experience
shared by many of the people who got married 3-1/2 years ago.

I could just as well hypothesize that 1/2 of weddings now cost
less $6000. If anyone can find stats that disprove that
hypothesis, I'd be interested in seeing them.

Low Cost weddings are certainly a concern of some couples.
Amazon.com has a book entitled "Priceless Weddings
for under $5000". Perhaps every groom-to-be ought to
give a copy to his bride-to-be.

<SNIP>

Mark Borgerson

The average wedding now costs out at $22,000 US, which is about an average half year's pay. Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Mine cost $190.00. Canadian.

$60.00 for the license.
$130.00 for the magistrate to come to our house.

I wore a new sweater, and Squire put on a dress shirt. Afterwards, I went
to the computer and finished an assignment.

The important thing was the marriage, not the wedding.

Cristabel, incurable romantic.

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:57:33 -0800, "Chrys" <notarealaddress@lycos.com>
wrote:
"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in messagenews:Cbpzb.183962$Gq.22516680@twister.nyc.r r.com... "Ignoramus11065" <ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid> wrote in message news:bql6rr$pk1$2@pita.alt.net... We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. I also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of wedding expenses. Just curious - why did you spend the $ then? Did you wife *have* to havethe wedding? If so, why? Parents expected it? I hear a lot of men say that if they had their way, they'd spend verylittle on the wedding, making me think this is mostly female-driven with men basically going along to avoid a fight (let's just say now that I'maware exceptions exist) JWBThe parents are often a major factor. A lot of times the engaged coupleis beseiged by family members who keep wanting to enlarge the guest listand take over the planning. If as is customary, the parents arecontributing part are all of the money, this gives them a lot of power toinfluence things.
When I got married in the 70's I wanted a small wedding my Parents
were the one's who wanted the big to do. Geez I hardly knew anyone at
the wedding.


Life is not the way it's supposed to be. It's the way it is. The way you
cope with it is what makes the difference.

Virginia Satir

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:13:38 GMT, Mark Borgerson <m-a-r-k@oes.to>
wrote:
In article <bql40n$mec$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says... "Whisper" (whisperishere@bctonline.com) writes: my husband and I spent about $6000 on our wedding..including our rings and our honeymoon! that was 3 1/2 years ago... Thank you for once again, proving the phrase that: " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. " So, you two were exceptional. Do you understan that that means that your experience is NOT mass-replicatable, as it flies in the face of the societal data ?That conclusion is not supported by the data. The posted datawas for average (or mean cost) of weddings. It showed nodata on the distribution of costs. A $6000 wedding may wellbe at or near the median cost. That would make it an experienceshared by many of the people who got married 3-1/2 years ago.I could just as well hypothesize that 1/2 of weddings now costless $6000. If anyone can find stats that disprove thathypothesis, I'd be interested in seeing them.Low Cost weddings are certainly a concern of some couples.Amazon.com has a book entitled "Priceless Weddingsfor under $5000". Perhaps every groom-to-be ought togive a copy to his bride-to-be.<SNIP>Mark Borgerson

Maybe Andre doesn't know the difference between average and median. He
has shown considerable ignorance when it comes to statistical
analysis.

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 18:42:34 GMT, "Cristabel" <cmmarta@shawhair.ca>
wrote:
The average wedding now costs out at $22,000 US, which is about an average half year's pay. Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green.Mine cost $190.00. Canadian.$60.00 for the license.$130.00 for the magistrate to come to our house.I wore a new sweater, and Squire put on a dress shirt. Afterwards, I wentto the computer and finished an assignment.The important thing was the marriage, not the wedding.
Yup it's all about *who* you marry.Cristabel, incurable romantic.



Life is not the way it's supposed to be. It's the way it is. The way you
cope with it is what makes the difference.

Virginia Satir

Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes: We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste.

So, you agree that it's *women's whims* that create the *whole
of that waste*.

Thanks for agreeing with me... <g>
I also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of wedding expenses.

If people didn't get married, would they go on honeymoon ?

I think not.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"JWB" (jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com) writes: "Ignoramus11065" <ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid> wrote in message news:bql6rr$pk1$2@pita.alt.net... We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. I also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of wedding expenses. Just curious - why did you spend the $ then? Did you wife *have* to have the wedding? If so, why? Parents expected it?

Well, its clear that it wasn't his first choice...
I hear a lot of men say that if they had their way, they'd spend very little on the wedding, making me think this is mostly female-driven with men basically going along to avoid a fight (let's just say now that I'm aware exceptions exist)

Indeed. But, the issue is *trends*. As I said, theres a huge Bridal
market, and little " groom " market, that isn't about fitting men out,
to stand beside the Bride.

For that matter, heres another thinking point. When a couple ( Of,
in first world lands, of nominally equal people ) get engaged, the
societal and cultural norm is that the *man* spends a pile of loot on
a useless bauble for the *woman's* pleasure.

But... we're supposed to be " equal " now... So, where the societal
and cultural norm whereby the *woman* spends a pile of her loot on
the *man*, for a thing that the *man wants* ?

Exactly. The whole area of wedding culture is all about women's,
as a group, wants and desires. Men and men's are... irrelevent
to them.

No wonder divorce rates are as high as they are, with women being
the *choosers and initiators* of 70%+ ( Braver ) to 91% ( Hite )
of them...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Cristabel" (cmmarta@shawhair.ca) writes: The average wedding now costs out at $22,000 US, which is about an average half year's pay. Andre Mine cost $190.00. Canadian. $60.00 for the license. $130.00 for the magistrate to come to our house. I wore a new sweater, and Squire put on a dress shirt. Afterwards, I went to the computer and finished an assignment.

Again, good for you and yours, but that speaks not at all to the point
of societal trends.

" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
The important thing was the marriage, not the wedding.

Indeed. Now, what does that say about the millions of consumers of
a $120 BILLION dollar industry ?
Cristabel, incurable romantic.

Apparently, one of the very few...

Andre



--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

In article <bqldlb$2475fg$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de>, Chrys wrote: I have a problem with the fact that you're ignoring the ability of men to make their own choices. No man ever has to have a fancy wedding if he doesn't want to. If he's chosen his potential wife wisely, then it won't be an issue. If he's chosen someone frivolous who thinks it's a good idea

I am an example of such a man. I did NOT want to have a big wedding.

I did go along with my wife's desire to have one, because it was less
important to me not to have the wedding, than it was to her to have
the wedding.

I also felt that if it made her more committed to the marriage, then
it is an additional plus towards having a wedding. If it was entirely
up to me, I would just do it in a courthouse.

To suggest that we both "played an equal role in deciding on our
marriage" is disingenious.

For once, I find myself agreeing with Andre that weddings are
generally a female thing.

i

Rauni wrote:
And remember some of those big wedding are wanted by the parents. Sometimes by the husband to be.

Very much so. Among the ones that I know the biggest weddings are given by the
parents (primarily of the bride, but in many cases with contributions from the
groom). The ones which are paid by the couple themselves are usually much
simpler - even when they have a lot of money!

No doubt wedding business is a big one, but it's not only weddings. In the past
few years that my kids have gone through teen years we have gone to several
barmitzvahs and batmizvahas which have been far more glamorous than any wedding
I have seen. It seems like a competition among families!

Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes: In article <bqldlb$2475fg$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de>, Chrys wrote: I have a problem with the fact that you're ignoring the ability of men to make their own choices. No man ever has to have a fancy wedding if he doesn't want to. If he's chosen his potential wife wisely, then it won't be an issue. If he's chosen someone frivolous who thinks it's a good idea I am an example of such a man. I did NOT want to have a big wedding.

Indeed. My readings strongly suggest that most men's idea of a sufficient
wedding would top out at about $400...
I did go along with my wife's desire to have one, because it was less important to me not to have the wedding, than it was to her to have the wedding.

Sure.
I also felt that if it made her more committed to the marriage, then it is an additional plus towards having a wedding. If it was entirely up to me, I would just do it in a courthouse.

The point being, that letting women have big weddings, tends, if anything,
to make them want *more of them*...
To suggest that we both "played an equal role in deciding on our marriage" is disingenious.

As it usually is...
For once, I find myself agreeing with Andre that weddings are generally a female thing.

There you go, folks. I'm *right*.

Remember that... <g>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message For that matter, heres another thinking point. When a couple ( Of, in first world lands, of nominally equal people ) get engaged, the societal and cultural norm is that the *man* spends a pile of loot on a useless bauble for the *woman's* pleasure. But... we're supposed to be " equal " now... So, where the societal and cultural norm whereby the *woman* spends a pile of her loot on the *man*, for a thing that the *man wants* ? Exactly. The whole area of wedding culture is all about women's, as a group, wants and desires. Men and men's are... irrelevent to them. No wonder divorce rates are as high as they are, with women being the *choosers and initiators* of 70%+ ( Braver ) to 91% ( Hite ) of them...

heh heh - my wife wanted neither a diamond, nor a big wedding. I lucked out
:)

On 4 Dec 2003 01:23:53 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
Indeed. My readings strongly suggest that most men's idea of a sufficientwedding would top out at about $400...

Depends on if they already owned the big screen TV (doesn't most men's
dream wedding consist of a football game, lots of munchies, wedding
during half time, back to big game with buds?).

Tara

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 02:22:08 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com>
wrote:
"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message For that matter, heres another thinking point. When a couple ( Of, in first world lands, of nominally equal people ) get engaged, the societal and cultural norm is that the *man* spends a pile of loot on a useless bauble for the *woman's* pleasure. But... we're supposed to be " equal " now... So, where the societal and cultural norm whereby the *woman* spends a pile of her loot on the *man*, for a thing that the *man wants* ? Exactly. The whole area of wedding culture is all about women's, as a group, wants and desires. Men and men's are... irrelevent to them. No wonder divorce rates are as high as they are, with women being the *choosers and initiators* of 70%+ ( Braver ) to 91% ( Hite ) of them...heh heh - my wife wanted neither a diamond, nor a big wedding. I lucked out:)
Funny how there are a lot of people posting who *didn't* do the big
wedding thing. Could it bee that Andre might be wring and not *all*
women what the big to do?

"JWB" (jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message For that matter, heres another thinking point. When a couple ( Of, in first world lands, of nominally equal people ) get engaged, the societal and cultural norm is that the *man* spends a pile of loot on a useless bauble for the *woman's* pleasure. But... we're supposed to be " equal " now... So, where the societal and cultural norm whereby the *woman* spends a pile of her loot on the *man*, for a thing that the *man wants* ? Exactly. The whole area of wedding culture is all about women's, as a group, wants and desires. Men and men's are... irrelevent to them. No wonder divorce rates are as high as they are, with women being the *choosers and initiators* of 70%+ ( Braver ) to 91% ( Hite ) of them... heh heh - my wife wanted neither a diamond, nor a big wedding. I lucked out :)

Excellent. No one suggested that such women don't exist, just that,
going by the wedding industrial complex figures, they are rare.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Ignoramus11065 wrote: In article <bqldlb$2475fg$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de>, Chrys wrote: I have a problem with the fact that you're ignoring the ability of men to make their own choices. No man ever has to have a fancy wedding if he doesn't want to. If he's chosen his potential wife wisely, then it won't be an issue. If he's chosen someone frivolous who thinks it's a good idea I am an example of such a man. I did NOT want to have a big wedding. I did go along with my wife's desire to have one, because it was less important to me not to have the wedding, than it was to her to have the wedding.

I bet you had a limit in there somewhere, though.
I also felt that if it made her more committed to the marriage, then it is an additional plus towards having a wedding. If it was entirely up to me, I would just do it in a courthouse. To suggest that we both "played an equal role in deciding on our marriage" is disingenious.

Well, I hope you did play an equal role in "deciding on your marriage" but
it probably doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things if your had an
unequal role in working out the details of your wedding as long as you were
both happy with the result.

Tai

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: I made *specific comments*, ones that facts back up. YOUR *ignorance* of them doesn't make them any less *real*... Very amusing. Where "fact" here means "Andre's opinion." Thanks for showing that when you *can't refute an argument*, you... LIE. The *facts* I mentioned came direct from PBS' NewsHour. If you have an issue with them, take it up with them, *and* the other sources cited in this thread that *supported* those facts.

You may have mentioned things from a news source. They didn't support
any coherent argument. But you don't seem to be making a coherent
argument, so that's OK.
Does it keep you unemployed? Unmarried? Friendless? What is it exactly? And has it occurred to you to look for reasons which are within your control rather than externalizing your rage? Have you considered that men of good character ( This clearly leaves you out... ) care *about other people*, too ? The political is NOT all personal. Learn that. Make it your first such thing.

In your case you _make_ it entirely personal by choosing to engage in
sarcasm and abuse rather than in reasoned discussion.

You _really_ don't need to give me lessons on what to learn first.
That is even more laughable.

Andre Lieven wrote: Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes: In article <bqldlb$2475fg$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de>, Chrys wrote: I have a problem with the fact that you're ignoring the ability of men to make their own choices. No man ever has to have a fancy wedding if he doesn't want to. If he's chosen his potential wife wisely, then it won't be an issue. If he's chosen someone frivolous who thinks it's a good idea I am an example of such a man. I did NOT want to have a big wedding. Indeed. My readings strongly suggest that most men's idea of a sufficient wedding would top out at about $400... I did go along with my wife's desire to have one, because it was less important to me not to have the wedding, than it was to her to have the wedding. Sure. I also felt that if it made her more committed to the marriage, then it is an additional plus towards having a wedding. If it was entirely up to me, I would just do it in a courthouse. The point being, that letting women have big weddings, tends, if anything, to make them want *more of them*... To suggest that we both "played an equal role in deciding on our marriage" is disingenious. As it usually is... For once, I find myself agreeing with Andre that weddings are generally a female thing. There you go, folks. I'm *right*.

Psssssst Andre, "the plural of anecdote is not data".

(I could have sworn you knew that....)

Tai

JWB wrote: "Ignoramus11065" <ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid> wrote in message news:bql6rr$pk1$2@pita.alt.net... We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. I also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of wedding expenses. Just curious - why did you spend the $ then? Did you wife *have* to have the wedding? If so, why? Parents expected it? I hear a lot of men say that if they had their way, they'd spend very little on the wedding, making me think this is mostly female-driven with men basically going along to avoid a fight (let's just say now that I'm aware exceptions exist)

I get the impression that quite a bit of money can be spent on the
all-singing, all-dancing bachelor party nowadays...

Tai

Chrys wrote: "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:Cbpzb.183962$Gq.22516680@twister.nyc.rr.com.. . "Ignoramus11065" <ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid> wrote in message news:bql6rr$pk1$2@pita.alt.net... We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. I also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of wedding expenses. Just curious - why did you spend the $ then? Did you wife *have* to have the wedding? If so, why? Parents expected it? I hear a lot of men say that if they had their way, they'd spend very little on the wedding, making me think this is mostly female-driven with men basically going along to avoid a fight (let's just say now that I'm aware exceptions exist) JWB The parents are often a major factor. A lot of times the engaged couple is beseiged by family members who keep wanting to enlarge the guest list and take over the planning. If as is customary, the parents are contributing part are all of the money, this gives them a lot of power to influence things.

I've already instructed my children to elope!

We had a small wedding 22 years ago with just a few family members and
friends and although my parents insisted on paying for the catering and the
hire of the lovely old house where we were married my husband and I paid for
everything else between us. Even my dress was remodeled from the lace from
my mother's wedding dress. If I was getting married today I'd want even
fewer guests and the accent would be on charming simplicity.

Tai

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 04:22:18 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> I made *specific comments*, ones that facts back up. YOUR *ignorance*> of them doesn't make them any less *real*... Very amusing. Where "fact" here means "Andre's opinion." Thanks for showing that when you *can't refute an argument*, you... LIE. The *facts* I mentioned came direct from PBS' NewsHour. If you have an issue with them, take it up with them, *and* the other sources cited in this thread that *supported* those facts.You may have mentioned things from a news source. They didn't supportany coherent argument. But you don't seem to be making a coherentargument, so that's OK.

Especially when it has been pointed out by Mark Borgerson in
Message-ID: <MPG.1a36f7dad71cfce1989c62@Netnews.Comcast.net>that
Andre's "facts" from yet another TV show aren't supported

http://honeymoons.about.com/library/weekly/aa080700.htm
there are the following stats:
* Every year an average of 2.4 million weddings are performed in the
U.S.

* $22,000 is the average amount spent on a traditional American
wedding.

* A total of $72 billion is spent on weddings annually in the U.S.

* $19 billion is spent buying presents at wedding gift registries.
This doesn't jive with the number Andre is quoting. But then when did
Andre let "facts" get in the way of his rants. Does it keep you unemployed? Unmarried? Friendless? What is it exactly? And has it occurred to you to look for reasons which are within your control rather than externalizing your rage? Have you considered that men of good character ( This clearly leaves you out... ) care *about other people*, too ? The political is NOT all personal. Learn that. Make it your first such thing.In your case you _make_ it entirely personal by choosing to engage insarcasm and abuse rather than in reasoned discussion.You _really_ don't need to give me lessons on what to learn first.That is even more laughable.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> I made *specific comments*, ones that facts back up. YOUR *ignorance*> of them doesn't make them any less *real*... Very amusing. Where "fact" here means "Andre's opinion." Thanks for showing that when you *can't refute an argument*, you... LIE. The *facts* I mentioned came direct from PBS' NewsHour. If you have an issue with them, take it up with them, *and* the other sources cited in this thread that *supported* those facts. You may have mentioned things

My OP cited the source, and gave specific numbers, such as an
average spending per wedding of $22,000 USD.

If your memory is *so poor* as to be that deficient, again, thats
not my problem...
from a news source. They didn't support any coherent argument.

LOL ! Thats why you *snipped it out*, eh ?

<laughs>
But you don't seem to be making a coherent argument, so that's OK.

<yawn> Projection...
Does it keep you unemployed? Unmarried? Friendless? What is it exactly? And has it occurred to you to look for reasons which are within your control rather than externalizing your rage? Have you considered that men of good character ( This clearly leaves you out... ) care *about other people*, too ? The political is NOT all personal. Learn that. Make it your first such thing. In your case you _make_ it entirely personal by choosing to engage in sarcasm and abuse rather than in reasoned discussion.

LOL ! LIARS are due NO slack. Deal with it.
You _really_ don't need to give me lessons on what to learn first.

Perhaps. Its clear that you're *incapable* of using them.
That is even more laughable.

Free Clue: *Failing* to refute an argument by handwaving is a poor
tactic.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Tai" (taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes: In article <bqldlb$2475fg$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de>, Chrys wrote:> I have a problem with the fact that you're ignoring the ability of> men to make their own choices. No man ever has to have a fancy> wedding if he doesn't want to. If he's chosen his potential wife> wisely, then it won't be an issue. If he's chosen someone> frivolous who thinks it's a good idea I am an example of such a man. I did NOT want to have a big wedding. Indeed. My readings strongly suggest that most men's idea of a sufficient wedding would top out at about $400... I did go along with my wife's desire to have one, because it was less important to me not to have the wedding, than it was to her to have the wedding. Sure. I also felt that if it made her more committed to the marriage, then it is an additional plus towards having a wedding. If it was entirely up to me, I would just do it in a courthouse. The point being, that letting women have big weddings, tends, if anything, to make them want *more of them*... To suggest that we both "played an equal role in deciding on our marriage" is disingenious. As it usually is... For once, I find myself agreeing with Andre that weddings are generally a female thing. There you go, folks. I'm *right*. Psssssst Andre, "the plural of anecdote is not data".

You MS-understand that saying.

It means " anecdote in the ABSENCE of data ".

AS the *data* was already posted, your claim, fails.
(I could have sworn you knew that....)

Indeed, I do. Its clear that you... didn't.

Learn better.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Tai" (taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com) writes: JWB wrote: "Ignoramus11065" <ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid> wrote in message news:bql6rr$pk1$2@pita.alt.net... We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. I also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of wedding expenses. Just curious - why did you spend the $ then? Did you wife *have* to have the wedding? If so, why? Parents expected it? I hear a lot of men say that if they had their way, they'd spend very little on the wedding, making me think this is mostly female-driven with men basically going along to avoid a fight (let's just say now that I'm aware exceptions exist) I get the impression that quite a bit of money can be spent on the all-singing, all-dancing bachelor party nowadays...

Cites ? Anyhting close to an *average* of $22,000 ?

Thought not.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Tai" (taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com) writes: Chrys wrote: "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:Cbpzb.183962$Gq.22516680@twister.nyc.rr.com.. . "Ignoramus11065" <ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid> wrote in message news:bql6rr$pk1$2@pita.alt.net...> We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it> was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. I> also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as> part of wedding expenses. Just curious - why did you spend the $ then? Did you wife *have* to have the wedding? If so, why? Parents expected it? I hear a lot of men say that if they had their way, they'd spend very little on the wedding, making me think this is mostly female-driven with men basically going along to avoid a fight (let's just say now that I'm aware exceptions exist) JWB The parents are often a major factor. A lot of times the engaged couple is beseiged by family members who keep wanting to enlarge the guest list and take over the planning. If as is customary, the parents are contributing part are all of the money, this gives them a lot of power to influence things. I've already instructed my children to elope! We had a small wedding 22 years ago with just a few family members and friends and although my parents insisted on paying for the catering and the hire of the lovely old house where we were married my husband and I paid for everything else between us. Even my dress was remodeled from the lace from my mother's wedding dress. If I was getting married today I'd want even fewer guests and the accent would be on charming simplicity.

Pst... " The plural of anecdote is not data ".

I guess it doesn't apply to *you*, even though *you said it*...

Got it.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Andre Lieven wrote: "Tai" (taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes:> In article <bqldlb$2475fg$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de>, Chrys> wrote:>> I have a problem with the fact that you're ignoring the ability of>> men to make their own choices. No man ever has to have a fancy>> wedding if he doesn't want to. If he's chosen his potential wife>> wisely, then it won't be an issue. If he's chosen someone>> frivolous who thinks it's a good idea>> I am an example of such a man. I did NOT want to have a big> wedding. Indeed. My readings strongly suggest that most men's idea of a sufficient wedding would top out at about $400...> I did go along with my wife's desire to have one, because it was> less important to me not to have the wedding, than it was to her> to have the wedding. Sure.> I also felt that if it made her more committed to the marriage,> then it is an additional plus towards having a wedding. If it was> entirely up to me, I would just do it in a courthouse. The point being, that letting women have big weddings, tends, if anything, to make them want *more of them*...> To suggest that we both "played an equal role in deciding on our> marriage" is disingenious. As it usually is...> For once, I find myself agreeing with Andre that weddings are> generally a female thing. There you go, folks. I'm *right*. Psssssst Andre, "the plural of anecdote is not data". You MS-understand that saying.

Not at all.
It means " anecdote in the ABSENCE of data ".

No, it means that what is true for a single datum does not extropolate to
being true for all data.
AS the *data* was already posted, your claim, fails.

Except that your data failed to prove your contention. As Mr Borgerson
pointed out to you but you have not addressed.


Tai
( I guess that misc.kids thread must have died out...)

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 04:22:18 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> I made *specific comments*, ones that facts back up. YOUR *ignorance*> of them doesn't make them any less *real*... Very amusing. Where "fact" here means "Andre's opinion." Thanks for showing that when you *can't refute an argument*, you... LIE. The *facts* I mentioned came direct from PBS' NewsHour. If you have an issue with them, take it up with them, *and* the other sources cited in this thread that *supported* those facts.You may have mentioned things from a news source. They didn't supportany coherent argument. But you don't seem to be making a coherentargument, so that's OK.

Here are the real numbers

Based on a study conducted in 2002 by The International Institute of
Weddings together with the online wedding guide SuperWeddings.com, the
average cost of a wedding in the US in 2002 was $21, 300. The study
was based on 6,301 respondants (brides-to-be). Respondants were asked
to round their figures to the nearest hundred dollars. These are the
most current figures we have, and indicates a rise over the widely
reported average $19,000 - $20,000 which was spent on weddings the
year prior.


Does it keep you unemployed? Unmarried? Friendless? What is it exactly? And has it occurred to you to look for reasons which are within your control rather than externalizing your rage? Have you considered that men of good character ( This clearly leaves you out... ) care *about other people*, too ? The political is NOT all personal. Learn that. Make it your first such thing.In your case you _make_ it entirely personal by choosing to engage insarcasm and abuse rather than in reasoned discussion.You _really_ don't need to give me lessons on what to learn first.That is even more laughable.

Andre Lieven wrote: "Tai" (taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com) writes: JWB wrote: "Ignoramus11065" <ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid> wrote in message news:bql6rr$pk1$2@pita.alt.net...> We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it> was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. I> also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as> part of wedding expenses. Just curious - why did you spend the $ then? Did you wife *have* to have the wedding? If so, why? Parents expected it? I hear a lot of men say that if they had their way, they'd spend very little on the wedding, making me think this is mostly female-driven with men basically going along to avoid a fight (let's just say now that I'm aware exceptions exist) I get the impression that quite a bit of money can be spent on the all-singing, all-dancing bachelor party nowadays... Cites ? Anyhting close to an *average* of $22,000 ?

I sincerely hope not.

Can you read for understanding at all, Andre? Some men like to spend money
on the brouhaha associated with getting married, that's all.

All power to them if that's what they and their fiancees want to do as long
as they aren't robbing banks and aren't asking me to finance them.
Thought not.

Yes, I've noticed you don't seem to be able to think very well.

Ttai

Andre Lieven wrote: "Tai" (taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com) writes: Chrys wrote: "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:Cbpzb.183962$Gq.22516680@twister.nyc.rr.com.. .> "Ignoramus11065" <ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid> wrote in> message news:bql6rr$pk1$2@pita.alt.net...>> We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it>> was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. I>> also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as>> part of wedding expenses.>> Just curious - why did you spend the $ then? Did you wife *have* to> have the wedding? If so, why? Parents expected it?>> I hear a lot of men say that if they had their way, they'd spend> very little on the wedding, making me think this is mostly> female-driven with men basically going along to avoid a fight> (let's just say now that I'm aware exceptions exist)>> JWB The parents are often a major factor. A lot of times the engaged couple is beseiged by family members who keep wanting to enlarge the guest list and take over the planning. If as is customary, the parents are contributing part are all of the money, this gives them a lot of power to influence things. I've already instructed my children to elope! We had a small wedding 22 years ago with just a few family members and friends and although my parents insisted on paying for the catering and the hire of the lovely old house where we were married my husband and I paid for everything else between us. Even my dress was remodeled from the lace from my mother's wedding dress. If I was getting married today I'd want even fewer guests and the accent would be on charming simplicity. Pst... " The plural of anecdote is not data ".

It wasn't trying to be anything other than an anecdote, Andre, and an
indication of my current feelings about weddings. Do try to pay attention in
the drift of the conversation in future, it'll help you make this common
mistake of yours less often.

Tai


I guess it doesn't apply to *you*, even though *you said it*... Got it. Andre

"Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bqmcu9$222q8s$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... JWB wrote: "Ignoramus11065" <ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid> wrote in message news:bql6rr$pk1$2@pita.alt.net... We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. I also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of wedding expenses. Just curious - why did you spend the $ then? Did you wife *have* to have the wedding? If so, why? Parents expected it? I hear a lot of men say that if they had their way, they'd spend very little on the wedding, making me think this is mostly female-driven with men basically going along to avoid a fight (let's just say now that I'm aware exceptions exist) I get the impression that quite a bit of money can be spent on the all-singing, all-dancing bachelor party nowadays...

I guess. But that's usually done by the best man and such. I dunno - i
really didn't have much of one (nobody knew we were getting married)

"Tai" (tainuiti@yahoo.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: "Tai" (taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote:> Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes:>> In article <bqldlb$2475fg$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de>, Chrys>> wrote:>>> I have a problem with the fact that you're ignoring the ability of>>> men to make their own choices. No man ever has to have a fancy>>> wedding if he doesn't want to. If he's chosen his potential wife>>> wisely, then it won't be an issue. If he's chosen someone>>> frivolous who thinks it's a good idea>>>> I am an example of such a man. I did NOT want to have a big>> wedding.>> Indeed. My readings strongly suggest that most men's idea of a> sufficient wedding would top out at about $400...>>> I did go along with my wife's desire to have one, because it was>> less important to me not to have the wedding, than it was to her>> to have the wedding.>> Sure.>>> I also felt that if it made her more committed to the marriage,>> then it is an additional plus towards having a wedding. If it was>> entirely up to me, I would just do it in a courthouse.>> The point being, that letting women have big weddings, tends, if> anything, to make them want *more of them*...>>> To suggest that we both "played an equal role in deciding on our>> marriage" is disingenious.>> As it usually is...>>> For once, I find myself agreeing with Andre that weddings are>> generally a female thing.>> There you go, folks. I'm *right*. Psssssst Andre, "the plural of anecdote is not data". You MS-understand that saying. Not at all.

Wrong.
It means " anecdote in the ABSENCE of data ". No, it means that what is true for a single datum does not extropolate to being true for all data.

As there was NOT " a *single* datum " in the OP, your claim is fallacious,
and *irrelevent*.
AS the *data* was already posted, your claim, fails. Except that your data failed to prove your contention.

Wrong. A wedding industrial complex of $120 BILLION a year, fed
by *women's media*, so your statement is again, wrong.
As Mr Borgerson pointed out to you but you have not addressed.

I kill filed Borgerson a long time ago, when he admitted to being nothing
more than a troll.

If you require that learning experience, thats your problem.
Tai ( I guess that misc.kids thread must have died out...)

Due to the concessions of the other side, being yours...

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Tai" (tainuiti@yahoo.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: "Tai" (taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com) writes: JWB wrote:> "Ignoramus11065" <ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid> wrote in> message news:bql6rr$pk1$2@pita.alt.net...>> We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it>> was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. I>> also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as>> part of wedding expenses.>> Just curious - why did you spend the $ then? Did you wife *have* to> have the wedding? If so, why? Parents expected it?>> I hear a lot of men say that if they had their way, they'd spend> very little on the wedding, making me think this is mostly> female-driven with men basically going along to avoid a fight> (let's just say now that I'm aware exceptions exist) I get the impression that quite a bit of money can be spent on the all-singing, all-dancing bachelor party nowadays... Cites ? Anything close to an *average* of $22,000 ? I sincerely hope not.

Yeah, gods forbid that men get *equal rights*, or any such...
Can you read for understanding at all, Andre?

Yep, I can ever see *irrelevence* for what it is...
Some men like to spend money on the brouhaha associated with getting married, that's all.

So, wheres the million selling periodical titled " Bachelor Parties
Monthly ", and all the urban bachelor sales events, then ?

Or, were you just trying an irrelevent smokescreen, to escape the
implications of a female bidden societally accepted event ?

Uh huh...
All power to them if that's what they and their fiancees want to do as long as they aren't robbing banks and aren't asking me to finance them.

IOW, you " don't careand don't know ". Got it.

Thats makes your participation on this thread also irrelevent.
Thought not. Yes, I've noticed you don't seem to be able to think very well.

LOL ! Did well enough to leave you with nothing more than *empty ad
homs*... While FAILING, once again, to refute my argument...

" Consider the source... "

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Tai" (tainuiti@yahoo.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: "Tai" (taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com) writes: Chrys wrote:> "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message> news:Cbpzb.183962$Gq.22516680@twister.nyc.rr.com.. .>> "Ignoramus11065" <ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid> wrote in>> message news:bql6rr$pk1$2@pita.alt.net...>>> We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it>>> was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. I>>> also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as>>> part of wedding expenses.>>>> Just curious - why did you spend the $ then? Did you wife *have* to>> have the wedding? If so, why? Parents expected it?>>>> I hear a lot of men say that if they had their way, they'd spend>> very little on the wedding, making me think this is mostly>> female-driven with men basically going along to avoid a fight>> (let's just say now that I'm aware exceptions exist)>>>> JWB>> The parents are often a major factor. A lot of times the engaged> couple is beseiged by family members who keep wanting to enlarge the> guest list and take over the planning. If as is customary, the> parents are contributing part are all of the money, this gives them> a lot of power to influence things. I've already instructed my children to elope! We had a small wedding 22 years ago with just a few family members and friends and although my parents insisted on paying for the catering and the hire of the lovely old house where we were married my husband and I paid for everything else between us. Even my dress was remodeled from the lace from my mother's wedding dress. If I was getting married today I'd want even fewer guests and the accent would be on charming simplicity. Pst... " The plural of anecdote is not data ". It wasn't trying to be anything other than an anecdote, Andre, and an indication of my current feelings about weddings.

So, when *you do that*, its OK, but if *I* do it, its bad ?

Got it.
Do try to pay attention in the drift of the conversation in future,

Translation: " Its up to you, Andre, to figure out when *I* change
the rules... "

Pass.
it'll help you make this common mistake of yours less often.

Projection...
I guess it doesn't apply to *you*, even though *you said it*...

Indeed.
Got it.

Still.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Pst... " The plural of anecdote is not data ".

Actually, I always wonder why you say that. The plural of anecdote _is_
data. It may not be very useful data, and like most data, it doesn't
prove anything all by itself. It's still data though.

What _do_ you think "data" means, by the way?

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: > >> I made *specific comments*, ones that facts back up. YOUR *ignorance* >> of them doesn't make them any less *real*... > > Very amusing. Where "fact" here means "Andre's opinion." Thanks for showing that when you *can't refute an argument*, you... LIE. The *facts* I mentioned came direct from PBS' NewsHour. If you have an issue with them, take it up with them, *and* the other sources cited in this thread that *supported* those facts. You may have mentioned things My OP cited the source, and gave specific numbers, such as an average spending per wedding of $22,000 USD. If your memory is *so poor* as to be that deficient, again, thats not my problem...

Sure, there is no doubt people spend lots on weddings.
I don't dispute that. And so what?

It is the _conclusions_ you draw from that which are suspect, and not
supported.

Now your typical response rather than stately clearly what your
conclusions are, and how you reach them is to state various things as
"proven fact" and then give citations that fail to prove those facts.

If that is all you plan to do in response to this, you're welcome to
skip it. But if you actually have something to _say_, I'm interested.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Pst... " The plural of anecdote is not data ". Actually, I always wonder why you say that.

To correct that, that would be: " I wonder why you *don't say that*,
but rather, why *another person* MS-stated that you do. "

The *correct* quote is:

" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT '*citation*'. "

" Citation ", of course, relating to *statistically meaningful*
data.
The plural of anecdote _is_ data.

Indeed. Just *not statistically useful* data, IOW, meaningless
*beyond those it's directly about*, which was my point.
It may not be very useful data, and like most data, it doesn't prove anything all by itself. It's still data though.

<yawn>
What _do_ you think "data" means, by the way?

Why not actually *ask the person who said what you're on about* ?

Whihc *wasn't me*...

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Rauni <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> writes:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 04:22:18 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: > >> I made *specific comments*, ones that facts back up. YOUR *ignorance* >> of them doesn't make them any less *real*... > > Very amusing. Where "fact" here means "Andre's opinion." Thanks for showing that when you *can't refute an argument*, you... LIE. The *facts* I mentioned came direct from PBS' NewsHour. If you have an issue with them, take it up with them, *and* the other sources cited in this thread that *supported* those facts.You may have mentioned things from a news source. They didn't supportany coherent argument. But you don't seem to be making a coherentargument, so that's OK. Here are the real numbers Based on a study conducted in 2002 by The International Institute of Weddings together with the online wedding guide SuperWeddings.com, the average cost of a wedding in the US in 2002 was $21, 300. The study was based on 6,301 respondants (brides-to-be). Respondants were asked to round their figures to the nearest hundred dollars. These are the most current figures we have, and indicates a rise over the widely reported average $19,000 - $20,000 which was spent on weddings the year prior.

Yeah, I got that. But it is whatever incoherent conclusion he is
trying to draw from this (besides the obvious one that we spend a lot
on weddings in the US) that he fails to present an argument for.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> >> >> I made *specific comments*, ones that facts back up. YOUR *ignorance*> >> of them doesn't make them any less *real*...> >> > Very amusing. Where "fact" here means "Andre's opinion.">> Thanks for showing that when you *can't refute an argument*, you...>> LIE.>> The *facts* I mentioned came direct from PBS' NewsHour. If you have an> issue with them, take it up with them, *and* the other sources cited> in this thread that *supported* those facts. You may have mentioned things My OP cited the source, and gave specific numbers, such as an average spending per wedding of $22,000 USD. If your memory is *so poor* as to be that deficient, again, thats not my problem... Sure, there is no doubt people spend lots on weddings.

And, which people overwhelmingly *tend to be the ones that demand
that said money be spent*... ?
I don't dispute that. And so what?

So, nothing, if you know nothing...

Again, not my problem.
It is the _conclusions_ you draw from that which are suspect, and not supported.

LOL ! Which, of course, is why you snipped out the data I reported...

Riiigghhht.... ( Dr. Evil voice ).
Now your typical response rather than stately clearly what your conclusions are, and how you reach them is to state various things as "proven fact" and then give citations that fail to prove those facts.

<yawn>
If that is all you plan to do in response to this, you're welcome to skip it. But if you actually have something to _say_, I'm interested.

Another lie...

As I already said it. The data supports the fact that the wedding
industrial complex, a $120 BILLION industry, is overwhelmingly
driven through *women's wants and demands*.

That several women *say* they don't wnat that, is *meaningless*
when considering a *mass population* of over a hundred million...

Feel free to post your claim of " Groom's Magazine's " sales
figures...

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

In article <bqmcme$23aa6j$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de>, Tai wrote: Ignoramus11065 wrote: In article <bqldlb$2475fg$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de>, Chrys wrote: I have a problem with the fact that you're ignoring the ability of men to make their own choices. No man ever has to have a fancy wedding if he doesn't want to. If he's chosen his potential wife wisely, then it won't be an issue. If he's chosen someone frivolous who thinks it's a good idea I am an example of such a man. I did NOT want to have a big wedding. I did go along with my wife's desire to have one, because it was less important to me not to have the wedding, than it was to her to have the wedding. I bet you had a limit in there somewhere, though.

That is correct.


All in all, in retrospect, I would be happier if we skipped the
wedding, however, it was never a very big deal for me.

i

In article <bqmcu9$222q8s$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de>, Tai wrote: JWB wrote: "Ignoramus11065" <ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid> wrote in message news:bql6rr$pk1$2@pita.alt.net... We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. I also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of wedding expenses. Just curious - why did you spend the $ then? Did you wife *have* to have the wedding? If so, why? Parents expected it? I hear a lot of men say that if they had their way, they'd spend very little on the wedding, making me think this is mostly female-driven with men basically going along to avoid a fight (let's just say now that I'm aware exceptions exist) I get the impression that quite a bit of money can be spent on the all-singing, all-dancing bachelor party nowadays...

My bachelor party's expenses were the cost of a big bottle of vodka,
and a few snacks, cakes etc.

i

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:14:36 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Pst... " The plural of anecdote is not data ".Actually, I always wonder why you say that. The plural of anecdote _is_data. It may not be very useful data, and like most data, it doesn'tprove anything all by itself. It's still data though.What _do_ you think "data" means, by the way?

Considering how much TV Andre watches he prolly thinks Data is an
android.

On 4 Dec 2003 07:23:40 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
As I already said it. The data supports the fact that the weddingindustrial complex, a $120 BILLION industry, is overwhelminglydriven through *women's wants and demands*.

ROTFLOL Andre's numbers are full of ****. (what a surprise
considering he got them from a TV show)

http://www.topweddinglinks.com/wedding_statistics.html
General Order of Magnitude for an Average Traditional Wedding in the
U.S. is $20,000 - $25.000

The Wedding Industry is a 50 billion dollar a year industry

Average age for first-time brides is 25 years. For grooms, it's 27.

180 guests are invited to an average wedding

June is the most popular month for weddings, followed by August,
September, October and May

One third of engaged couples retain a Wedding Consultant

The average household income of a newly married couple is $60,000/year

http://honeymoons.about.com/library/weekly/aa080700.htm

Every year an average of 2.4 million weddings are performed in the
U.S.
Today's median age for first-time brides is 24.5 years. For grooms,
it's 26.5 years.

$22,000 is the average amount spent on a traditional American wedding.
A total of $72 billion is spent on weddings annually in the U.S.

$19 billion is spent buying presents at wedding gift registries.

The average amount spent on a bridal gown is $800.

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 03:27:06 GMT, Mark Borgerson <m-a-r-k@oes.to>
wrote:
In article <bqjab3$cpd$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says... According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry is now so large, that were it a Fortune 500 company, it would be number six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year.The stats I found on this are bit contradictory:at http://honeymoons.about.com/library/weekly/aa080700.htmthere are the following stats:* Every year an average of 2.4 million weddings are performed in theU.S.* $22,000 is the average amount spent on a traditional American wedding.* A total of $72 billion is spent on weddings annually in the U.S.* $19 billion is spent buying presents at wedding gift registries.I don't know how PBS got to almost double that figure---but I wouldbet that they included the gifts and honemoons. Those are the partsof a wedding that I think are actually worthwhile and often benefitthe husband as much as the wife. The average wedding now costs out at $22,000 US, which is about an average half year's pay.$22,000 times 2.4 million is only about $53 billion. What are theymissing?It might also be interesting to see the median spending instead ofthe average (mean). I'll bet Jennifer and Brad ran up the averagesquite significantly!To keep it in perspective---the spending per wedding is about threetimes as high in Japan. (about $60K/wedding).http://www.afwpi.com/wedstats.htmlI wonder if the increasing spending in the US is related to thedecreasing marriage rate and the increasing age of the brideand groom at first marriage. Older brides would (and theirparents) might have significantly more money to spend onweddings.I think my own wedding (some 15 years ago) cost less than1/4 the current average. Of course we rented tuxes, ratherthan buying them, and we had the wedding in a church andthe reception in a church social hall. Our honeymoon inHawaii was probably half the total cost. Only 30% of marrying couples pay for the whole thing themselves. 50% have a part of it paid for by their families ( IOW, parents ), and one would then conclude that the remaining 20% have it all paid for by the parents. Nina Lawrence, of Conde Nast's Bridal Group, said that the higher costs are an example of the modern woman being " willing to spend what she earns on _herself_. "Hey---better than having the groom spend the money! That certainly shows why so many marriages fail. Because, a marriage is *unlike* a wedding; Its NOT about just her. We'll let her claim of " what she earns ", belied by the 70% number who *don't*, pass for now... A Bridal Seminar that was shown had one speaker tell the grrls " This is all about _you_. " More proof of that point...Anecdotes are not proof. This was the opinion of the speaker. It was also pointed out that the average lengths of engagements is now up to 16 months, in prime part due to the *increased* logistical demands of weddings, and the time needed to plan them out.I'll bet the engagements start several years later than theydid a few decades ago also. Oh, and wedding dresses are up 50% in price in the last decade...Hmmm, I wonder how that compares with the rise in prices forBeer, hockey tickets, and snowmobiles? Free Clue: Marriage *isn't* about partying. Thats what single life is for.Yup, that's why we have bachelor parties! ;-)Mark Borgerson

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
And, which people overwhelmingly *tend to be the ones that demand that said money be spent*... ?

No, the conclusion you've tried to draw is that somehow this is
evidence of oppression of men. That is the nonsensical bit.

As far as "who demands that the money be spent" that isn't clear
either. It is often the parents. But it is certainly believable that
the bride is more interested in the wedding than the groom. That is
the stereotype.

It's when you go beyond this that you work your way into wacko territory.

By the way, (and this is an unimportant point as far as your
sociological conclusions go) as far as your data goes, is it real? I
mean I know you say it on TV and all, but that doesn't make it
accurate. Did they gather that data through some sensible sampling
process? Or is it gleaned from subscribers to "Bride" magazine.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: And, which people overwhelmingly *tend to be the ones that demand that said money be spent*... ? No, the conclusion you've tried to draw is that somehow this is evidence of oppression of men. That is the nonsensical bit.

LOL ! I point out that, while Feminists howl and screech about how
anti-woman society is supposed to be, in actual fact, society is
run almost entirely based on " what women want "...

And, this whole marriage industrial complex is merely one proof of
that point.

Now, if the issue is to be the oppression of men, then read the
books that *I've already listed*, and they make the case very well
that that is *also* true.

I can tell you a lot of areas where men have fewer rights than
women. Can you name even two such, where women have lesser rights
than men ?

I thought not.
As far as "who demands that the money be spent" that isn't clear either. It is often the parents.

LOL ! So, all those *bridal seminars* aren't attended by... brides ?

You *are* funny !
But it is certainly believable that the bride is more interested in the wedding than the groom. That is the stereotype.

You MS-spelled " truth ".
It's when you go beyond this that you work your way into wacko territory.

<yawn> *Empty claims don't* make your case...
By the way, (and this is an unimportant point as far as your sociological conclusions go) as far as your data goes, is it real?

Yep.
I mean I know you say it on TV and all, but that doesn't make it accurate. Did they gather that data through some sensible sampling process? Or is it gleaned from subscribers to "Bride" magazine.

If it concerns you, you go check. It matches other data I've already
seen.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

On 4 Dec 2003 16:56:30 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:

On 4 Dec 2003 16:56:30 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: And, which people overwhelmingly *tend to be the ones that demand that said money be spent*... ? No, the conclusion you've tried to draw is that somehow this is evidence of oppression of men. That is the nonsensical bit.LOL ! I point out that, while Feminists howl and screech about howanti-woman society is supposed to be, in actual fact, society isrun almost entirely based on " what women want "...

Oh I see men are being *oppressed* by the EVIL marriage industrial
complex!

You know, there is medication for such paranoia.And, this whole marriage industrial complex is merely one proof ofthat point.

On and how about all the *men* who earn a *living* from the "marriage
industrial complex"! I dare say there are a lot more *men* earning a
living off weddings than women!Now, if the issue is to be the oppression of men, then read thebooks that *I've already listed*, and they make the case very wellthat that is *also* true.I can tell you a lot of areas where men have fewer rights thanwomen. Can you name even two such, where women have lesser rightsthan men ?I thought not.

Damn toak about being out there! What the F**** does the cost of a
wedding have to do with rights? Talk about a bizarre leap of illogic! As far as "who demands that the money be spent" that isn't clear either. It is often the parents.LOL ! So, all those *bridal seminars* aren't attended by... brides ?

Again, Andre displays his ignorance. There are an awful lot of bride's
mothers going to these *bridal seminars* and a few grooms.You *are* funny !
And Andre should be committed! But it is certainly believable that the bride is more interested in the wedding than the groom. That is the stereotype.You MS-spelled " truth ".
Andre's paranoid delusions has nothing to do with the truth. It's when you go beyond this that you work your way into wacko territory.<yawn> *Empty claims don't* make your case...

And you don't think ranting about how the EVIL "marriage industrial
complex" oppresses men doesn't sound just a bit nutbar? By the way, (and this is an unimportant point as far as your sociological conclusions go) as far as your data goes, is it real?Yep.

Nope the numbers are wrong. Do a web search. (not that Andre will, he
doesn't like being confronted with the facts!) I mean I know you say it on TV and all, but that doesn't make it accurate. Did they gather that data through some sensible sampling process? Or is it gleaned from subscribers to "Bride" magazine.If it concerns you, you go check. It matches other data I've alreadyseen.

No it doesn't.

Andre stated that the wedding industry taking in some $120 *billion* a
year. His numbers are way over inflated. No surprise that Andre has
chosen to ignore the several attempts to correct his inflated
statistics. He doesn't like being confused by reality.

http://www.topweddinglinks.com/wedding_statistics.html
The Wedding Industry is a 50 billion dollar a year industry


http://honeymoons.about.com/library/weekly/aa080700.htm
A total of $72 billion is spent on weddings annually in the U.S.

Hardly the number he quoted. I suppose Andre would like all the *men*
whose livelihood depends on the EVIL "marriage industrial complex" to
lose their jobs.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:19:50 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Rauni <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> writes: On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 04:22:18 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> >> >> I made *specific comments*, ones that facts back up. YOUR *ignorance*> >> of them doesn't make them any less *real*...> >> > Very amusing. Where "fact" here means "Andre's opinion.">> Thanks for showing that when you *can't refute an argument*, you...>> LIE.>> The *facts* I mentioned came direct from PBS' NewsHour. If you have an> issue with them, take it up with them, *and* the other sources cited in> this thread that *supported* those facts.You may have mentioned things from a news source. They didn't supportany coherent argument. But you don't seem to be making a coherentargument, so that's OK. Here are the real numbers Based on a study conducted in 2002 by The International Institute of Weddings together with the online wedding guide SuperWeddings.com, the average cost of a wedding in the US in 2002 was $21, 300. The study was based on 6,301 respondants (brides-to-be). Respondants were asked to round their figures to the nearest hundred dollars. These are the most current figures we have, and indicates a rise over the widely reported average $19,000 - $20,000 which was spent on weddings the year prior.Yeah, I got that. But it is whatever incoherent conclusion he istrying to draw from this (besides the obvious one that we spend a loton weddings in the US) that he fails to present an argument for.

Well I am still trying to figure out how the *evil* marriage
industrial complex oppresses men. After all it is mostly men who earn
their lively hood from the wedding industry.

And damn how hard is it to say no?


Life is not the way it's supposed to be. It's the way it is. The way you
cope with it is what makes the difference.

Virginia Satir

On 4 Dec 2003 07:19:02 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Pst... " The plural of anecdote is not data ". Actually, I always wonder why you say that.To correct that, that would be: " I wonder why you *don't say that*,but rather, why *another person* MS-stated that you do. "The *correct* quote is:" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT '*citation*'. "

No what Andre posted:
On 4 Dec 2003 04:54:49 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote in Message-ID: <bqmgkp$23vr00$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de>

Pst... " The plural of anecdote is not data ".

Andre is experiencing early onset alzheimers.
" Citation ", of course, relating to *statistically meaningful*data. The plural of anecdote _is_ data.Indeed. Just *not statistically useful* data, IOW, meaningless*beyond those it's directly about*, which was my point. It may not be very useful data, and like most data, it doesn't prove anything all by itself. It's still data though.<yawn> What _do_ you think "data" means, by the way?Why not actually *ask the person who said what you're on about* ?Whihc *wasn't me*...Andre



Life is not the way it's supposed to be. It's the way it is. The way you
cope with it is what makes the difference.

Virginia Satir

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1Abzb.155610$ri.22474196@twister.nyc.rr.com.. . "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:bqjab3$cpd$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry is now so large, that were it a Fortune 500 company, it would be number six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year.

BFD. The American Sportfishing Association reports that Americans spend $46
billiion a year on fishing tackle, trips, etc. And that probably doesn't
include the 6-packs of Old Milwaukee. They spend an additional $20 billion
annually on hunting (which probably doesn't include the cost of the Ford
Explorer). Toss in about 60 bil for internet pornography and probably
another similar amount for professional sports tickets and merchandise (not
including the cost of superbowl parties and big-screen tvs) and its obvious
that the amount spent on the American male's beer-guzzling,
belly-scratching, titty-oogling activities vastly eclipse this pathetic
"wedding industry" sum.

Rauni wrote: On 4 Dec 2003 07:19:02 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> Pst... " The plural of anecdote is not data ". Actually, I always wonder why you say that. To correct that, that would be: " I wonder why you *don't say that*, but rather, why *another person* MS-stated that you do. " The *correct* quote is: " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT '*citation*'. " No what Andre posted: On 4 Dec 2003 04:54:49 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in Message-ID: <bqmgkp$23vr00$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de> Pst... " The plural of anecdote is not data ". Andre is experiencing early onset alzheimers.

I just wish the Lord would help me feel some compassion for the guy, instead of
disdain. But I haven't gotten there yet. Doggone it.

Rauni (LadyWolfnospam@newsguy.com) scribbled, between the Prozac doses:

Well, Rompin' Rauni is still slurping my posts. Its nice to see
that she can't get anough of men... <g>

" No means NO ! " Deal with it, toots.
On 4 Dec 2003 07:19:02 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> Pst... " The plural of anecdote is not data ". Actually, I always wonder why you say that.To correct that, that would be: " I wonder why you *don't say that*,but rather, why *another person* MS-stated that you do. "The *correct* quote is:" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT '*citation*'. " No what Andre posted: On 4 Dec 2003 04:54:49 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in Message-ID: <bqmgkp$23vr00$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de> Pst... " The plural of anecdote is not data ". Andre is experiencing early onset alzheimers.

<laughs> No, merely RR failing, once again, to gather *context*.

In *that one post*, I was *mirroring* what the other poster said
*to me*.

Look up " judo "...

When I use the phrase *on my own*, IOW, *all the rest of the
time*, I write it *exactly* as my correction reads.

Thanks for again showing us how foolish and addicted to me, you
are...

<laughs>
" Citation ", of course, relating to *statistically meaningful*data. The plural of anecdote _is_ data.Indeed. Just *not statistically useful* data, IOW, meaningless*beyond those it's directly about*, which was my point. It may not be very useful data, and like most data, it doesn't prove anything all by itself. It's still data though.<yawn> What _do_ you think "data" means, by the way?Why not actually *ask the person who said what you're on about* ?Which *wasn't me*...

And, had Knee Jerking RR *read this far*, the above comment from
me would also have explained *her error to her*...

So, now we know that RR can't read past about four sentences, before
she starts to drool uncontrollably...

Got it. I'll try to make it clearer to her, before her infirmity
kicks in...

<laughs>

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"DrLith" (drlith@hotmail.com) writes: "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:1Abzb.155610$ri.22474196@twister.nyc.rr.com.. . "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:bqjab3$cpd$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry is now so large, that were it a Fortune 500 company, it would be number six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year. BFD.

OK, you don't care. Yet, you cared enough to post these *irrelevancies*...
The American Sportfishing Association reports that Americans spend $46 billiion a year on fishing tackle, trips, etc. And that probably doesn't include the 6-packs of Old Milwaukee.

So ? Are millions of men *making* women go along on such trips, blowing
an average of $22,000 a trip ? No ? Then, you're trying to compare
apples to Buicks...
They spend an additional $20 billion annually on hunting (which probably doesn't include the cost of the Ford Explorer). Toss in about 60 bil for internet pornography and probably another similar amount for professional sports tickets and merchandise (not including the cost of superbowl parties and big-screen tvs) and its obvious that the amount spent on the American male's beer-guzzling, belly-scratching, titty-oogling activities vastly eclipse this pathetic "wedding industry" sum.

Ah, now its clear: " What women do/want=good, what men do/want=bad. "

Got it.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"DrLith" <drlith@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqnubs$o6p$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com... Andre Lieven noted for the record... According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry is now so large, that were it a Fortune 500 company, it would be number six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year. BFD. The American Sportfishing Association reports that Americans spend $46 billiion a year on fishing tackle, trips, etc.

Families go fishing, tho' in my family fishing is also
a mother-daughter thang -- I hate the so-called sport.

Nor is fishing some one-shot, "her big day" production
like a wedding. So, to make a proper equivalence,
one would have to find the per-day expenditure. Fishing
is year-round compared to weddings which are one day
long. So, let's divide $46B by 365 and compare that figure
to the $120B blown on one-day long female festivals of
self-indulgence. Ha ha ha.
["Dr." (clearly in this case that's an abbreviation for 'deranged'), Lith's implicit claims that only men spend money on pro sports, TV, and beer snipped for space.] [I]ts obvious that the amount spent on [...] beer-guzzling, belly-scratching, titty-oogling activities vastly eclipse this pathetic "wedding industry" sum.

So that's what the girls are doing when they go fishing!
Golly, I never knew. I'll have to reconsider my distaste
for that pasttime! ;-)

Btw, if women didn't like "titty-oogling" so much, they'd
not expose so much decollatage -- specially when they
go beer-guzzling. Also, women are the ones who spend
the most time with their butts planted in front of the telly
and their eyes glued to the tube. (Would "Home Shopping
Network" survive if the TV audience were all men?
Unlikely, IMO.)

Once again a man-bashing boob has been shown up
as an ignorant fool. But Lith shouldn't beat herself up
too badly. She's not a compleat failure, after all she's
done her bit to add to the heaping mountains of
evidence for my sig:

--
All excuses for feminism depend on the censorship
of reality to appear plausible to rubes, boobs,
and graduates of clown colleges.

"Mark Borgerson" <m-a-r-k@oes.to> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a37c7a0eef5aadb989c68@Netnews.Comcast.ne t... [...] I could just as well hypothesize that 1/2 of weddings now cost less $6000. If anyone can find stats that disprove that hypothesis, I'd be interested in seeing them. Low Cost weddings are certainly a concern of some couples. Amazon.com has a book entitled "Priceless Weddings for under $5000". Perhaps every groom-to-be ought to give a copy to his bride-to-be.

Lessee, if wedding binges below six grand were so
accessible that half of all weddings didn't exceed
that figure, Borgerson, then where is the market
for the book you mention? Looks like you've
undermined the strength of your hypothesis there,
Borgerson, by mentioning that book.

--
The bride wears white, symbolizing purity and joy.
The groom wears a funereal black.
Any questions?

Society wrote: "DrLith" <drlith@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bqnubs$o6p$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...Andre Lieven noted for the record...>According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry>is now so large, that were it a Fortune 500 company,>it would be number six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year.BFD. The American Sportfishing Association reports thatAmericans spend $46 billiion a year on fishing tackle,trips, etc. Families go fishing, tho' in my family fishing is also a mother-daughter thang -- I hate the so-called sport.

A man needs to be really careful fishing these days. If someone off's
your wife while your out fishing you could find yourslf hanged.

Nor is fishing some one-shot, "her big day" production like a wedding. So, to make a proper equivalence, one would have to find the per-day expenditure. Fishing is year-round compared to weddings which are one day long. So, let's divide $46B by 365 and compare that figure to the $120B blown on one-day long female festivals of self-indulgence. Ha ha ha.

There are quite a few women who fish these days.


["Dr." (clearly in this case that's an abbreviation for'deranged'), Lith's implicit claims that only men spendmoney on pro sports, TV, and beer snipped for space.][I]ts obvious that the amount spent on [...] beer-guzzling,belly-scratching, titty-oogling activities vastly eclipse this pathetic"wedding industry" sum. So that's what the girls are doing when they go fishing! Golly, I never knew. I'll have to reconsider my distaste for that pasttime! ;-) Btw, if women didn't like "titty-oogling" so much, they'd not expose so much decollatage -- specially when they go beer-guzzling. Also, women are the ones who spend the most time with their butts planted in front of the telly and their eyes glued to the tube. (Would "Home Shopping Network" survive if the TV audience were all men? Unlikely, IMO.) Once again a man-bashing boob has been shown up as an ignorant fool. But Lith shouldn't beat herself up too badly. She's not a compleat failure, after all she's done her bit to add to the heaping mountains of evidence for my sig:

In article <bqnovu$8jm$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg411
@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says... Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: And, which people overwhelmingly *tend to be the ones that demand that said money be spent*... ? No, the conclusion you've tried to draw is that somehow this is evidence of oppression of men. That is the nonsensical bit. LOL ! I point out that, while Feminists howl and screech about how anti-woman society is supposed to be, in actual fact, society is run almost entirely based on " what women want "... And, this whole marriage industrial complex is merely one proof of that point. Now, if the issue is to be the oppression of men, then read the books that *I've already listed*, and they make the case very well that that is *also* true. I can tell you a lot of areas where men have fewer rights than women. Can you name even two such, where women have lesser rights than men ?


RATS! I can think of only one at the moment: The right to appear
in public unclothed above the waist. ;-) I definitely think that
women SHOULD have equal rights in that area!
I thought not. As far as "who demands that the money be spent" that isn't clear either. It is often the parents. LOL ! So, all those *bridal seminars* aren't attended by... brides ? You *are* funny ! But it is certainly believable that the bride is more interested in the wedding than the groom. That is the stereotype. You MS-spelled " truth ". It's when you go beyond this that you work your way into wacko territory. <yawn> *Empty claims don't* make your case... By the way, (and this is an unimportant point as far as your sociological conclusions go) as far as your data goes, is it real? Yep. I mean I know you say it on TV and all, but that doesn't make it accurate. Did they gather that data through some sensible sampling process? Or is it gleaned from subscribers to "Bride" magazine. If it concerns you, you go check. It matches other data I've already seen.

Mark Borgerson

In article <vsvabalclfqud9@corp.supernews.com>,
Society@feminism.is.invalid says... "Mark Borgerson" <m-a-r-k@oes.to> wrote in message news:MPG.1a37c7a0eef5aadb989c68@Netnews.Comcast.ne t... [...] I could just as well hypothesize that 1/2 of weddings now cost less $6000. If anyone can find stats that disprove that hypothesis, I'd be interested in seeing them. Low Cost weddings are certainly a concern of some couples. Amazon.com has a book entitled "Priceless Weddings for under $5000". Perhaps every groom-to-be ought to give a copy to his bride-to-be. Lessee, if wedding binges below six grand were so accessible that half of all weddings didn't exceed that figure, Borgerson, then where is the market for the book you mention? Looks like you've undermined the strength of your hypothesis there, Borgerson, by mentioning that book.
LOL!

Are you saying that because there is a book about
cheap weddings, they must be uncommon? By that
argument, expensive 'Dream' weddings must be
nearly nonexistent because there are so darn many
books about them!

Any arguments about the distribution of wedding costs
are still awaiting some real data. Books and
publications only indicate interest in the various
expense levels---but really say nothing about the
actual cost of the wedding.

Mark Borgerson

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:28:29 GMT, Mark Borgerson <m-a-r-k@oes.to>
wrote:
In article <vsvabalclfqud9@corp.supernews.com>,Society@feminism.is.invalid says... "Mark Borgerson" <m-a-r-k@oes.to> wrote in message news:MPG.1a37c7a0eef5aadb989c68@Netnews.Comcast.ne t... [...] I could just as well hypothesize that 1/2 of weddings now cost less $6000. If anyone can find stats that disprove that hypothesis, I'd be interested in seeing them. Low Cost weddings are certainly a concern of some couples. Amazon.com has a book entitled "Priceless Weddings for under $5000". Perhaps every groom-to-be ought to give a copy to his bride-to-be. Lessee, if wedding binges below six grand were so accessible that half of all weddings didn't exceed that figure, Borgerson, then where is the market for the book you mention? Looks like you've undermined the strength of your hypothesis there, Borgerson, by mentioning that book.LOL!Are you saying that because there is a book aboutcheap weddings, they must be uncommon? By thatargument, expensive 'Dream' weddings must benearly nonexistent because there are so darn manybooks about them!Any arguments about the distribution of wedding costsare still awaiting some real data. Books andpublications only indicate interest in the variousexpense levels---but really say nothing about theactual cost of the wedding.Mark Borgerson

Here is another article that supports your hypothesis that less
expensive marriages are becoming more popular.


I Do’ Differently
For Cost and Convenience,
More Couples Choose to Elope

By Oliver Libaw

April 23 — Frazzled by time and money needed to plan a big wedding,
Christine and Michael Bradley turned to an increasingly attractive
option: they decided to elope.

"We kind of wanted a traditional wedding, but we also liked the idea
of eloping," Christine said Monday, just a few hours after tying the
knot at the Little Chapel of the Flowers in Las Vegas, Nev. The couple
flew in from Waco, Texas, with a few friends, and plan to stay just a
day or two before heading home.
"Elopement" may conjure images of teenage lovers sneaking out of
windows by moonlight, but experts say more and more couples are
embracing the once-covert form of nuptial, turning it into a more
public affair and boosting an industry along with them, albeit one
that's much less expensive than the full-blown modern American
wedding.

People are using the term to describe many different kinds of small
weddings — both spontaneous and pre-planned.

"Now it's not so much about whom you marry, as how you get married,"
says Lynn Beahan and Scott Shaw, in their book Let's Elope: The
Definitive Guide to Eloping, Destination Weddings, and Other Creative
Wedding Options. But they describe a whole class of "hybrid
elopements" — distinguished typically by a simple service and small
guest list.

Often they are "destination weddings," held anywhere from a resort
island to Las Vegas to the town just down the road.

While there are no firm statistics on different types of marriages in
America, experts such as Linda Waite, a University of Chicago
sociologist, say eloping is becoming an increasingly attractive option
for many.

"The significant trend [in marriages in America] is that people are
doing it less," she says. "A lot more people are living together and
living together longer and having families."

When those people do decide to marry, elopement can be easier and
cheaper, she says.

"By any indication — anecdotal or otherwise — people are pursuing more
alternative forms of weddings," says Let's Elope's Shaw.

Carolyn Gerin, co-author of the Anti-Bride Guide: Tying the Knot
Outside of the Box, agrees. "People are questioning things because
that's what you do when the money's tight."

Why Elope? Money, Time, Stress, and Shifting Attitudes

Elopement advocates point to a host of benefits from smaller, less
formal weddings.

First is the money involved in a traditional wedding.

The average cost of a wedding in America has grown steadily, and now
stands at almost $20,000, according to many estimates. As the cost
goes up, a sizeable minority of couples are looking to less expensive
alternatives.

The end of the 1990s economic boom has intensified the financial
pressures on couples.

"They're sort of thinking it's either $25,000 on a wedding or $25,000
on a down payment," says Pamela Paul, author of The Starter Marriage
and the Future of Matrimony.

Beyond the money, social changes are spurring couples to consider
more-clandestine weddings.

More families are more complicated today, some with multiple sets of
in-laws, step-siblings, and other extended family. A small elopement
wedding reduces or eliminates the wrangling over whom to invite, where
to seat them, and so on.

"If you come from a divorced family, it removes a whole level of
negotiations," says Waite, the University of Chicago sociologist.

Also, the average age of people getting married is creeping up. In
1958, the average first-time bride and groom were 20 and 23,
respectively. In 1998, they were 25 and 27.

Older couples are more likely to be independent-minded, and resist
having a big wedding just to please the parents or conform with
tradition, experts suggest. With the divorce rate at roughly 50
percent for couples younger than 45, there is a steady increase in
second marriages, which lend themselves to smaller ceremonies.

Experts also point to the ongoing relaxation of social mores about
marriage, and the decreasing stigma against having non-traditional
nuptials.

Elopement — The Package Deal

The wedding industry in recent years has begun creating and marketing
elopement packages, in response to the demand for nice, small,
relatively inexpensive ceremonies.

Las Vegas has seen a steady growth in the number of marriages. Last
year 123,143 tied the knot in the desert gambling mecca. The city's
wedding chapels noted a sharp slowdown after the Sept. 11 terror
attacks, but say that business these days is booming.

Some in the wedding industry there say the trend is toward more
traditional style weddings, and away from extremely kitschy or casual
events.

In California's Napa Valley, the Rev. Blaine Ellsworth helped start a
wedding planning service catering to couples who want small,
affordable weddings in the region's picturesque wine country.

"We started this a year ago," he says, of the company, Enchanting
Elopements.

The company offers "elopement packages," with a weekday wedding in a
Napa vineyard, along with a photographer, minister, and flowers, for
less than $2,000. He estimates the average cost for a large,
traditional, weekend wedding in Napa at $36,000.

"We get a lot of calls from people saying, 'We're looking for
something different from Tahoe or Vegas,'" he says.

He cites the economic slowdown, as well as a shift toward weddings
that combine traditional and non-traditional elements.

"They want that sense of frivolity along with that sense of
spirituality," he says.

Different Elopements for Different Folks

At the Wedding Chapel in West Des Moines, Iowa, about 40 percent of
the marriages are elopements of one form or other. The small,
traditional chapel accommodates people looking for more than a civil
ceremony by a justice of the peace.

Most decisions to elope are economically motivated, says the Rev.
James Love, who performs the chapel's wedding services.

Some 20 miles away in Dallas Center, Iowa, the Candle Lit Way Wedding
Chapel recently started offering elopement packages along with
traditional larger weddings.

"A lot of people had come looking for a small place to get married,"
says Mary Ellen Oberender, who owns the chapel with her husband Dan. A
basic elopement marriage with a minister there costs $233.75,
including a half-hour rental of the chapel.

"I think there are a lot of people who really don't have any money —
they really don't," she says. "They want to be married and they want
to do it in the eyes of God."

But many of her clients make a virtue of necessity, she says.

"I think elopements can be much more intimate and much more meaningful
to people."

At the Little Chapel of the Flowers in Las Vegas — which performs
7,200 weddings a year — only one quarter of the couples were there
spontaneously. The rest planned their weddings months ahead of time.

"Now we're getting people who booked their weddings a year plus in
advance," says Dave Foote, a director at the chapel. "It's really
planned out," he says, "It's not just 'Let's hop in the car and get
married.'"

In Columbia, N.C., The River House has been offering elopement getaway
packages for several years. Elopements make up about half the weddings
at the bed and breakfast, owner Karen Este says. As with other
elopement packages, Este says it's the combination of traditional
wedding elements with a low-stress, low-price tag that brings couples
to her.

"I want to make it as stress free as possible," she says. "I just tell
them, 'Oh come elope and then tell [your friends and family] to throw
you a big party when you get back.'"

Stephanie Rosenbaum, who co-wrote the Anti-Bride Guide, says she
expects interest in elopements and smaller, less-traditional weddings
to grow.

"A lot of people are saying, 'My partner and I have lived together for
six years, who are we kidding?'" she says.

"I think people are saying if we just elope we don't have to have any
of this stress."

Christine Bradley, the Las Vegas bride, said she wasn't sure what to
expect at her wedding ceremony. Both she and her new husband were
previously married, in large, traditional weddings. This time they
were looking for an economical service that would be fun and still
somewhat traditional. Bradley said she was pleasantly surprised with
the Las Vegas wedding experience.

"I was really expecting something like I'd seen on TV, like a
drive-through wedding," she admitted. "It really turned out
beautiful."






Life is not the way it's supposed to be. It's the way it is. The way you
cope with it is what makes the difference.

Virginia Satir

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
"DrLith" (drlith@hotmail.com) writes: "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:1Abzb.155610$ri.22474196@twister.nyc.rr.com.. . "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:bqjab3$cpd$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... > According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry is now so > large, that were it a Fortune 500 company, it would be number > six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year. BFD. OK, you don't care. Yet, you cared enough to post these *irrelevancies*... The American Sportfishing Association reports that Americans spend $46 billiion a year on fishing tackle, trips, etc. And that probably doesn't include the 6-packs of Old Milwaukee. So ? Are millions of men *making* women go along on such trips, blowing an average of $22,000 a trip ? No ? Then, you're trying to compare apples to Buicks... They spend an additional $20 billion annually on hunting (which probably doesn't include the cost of the Ford Explorer). Toss in about 60 bil for internet pornography and probably another similar amount for professional sports tickets and merchandise (not including the cost of superbowl parties and big-screen tvs) and its obvious that the amount spent on the American male's beer-guzzling, belly-scratching, titty-oogling activities vastly eclipse this pathetic "wedding industry" sum. Ah, now its clear: " What women do/want=good, what men do/want=bad. "

Actually _you_ are the only one applying "good"/"bad" labels.

_You_ are attempting (using inflated numbers - here is a quote for you
"false anecdotes aren't even data") to show that sociologically what
women want matters more than men. You've proposed no way of measuring
that, merely advancing the size of the wedding industry as evidence.
When others point out that industries which cater primarily to men
account for just as much money you respond with sarcasm.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:06:40 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: "DrLith" (drlith@hotmail.com) writes: "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:1Abzb.155610$ri.22474196@twister.nyc.rr.com.. .> "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message> news:bqjab3$cpd$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...> > According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry is now so> > large, that were it a Fortune 500 company, it would be number> > six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year. BFD. OK, you don't care. Yet, you cared enough to post these *irrelevancies*... The American Sportfishing Association reports that Americans spend $46 billiion a year on fishing tackle, trips, etc. And that probably doesn't include the 6-packs of Old Milwaukee. So ? Are millions of men *making* women go along on such trips, blowing an average of $22,000 a trip ? No ? Then, you're trying to compare apples to Buicks... They spend an additional $20 billion annually on hunting (which probably doesn't include the cost of the Ford Explorer). Toss in about 60 bil for internet pornography and probably another similar amount for professional sports tickets and merchandise (not including the cost of superbowl parties and big-screen tvs) and its obvious that the amount spent on the American male's beer-guzzling, belly-scratching, titty-oogling activities vastly eclipse this pathetic "wedding industry" sum. Ah, now its clear: " What women do/want=good, what men do/want=bad. "Actually _you_ are the only one applying "good"/"bad" labels._You_ are attempting (using inflated numbers - here is a quote for you"false anecdotes aren't even data") to show that sociologically whatwomen want matters more than men. You've proposed no way of measuringthat, merely advancing the size of the wedding industry as evidence.When others point out that industries which cater primarily to menaccount for just as much money you respond with sarcasm.

Andre has a severe deficit when it come to logical thinking and
statistical analysis.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: "DrLith" (drlith@hotmail.com) writes: "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:1Abzb.155610$ri.22474196@twister.nyc.rr.com.. .> "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message> news:bqjab3$cpd$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...> > According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry is now so> > large, that were it a Fortune 500 company, it would be number> > six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year. BFD. OK, you don't care. Yet, you cared enough to post these *irrelevancies*... The American Sportfishing Association reports that Americans spend $46 billiion a year on fishing tackle, trips, etc. And that probably doesn't include the 6-packs of Old Milwaukee. So ? Are millions of men *making* women go along on such trips, blowing an average of $22,000 a trip ? No ? Then, you're trying to compare apples to Buicks... They spend an additional $20 billion annually on hunting (which probably doesn't include the cost of the Ford Explorer). Toss in about 60 bil for internet pornography and probably another similar amount for professional sports tickets and merchandise (not including the cost of superbowl parties and big-screen tvs) and its obvious that the amount spent on the American male's beer-guzzling, belly-scratching, titty-oogling activities vastly eclipse this pathetic "wedding industry" sum. Ah, now its clear: " What women do/want=good, what men do/want=bad. " Actually _you_ are the only one applying "good"/"bad" labels.

Nope. That was YOU. By your *fallaciously* trying to equate things
that are men, for the most part, *without* demanding that the women
attend, and *without* accounting for the fact that the men's
activities you tried to equte, AREN'T one time and day, events.

IOW, you compared allpes to Buicks. Wrong... again.
_You_ are attempting (using inflated numbers - here is a quote for you "false anecdotes aren't even data")

Non sequitur. You have yet to *prove* your claim... So, no soup for you.
to show that sociologically what women want matters more than men.

Well, thats been well shown here. That you are *unaware* of that mass
of materiel isn't anyone's problem but... yours.
You've proposed no way of measuring that, merely advancing the size of the wedding industry as evidence.

No, I just gave that as *one example*.
When others point out that industries which cater primarily to men account for just as much money you respond with sarcasm.

So ? Are you trying to suggest that the wedding industrial complex
is the ONLY such female oriented industry ?

ROTFLMAO !

Andre



--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: > >> And, which people overwhelmingly *tend to be the ones that demand >> that said money be spent*... ? > > No, the conclusion you've tried to draw is that somehow this is > evidence of oppression of men. That is the nonsensical bit. LOL ! I point out that, while Feminists howl and screech about how anti-woman society is supposed to be, in actual fact, society is run almost entirely based on " what women want "... Case in point. The only howling and screeching I hear at the moment is from you. Operative words being "... I hear... " Or, are you so addled as to believe that *nothing* exists outside of Usenet ? <laughs> Now it is demonstrably true that most resources are controlled by men (examine your favorite legislative bodies, executive branches and boards of multinational corporations), so to claim that the amount spent on wedding is proof that society is run by "what women want" is nonsensical. You really don't grasp " Front Man Fallacy ", do you ? Oh well, it's your *failure*... Lets try this experiment: RMS Titanic; All of the officers were *men*. Yet, more *third class* women then *first class men* survived...

Are you claiming that although the heads of corporation are men, they
are all going to drown, and their secretaries will survive?

What exactly is the analogy between the world economy and the Titanic?
No. It might be one _anecdote_ pointing in that direction. But if you examine who controls real resources, it isn't brides-to-be. See above. LOL. Yet, study after study reports that *women* control 80-85% of discretionary spending, and this can be easily proven by going into any mall, and counting amounts and sizes of strores that sell to women, and stores that sell to men...

But that is a silly argument. In most families women do the grocery
shopping becaues the men won't. In most families, women buy clothes
for the children. In most families women purchase furniture for the
home because men are happy to leave that to them.

So the fact that women do a larger share of keeping homes running
accounts for a large part of that "discretionary" spending.
Your argument fails... again.

I'm not making an argument except to point out that
a) you argument holds no water
b) the evidence is against you in terms of the amount of the world's wealth
(or just North America's) being controlled by men. So if you want to
make a convincing case (so far you've been more interested in sarcasm
and sneering than in being convincing) you have to actually present
strong and documented evidence.
I can tell you a lot of areas where men have fewer rights than women. No you can't. LOL. I just did.

No you didn't. Are you addled as well as enraged?
snip Why do you keep expecting *me to do your homework for you*... ?

It is _your_ homework if you wish to make a point. You claim to have
seen something on TV (which is contradicted, by the way, by other
posters here) and to base a sociological point on it.

But you are unwilling to actually present data.
If you want to prove me wrong... then thats *your responsibility*.

I have no need to prove you wrong. You are the one making the claim
that needs justification, not me. You are trying to claim that women
control most wealth. You base this claim on anecdote and TV shows and
are unwilling to back it up. OK, up to you.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> >> >> And, which people overwhelmingly *tend to be the ones that demand> >> that said money be spent*... ?> >> > No, the conclusion you've tried to draw is that somehow this is> > evidence of oppression of men. That is the nonsensical bit.>> LOL ! I point out that, while Feminists howl and screech about how> anti-woman society is supposed to be, in actual fact, society is> run almost entirely based on " what women want "... Case in point. The only howling and screeching I hear at the moment is from you. Operative words being "... I hear... " Or, are you so addled as to believe that *nothing* exists outside of Usenet ? <laughs> Now it is demonstrably true that most resources are controlled by men (examine your favorite legislative bodies, executive branches and boards of multinational corporations), so to claim that the amount spent on wedding is proof that society is run by "what women want" is nonsensical. You really don't grasp " Front Man Fallacy ", do you ? Oh well, it's your *failure*... Lets try this experiment: RMS Titanic; All of the officers were *men*. Yet, more *third class* women then *first class men* survived... Are you claiming that although the heads of corporation are men, they are all going to drown, and their secretaries will survive?

Clearly, reading for *comprehension* isn't a capability you possess.

The point is well made in Warren Farrell's " Women Can't Hear What
Men Don't Say; Destroying Myths, Creating Love ", specifically
Chapter 8, " What A Man Might Say When he Hears 'It's Men In The
news, Men In The Government, Men At The Top, Where Are The Women ? ".

Its all there. Read and *learn*...
What exactly is the analogy between the world economy and the Titanic?

That men being " at the top " *doesn't necessarily* translate into
greater priviliges, or even equal rights, for *any men ( IOW, the
vast *majority of men* ) NOT at the top.

Oh, Captain Smith of the Titanic *didn't survive*... Even though
he was " at the top "...
No. It might be one _anecdote_ pointing in that direction. But if you examine who controls real resources, it isn't brides-to-be. See above. LOL. Yet, study after study reports that *women* control 80-85% of discretionary spending, and this can be easily proven by going into any mall, and counting amounts and sizes of strores that sell to women, and stores that sell to men... But that is a silly argument.

Only to the logically challenged, and blind...
In most families women do the grocery shopping becaues the men won't.

Citres ? Yeah, I didn't think so.

BTW, as food is so *cheap* in North America, that hardly, even if
it were *true*, begins to address a 5 to 1 spending ratio.
In most families, women buy clothes for the children.

Yet, most malls have more and *larger* stores for grown *women's
clothes*...

So, this *excuse* fails, too.
In most families women purchase furniture for the home because men are happy to leave that to them.

LOL ! Cites ? Yeah...
So the fact that women do a larger share of keeping homes running accounts for a large part of that "discretionary" spending.

Only by ASSuming your *whole " argument "*...
Your argument fails... again. I'm not making an argument except to point out that a) you argument holds no water

LOL ! Projection !
b) the evidence is against you in terms of the amount of the world's wealth (or just North America's) being controlled by men.

Cites ? Yeah....

When women get to *spend* 85% of the money, whose pocket it lies in
*before it's spent* is rather besides the point...
So if you want to make a convincing case (so far you've been more interested in sarcasm and sneering than in being convincing) you have to actually present strong and documented evidence.

But... *you don't*.

Got it.
> I can tell you a lot of areas where men have fewer rights than> women. No you can't. LOL. I just did. No you didn't. Are you addled as well as enraged?

Naw, I'll leave both to you...
snip Why do you keep expecting *me to do your homework for you*... ? It is _your_ homework if you wish to make a point.

Why ? What you " snipped " was *your point, and a demand that I
find it's proof*...

<laughs>
You claim to have seen something on TV (which is contradicted, by the way, by other posters here) and to base a sociological point on it.

Hardly. As I said, its but one example. One that you have yet to actually
address, factually.
But you are unwilling to actually present data.

LOL. I started with data. If you have an issue with said data, take
it up with NewsHour.
If you want to prove me wrong... then thats *your responsibility*. I have no need to prove you wrong. You are the one making the claim that needs justification, not me. You are trying to claim that women control most wealth.

<laughs> Actually, I pointed out that women spend the ast majority
of the *bridal* sector...

I would say that the self identification of it being a BRIDAL
industry would make clear who chooses to buy it.

Unless you're now trying to claim that male cross dressers spend
about as much as women do, on BRIDAL stuff...

<laughs>
You base this claim on anecdote and TV shows and are unwilling to back it up. OK, up to you.

Non sequitur. Ignore my source, but it doesn't go away for that.

As I said, if you have an issue with the data, call PBS.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:
What exactly is the analogy between the world economy and the Titanic? That men being " at the top " *doesn't necessarily* translate into greater priviliges, or even equal rights, for *any men ( IOW, the vast *majority of men* ) NOT at the top.

Ah. No, it doesn't _necessarily_ of course. On the other hand, if
you want to demonstrate that women control things in spite of the fact
that men are at the top, you'd need to present compelling evidence.

Notice how strongly you failed to do that in the Titanic example. You
compared the survival numbers of third class women with first class men,
ignoring the fact that third class women outnumbered the first class men.
I'm not making an argument except to point out that a) you argument holds no water LOL ! Projection !

Notice how you invariable turn to personal attacks without even
seriously trying to address issues? What is that about?
b) the evidence is against you in terms of the amount of the world's wealth (or just North America's) being controlled by men. Cites ? Yeah....

Simply look up the board of directors of the fortune 500 companies.
If that isn't sufficienct, look at US congress, the US president, and
the Canadian prime ministers. Still think women are in control?
When women get to *spend* 85% of the money, whose pocket it lies in *before it's spent* is rather besides the point... So if you want to make a convincing case (so far you've been more interested in sarcasm and sneering than in being convincing) you have to actually present strong and documented evidence. But... *you don't*.

You're right. I'm not interested in making this argument. _You_
claim to be interested in making it, but you aren't. Oh well.
LOL. I started with data. If you have an issue with said data, take it up with NewsHour.

You started with inconsistent "information" you heard on TV. You have
no knowledge of how it was collected, and whether it is accurate. In
fact it is clearly inaccurate.

Do you believe everything you hear on TV? That may be the problem
here. You should get out more.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: > What exactly is the analogy between the world economy and the Titanic? That men being " at the top " *doesn't necessarily* translate into greater priviliges, or even equal rights, for *any men ( IOW, the vast *majority of men* ) NOT at the top. Ah. No, it doesn't _necessarily_ of course. IOW, I was right. Thank you. On the other hand, if you want to demonstrate that women control things in spite of the fact that men are at the top, you'd need to present compelling evidence. And, as I'm not in the habit of typing whole books onto Usenet, I gave you several sources.

My success following up your sources in the past is that they
demonstrate _none_ of the points you claim they demonstrate.

So I'll save myself the trouble of reading these unless you tell me
_what_ they are supposed to demonstrate, and _how_ they do it. I
assume you can do that without typing in the whole book. But it is
possible you can't since you don't seem to understand the different
between _data_, _opinion_ and _proof_.
Notice how strongly you failed to do that in the Titanic example. You compared the survival numbers of third class women with first class men, ignoring the fact that third class women outnumbered the first class men. OK, heres some numbers for you: Titanic And The Invisible Fourth Class Class % Of Men Dying % Of Women Dying 1st 66% 3% 2nd 92% 16% 3rd 88% 45% From " Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say, Warren Farrell, Page 290.

Much better. You've actually said something here. You've presented
evidence that chivalry hadn't yet died in 1912.

But I suggest your analysis is too shallow. If you examine the
percent of children dying, _and_ examine the amount that childbirth
costs in the US (and then factor in the rest of the costs of
childrearing) you'll discover that it is actually _children_ who
control all the resources of the world.

The adults are just front men.

(Wait; maybe cats control the world, and we people are just front men.)

Seriously though (if one dare try to discuss anything seriously with
you), you were talking before about wanting to understand how the bulk
of people lived. The bulk of people never were in a situation like
the Titanic, so it really isn't relevant to your point.
No other " slaves " in history so *out-lived* their " masters ".

Are you claiming that the women of 1912 were slaves and that men were
their masters?
> I'm not making an argument except to point out that > a) you argument holds no water LOL ! Projection ! Notice how you invariable turn to personal attacks without even seriously trying to address issues? What is that about? LOL ! So, your saying " you (sic) argument hold no water ", is " address(ing) issues " ? <laughs> > b) the evidence is against you in terms of the amount of the > world's wealth (or just North America's) being controlled by men. Cites ? Yeah.... Simply look up the board of directors of the fortune 500 companies. You've already had " Front Man Fallacy " mentioned to you.

Front man fallacy is irrelevant so far. Yes, all these men _could_ be
front men for women. But we'd have to have some evidence for that.
You've provided, let's see, oh yeah, I remember, none.
If that isn't sufficienct, look at US congress, the US president, and the Canadian prime ministers. Still think women are in control? Sure. Who VOTED those *empolyees* in ? Women do make up about 53% of the electorate...

This doesn't apply to leaders of corporations. And in fact, in the US
it doesn't even apply to politicians. More men than women vote, so
the proportion of the electorate isn't relevant.

But vote at a lower rate than men. Furthermore, women would have
elected Al Gore to be President in the US, but the actual president
was chosen by a panel of 7 men and 2 women. I suppose you are going
to tell me that they are just front men.
And, as men are both hard wired and socialised to " protect women ", which tends to mean, do what women ask for, its clear that men don't vote for their own interests in anything like the way that women do.

So you are saying that men are too stupid to behave in their own
interests and women aren't? If that were really true, then women
should be in charge.
Feel free to show a galvanising men's political issue, a candidate's position on which acts as a litmus test for said candidate's chances of winning an election.

Gun control in the US. There's one. I'm sure it won't convince you
of anything. Most of politics (thank goodness) still isn't about
litmus tests.
No, if you wish to refute it, YOU have the same burden. But, you hand wave *that away*, too...

Wrong. Though it is amusing you think that. First there would have
to be something to refute. You've made a _claim_ (that women are in
control, not men). You haven't made an argument to support it. If
you _did_ then I would be under an obligation to refute it if I wanted
to show you were wrong. But since you've made the claim, you are the
one with the implicit obligation to justify it.
LOL. I started with data. If you have an issue with said data, take it up with NewsHour. You started with inconsistent "information" you heard on TV. You have no knowledge of how it was collected, and whether it is accurate. In fact it is clearly inaccurate. Cites ? Yeah, didn't think so...

No cite is necessary. Your OP was simply inconsistent. Someone has
already pointed this out, but here is the beginning of your OP:
According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry is now so large, that were it a Fortune 500 company, it would be number six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year.
The average wedding now costs out at $22,000 US, which is about an average half year's pay.

The US Census bureau reports about 2.4 million marriages per year. If
the 120 billion figure were correct, that would 50,000 per wedding,
not $22,000.

So the two numbers you gave contradict one another. (Unless you put
more stock in TV than in Census Bureau statistics).

Now I know that you aren't comfortable with statistics, but I assume
that multiplication and division are in your repertoire.
Free Clue: Saying " no it isn't ", is not " making a case. "

You're in no position to be dispensing "free clues."

Andre Lieven wrote: "Tai" (tainuiti@yahoo.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: "Tai" (taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com) writes:> Andre Lieven wrote:>> Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes:>>> In article <bqldlb$2475fg$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de>, Chrys>>> wrote:>>>> I have a problem with the fact that you're ignoring the ability>>>> of men to make their own choices. No man ever has to have a>>>> fancy wedding if he doesn't want to. If he's chosen his>>>> potential wife wisely, then it won't be an issue. If he's>>>> chosen someone frivolous who thinks it's a good idea>>>>>> I am an example of such a man. I did NOT want to have a big>>> wedding.>>>> Indeed. My readings strongly suggest that most men's idea of a>> sufficient wedding would top out at about $400...>>>>> I did go along with my wife's desire to have one, because it was>>> less important to me not to have the wedding, than it was to her>>> to have the wedding.>>>> Sure.>>>>> I also felt that if it made her more committed to the marriage,>>> then it is an additional plus towards having a wedding. If it was>>> entirely up to me, I would just do it in a courthouse.>>>> The point being, that letting women have big weddings, tends, if>> anything, to make them want *more of them*...>>>>> To suggest that we both "played an equal role in deciding on our>>> marriage" is disingenious.>>>> As it usually is...>>>>> For once, I find myself agreeing with Andre that weddings are>>> generally a female thing.>>>> There you go, folks. I'm *right*.>> Psssssst Andre, "the plural of anecdote is not data". You MS-understand that saying. Not at all. Wrong.

Not at all.
It means " anecdote in the ABSENCE of data ". No, it means that what is true for a single datum does not extropolate to being true for all data. As there was NOT " a *single* datum " in the OP, your claim is fallacious, and *irrelevent*.

Eh? I was pointing out that your taking Igor's example of his wedding as
proof you were right did not prove your case. You're having trouble keeping
up with what you've written again.

(Btw, It must be so annoying for you when posters decide for themselves what
is and isn't relevant.)

AS the *data* was already posted, your claim, fails. Except that your data failed to prove your contention. Wrong. A wedding industrial complex of $120 BILLION a year, fed by *women's media*, so your statement is again, wrong.

You talk as if women are the only owners of "women's media". Exactly how
much of "women's media" is actually owned by women?
As Mr Borgerson pointed out to you but you have not addressed. I kill filed Borgerson a long time ago, when he admitted to being nothing more than a troll.

Did he really? lol

I expect you were glad of an excuse to ignore his posts.....

(Sheesh! I find one regular soc.men poster who seems to be able to present a
reasonable argument or three and Andre doesn't like him. Hmmm...hang on, my
instincts must be good.)

If you require that learning experience, thats your problem. Tai ( I guess that misc.kids thread must have died out...) Due to the concessions of the other side, being yours...

Nah, I didn't participate in the discussion except to read it. I was
impressed by the patience they showed to you especially considering the
charmless and insulting way you have of posting. I don't know how you ended
up thinking the "other side" conceded - at best you received an 'agree to
disagree'.

But then your power of self-delusion has awed me for some time.

Carry on.....

Tai

In article <bqp01v$a1q$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg411
@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says... Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: > >> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: >> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: >> > >> >> And, which people overwhelmingly *tend to be the ones that demand >> >> that said money be spent*... ? >> > >> > No, the conclusion you've tried to draw is that somehow this is >> > evidence of oppression of men. That is the nonsensical bit. >> >> LOL ! I point out that, while Feminists howl and screech about how >> anti-woman society is supposed to be, in actual fact, society is >> run almost entirely based on " what women want "... > > Case in point. > > The only howling and screeching I hear at the moment is from you. Operative words being "... I hear... " Or, are you so addled as to believe that *nothing* exists outside of Usenet ? <laughs> > Now it is demonstrably true that most resources are controlled by men > (examine your favorite legislative bodies, executive branches and > boards of multinational corporations), so to claim that the amount > spent on wedding is proof that society is run by "what women want" is > nonsensical. You really don't grasp " Front Man Fallacy ", do you ? Oh well, it's your *failure*... Lets try this experiment: RMS Titanic; All of the officers were *men*. Yet, more *third class* women then *first class men* survived... Are you claiming that although the heads of corporation are men, they are all going to drown, and their secretaries will survive? Clearly, reading for *comprehension* isn't a capability you possess.

Hard to read for comprehension when the text is incomprehensible! The point is well made in Warren Farrell's " Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say; Destroying Myths, Creating Love ", specifically Chapter 8, " What A Man Might Say When he Hears 'It's Men In The news, Men In The Government, Men At The Top, Where Are The Women ? ".

What point is that? You know that old saying about 'quoting chapter
and verse' is usually applicable when someone actually provides a quote.
Andre doesn't bother with that. He just gives us a table of contents!
;-)

Its all there. Read and *learn*...

If that book was the source of your knowledge, I despair for either
the author or the reader! What exactly is the analogy between the world economy and the Titanic? That men being " at the top " *doesn't necessarily* translate into greater priviliges, or even equal rights, for *any men ( IOW, the vast *majority of men* ) NOT at the top.

Note that "*doesn't necessarily* translate" is weasel wording.
Men being at the top might or might not translate into
greater privileges---but that isn't at all clear from
Andre's statement. Oh, Captain Smith of the Titanic *didn't survive*... Even though he was " at the top "...

Oh, and I suppose he was tied to the wheel by one of those female
third-class passengers! ;-) His survival was the result of
his own decisions---not those of any of the women aboard the
Titanic. > No. It might be one _anecdote_ pointing in that direction. But if > you examine who controls real resources, it isn't brides-to-be. See > above. LOL. Yet, study after study reports that *women* control 80-85% of discretionary spending, and this can be easily proven by going into any mall, and counting amounts and sizes of strores that sell to women, and stores that sell to men... But that is a silly argument. Only to the logically challenged, and blind...

Andre seems unable to grasp that the amount of money spent in
stores may have no relation to the number and size of the stores.
Many stores selling to men (electronics, tools, hunting gear, etc.)
have much better margins and lower overhead than women's wear
stores. There are also a lot of malls in smaller cities in the
Wester US where the women's wear occupies a much smaller percentage
of the mall than it might in more prosperous urban areas. In most families women do the grocery shopping becaues the men won't. Citres ? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Hard to quantify. I do about half the grocery shopping in my family---
so I can't provide a good example here. BTW, as food is so *cheap* in North America, that hardly, even if it were *true*, begins to address a 5 to 1 spending ratio. In most families, women buy clothes for the children. Yet, most malls have more and *larger* stores for grown *women's clothes*...

But what are their sales figures? Floor space is not everything. So, this *excuse* fails, too. In most families women purchase furniture for the home because men are happy to leave that to them. LOL ! Cites ? Yeah... So the fact that women do a larger share of keeping homes running accounts for a large part of that "discretionary" spending. Only by ASSuming your *whole " argument "*... Your argument fails... again. I'm not making an argument except to point out that a) you argument holds no water LOL ! Projection ! b) the evidence is against you in terms of the amount of the world's wealth (or just North America's) being controlled by men. Cites ? Yeah.... When women get to *spend* 85% of the money, whose pocket it lies in *before it's spent* is rather besides the point...

Huh! If I give my wife $20 bucks and tell her to pick up a few
six-packs of beer with the groceries, who's actually spending the
money?? (Actually I drink little beer, and my wife buys groceries
with money from her own salary.) So if you want to make a convincing case (so far you've been more interested in sarcasm and sneering than in being convincing) you have to actually present strong and documented evidence. But... *you don't*. Got it. >> I can tell you a lot of areas where men have fewer rights than >> women. > > No you can't. LOL. I just did. No you didn't. Are you addled as well as enraged? Naw, I'll leave both to you... snip Why do you keep expecting *me to do your homework for you*... ? It is _your_ homework if you wish to make a point. Why ? What you " snipped " was *your point, and a demand that I find it's proof*... <laughs> You claim to have seen something on TV (which is contradicted, by the way, by other posters here) and to base a sociological point on it. Hardly. As I said, its but one example. One that you have yet to actually address, factually. But you are unwilling to actually present data. LOL. I started with data. If you have an issue with said data, take it up with NewsHour.

Newshour presented no real data---only abstracts without attribution.
Much like Andre is wont to do! ;-)

You can judge for yourself from the transcript at
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/july-dec03/wedding_12-02.html
If you want to prove me wrong... then thats *your responsibility*. I have no need to prove you wrong. You are the one making the claim that needs justification, not me. You are trying to claim that women control most wealth. <laughs> Actually, I pointed out that women spend the ast majority of the *bridal* sector...

When did you point out ANYTHING! You merely posted an article
with dubious statistics. I would say that the self identification of it being a BRIDAL industry would make clear who chooses to buy it.

Ah, so that means all sales in Men's Wear stores are to men??? Unless you're now trying to claim that male cross dressers spend about as much as women do, on BRIDAL stuff...

A large portion of the 'Bridal' sale are probably in the
form of gifts in the wedding registry---which may be sold
to either men or women. <laughs> You base this claim on anecdote and TV shows and are unwilling to back it up. OK, up to you. Non sequitur. Ignore my source, but it doesn't go away for that. As I said, if you have an issue with the data, call PBS.

Gonna have to---or find alternate sources---since you're not
good for anything except titles and a single source.

Since Andre hasn't taken the time, here's some stuff from the
transcript of the actual newshour program:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/july-dec03/wedding_12-
02.html

Among the interesting facts to be gleaned from the transicript:

1. No one ever said that the average cost of wedding gowns has gone
up 50% in the last 10 years. Here is the actual quote:

"RAY SUAREZ: All the wedding experts we spoke to agreed that the desire
to be "unique" coupled with celebrity inspiration has created a
guaranteed luxury market. At Kleinfeld's in Brooklyn, a palace for
princesses-in-waiting, the price of a wedding dress has gone up about 50
percent in the last decade."

You can decide for yourself if Kleinfelds is representative of
the stores in the rest of the country. (The program doesn't
say.)

2. The program did have some balancing anecdotes:

"RAY SUAREZ: Elizabeth Singer's parents wanted to give her anything she
wanted, until they began shopping and the bridal gowns were $3,000.
Then, she says, reality set in. She bought her dress secondhand on the
Internet and her mother made her veil from $10 worth of Wal-mart
tuille."


3. Perhaps they got to their inflated numbers by including all the
sales of every store that has a bridal registry:

"NINA LAWRENCE: Registry, actually, is a vital component to Crate and
Barrel, and actually to most retailers at this point in time. Every
retailer in the world, almost, has a registry."


4. There's no attribution for most of the numbers quoted. That
makes it tough to judge their reliability.

Mark Borgerson

Bill in Co. wrote: Rauni wrote: On 4 Dec 2003 07:19:02 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>> Pst... " The plural of anecdote is not data ".>> Actually, I always wonder why you say that. To correct that, that would be: " I wonder why you *don't say that*, but rather, why *another person* MS-stated that you do. " The *correct* quote is: " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT '*citation*'. " No what Andre posted: On 4 Dec 2003 04:54:49 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in Message-ID: <bqmgkp$23vr00$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de> Pst... " The plural of anecdote is not data ". Andre is experiencing early onset alzheimers. I just wish the Lord would help me feel some compassion for the guy, instead of disdain. But I haven't gotten there yet. Doggone it.

Don't fret, Bill, Andre clearly adores all the attention, negative or not.
He doesn't want your compassion he wants you to post things he can disagree
with so he can use his Dr Evil voice and wriggle in his seat with
excitement.

(I get the impression he does a lot of that sort at-keyboard wriggling....
;) )

Tai

Tai wrote: Bill in Co. wrote: Rauni wrote: On 4 Dec 2003 07:19:02 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:>> dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:>>>>> Pst... " The plural of anecdote is not data ".>>>> Actually, I always wonder why you say that.>> To correct that, that would be: " I wonder why you *don't say that*,> but rather, why *another person* MS-stated that you do. ">> The *correct* quote is:>> " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT '*citation*'. " No what Andre posted: On 4 Dec 2003 04:54:49 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in Message-ID: <bqmgkp$23vr00$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de> Pst... " The plural of anecdote is not data ". Andre is experiencing early onset alzheimers. I just wish the Lord would help me feel some compassion for the guy, instead of disdain. But I haven't gotten there yet. Doggone it. Don't fret, Bill, Andre clearly adores all the attention, negative or not. He doesn't want your compassion he wants you to post things he can disagree with so he can use his Dr Evil voice and wriggle in his seat with excitement.

But what kind of life is that? Well, I guess it breaks up his monotony of
watching reruns of Oprah all day, from whence he gets his "facts".

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: "DrLith" (drlith@hotmail.com) writes: > "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message > news:1Abzb.155610$ri.22474196@twister.nyc.rr.com.. . >> "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message >> news:bqjab3$cpd$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> > According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry is now so >> > large, that were it a Fortune 500 company, it would be number >> > six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year. > > BFD. OK, you don't care. Yet, you cared enough to post these *irrelevancies*... > The American Sportfishing Association reports that Americans spend $46 > billiion a year on fishing tackle, trips, etc. And that probably doesn't > include the 6-packs of Old Milwaukee. So ? Are millions of men *making* women go along on such trips, blowing an average of $22,000 a trip ? No ? Then, you're trying to compare apples to Buicks... > They spend an additional $20 billion > annually on hunting (which probably doesn't include the cost of the Ford > Explorer). Toss in about 60 bil for internet pornography and probably > another similar amount for professional sports tickets and merchandise > (not including the cost of superbowl parties and big-screen tvs) and its > obvious that the amount spent on the American male's beer-guzzling, > belly-scratching, titty-oogling activities vastly eclipse this pathetic > "wedding industry" sum. Ah, now its clear: " What women do/want=good, what men do/want=bad. " Actually _you_ are the only one applying "good"/"bad" labels. Nope. That was YOU. By your *fallaciously* trying to equate things that are men, for the most part, *without* demanding that the women attend,

So this is what the oppression is about? Men are "forced" to attend
their own weddings? Against their will? Oh, brother.
and *without* accounting for the fact that the men's activities you tried to equte, AREN'T one time and day, events.

Is this relevant?

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<bqlce1$bks$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>... Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes: We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. So, you agree that it's *women's whims* that create the *whole of that waste*. Thanks for agreeing with me... <g> I also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of wedding expenses. If people didn't get married, would they go on honeymoon ? I think not.

Do you never take a vacation? Honeymoon = vacation/holiday

And not every couple takes a "honeymoon."

"Tai" (tainuiti@yahoo.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: "Tai" (tainuiti@yahoo.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote:> "Tai" (taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com) writes:>> Andre Lieven wrote:>>> Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes:>>>> In article <bqldlb$2475fg$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de>, Chrys>>>> wrote:>>>>> I have a problem with the fact that you're ignoring the ability>>>>> of men to make their own choices. No man ever has to have a>>>>> fancy wedding if he doesn't want to. If he's chosen his>>>>> potential wife wisely, then it won't be an issue. If he's>>>>> chosen someone frivolous who thinks it's a good idea>>>>>>>> I am an example of such a man. I did NOT want to have a big>>>> wedding.>>>>>> Indeed. My readings strongly suggest that most men's idea of a>>> sufficient wedding would top out at about $400...>>>>>>> I did go along with my wife's desire to have one, because it was>>>> less important to me not to have the wedding, than it was to her>>>> to have the wedding.>>>>>> Sure.>>>>>>> I also felt that if it made her more committed to the marriage,>>>> then it is an additional plus towards having a wedding. If it was>>>> entirely up to me, I would just do it in a courthouse.>>>>>> The point being, that letting women have big weddings, tends, if>>> anything, to make them want *more of them*...>>>>>>> To suggest that we both "played an equal role in deciding on our>>>> marriage" is disingenious.>>>>>> As it usually is...>>>>>>> For once, I find myself agreeing with Andre that weddings are>>>> generally a female thing.>>>>>> There you go, folks. I'm *right*.>>>> Psssssst Andre, "the plural of anecdote is not data".>> You MS-understand that saying. Not at all. Wrong. Not at all.

LOL. So, you graduated from the Monty Python school of
" arguments "...
> It means " anecdote in the ABSENCE of data ". No, it means that what is true for a single datum does not extropolate to being true for all data. As there was NOT " a *single* datum " in the OP, your claim is fallacious, and *irrelevent*. Eh? I was pointing out that your taking Igor's example of his wedding as proof you were right did not prove your case.

What you say would be right.... IF the *societal data* WASN'T also
saying what Igor and I said...
You're having trouble keeping up with what you've written again.

Hardly. You're projecting your own *inabilities*...

THats OK, we're used to that, here...
(Btw, It must be so annoying for you when posters decide for themselves what is and isn't relevant.)

Wrong. Don't give up the day job...
> AS the *data* was already posted, your claim, fails. Except that your data failed to prove your contention. Wrong. A wedding industrial complex of $120 BILLION a year, fed by *women's media*, so your statement is again, wrong. You talk as if women are the only owners of "women's media".

Thats irrelevent. The point isn't who owns what media outlets, rather,
its *who's money are they programming for*.
Exactly how much of "women's media" is actually owned by women?

As I said, thats irrelevent.
As Mr Borgerson pointed out to you but you have not addressed. I kill filed Borgerson a long time ago, when he admitted to being nothing more than a troll. Did he really? lol

Yep.
I expect you were glad of an excuse to ignore his posts.....

Why ? When another of our regulars sees his drivel, and shotts it full
of the logical holes that it deserves, thats well covered.

If hes still posting to me, well, thats more of his trolling, as I've
said on soc.men that I kill filed the trolling fool.
(Sheesh! I find one regular soc.men poster who seems to be able to present a reasonable argument or three and Andre doesn't like him. Hmmm...hang on, my instincts must be good.)

Translation: " I find the one *pussified SNAG* that will buy my
cow****, and it turns out that no one on soc.men deigns to buy his
cow****. How dare men have their own views ! "
If you require that learning experience, thats your problem. Tai ( I guess that misc.kids thread must have died out...) Due to the concessions of the other side, being yours... Nah, I didn't participate in the discussion except to read it. I was impressed by the patience they showed to you especially considering the charmless and insulting way you have of posting.

" When the trolls diss you, you're doing right. "

As opposed to the FACT FREE way they made their shrill claims...

Uh huh.
I don't know

This *does* appear to be your problem....

Get that refund from your local school board, they clearly got your
money on false pretenses...
how you ended up thinking the "other side" conceded -

By *failing to present a refuting argument, with supporting data*...

Or, are you also trying to suggest that the BRIDAL industry is all
about men... ?

<laughs>
at best you received an 'agree to disagree'.

But.... " I don't know... "
But then your power of self-delusion has awed me for some time.

As has your *delusion of adequacy*...
Carry on.....

Always, and... with the facts, toots.

Deal with it.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

In article <bqqftd$lv3$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg411
@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says... "Tai" (tainuiti@yahoo.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: "Tai" (tainuiti@yahoo.com) writes:> Andre Lieven wrote:>> "Tai" (taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com) writes:>>> Andre Lieven wrote:>>>> Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes:>>>>> In article <bqldlb$2475fg$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de>, Chrys>>>>> wrote:>>>>>> I have a problem with the fact that you're ignoring the ability>>>>>> of men to make their own choices. No man ever has to have a>>>>>> fancy wedding if he doesn't want to. If he's chosen his>>>>>> potential wife wisely, then it won't be an issue. If he's>>>>>> chosen someone frivolous who thinks it's a good idea>>>>>>>>>> I am an example of such a man. I did NOT want to have a big>>>>> wedding.>>>>>>>> Indeed. My readings strongly suggest that most men's idea of a>>>> sufficient wedding would top out at about $400...>>>>>>>>> I did go along with my wife's desire to have one, because it was>>>>> less important to me not to have the wedding, than it was to her>>>>> to have the wedding.>>>>>>>> Sure.>>>>>>>>> I also felt that if it made her more committed to the marriage,>>>>> then it is an additional plus towards having a wedding. If it was>>>>> entirely up to me, I would just do it in a courthouse.>>>>>>>> The point being, that letting women have big weddings, tends, if>>>> anything, to make them want *more of them*...>>>>>>>>> To suggest that we both "played an equal role in deciding on our>>>>> marriage" is disingenious.>>>>>>>> As it usually is...>>>>>>>>> For once, I find myself agreeing with Andre that weddings are>>>>> generally a female thing.>>>>>>>> There you go, folks. I'm *right*.>>>>>> Psssssst Andre, "the plural of anecdote is not data".>>>> You MS-understand that saying.>> Not at all. Wrong. Not at all. LOL. So, you graduated from the Monty Python school of " arguments "...>> It means " anecdote in the ABSENCE of data ".>> No, it means that what is true for a single datum does not> extropolate to being true for all data. As there was NOT " a *single* datum " in the OP, your claim is fallacious, and *irrelevent*. Eh? I was pointing out that your taking Igor's example of his wedding as proof you were right did not prove your case. What you say would be right.... IF the *societal data* WASN'T also saying what Igor and I said... You're having trouble keeping up with what you've written again. Hardly. You're projecting your own *inabilities*... THats OK, we're used to that, here... (Btw, It must be so annoying for you when posters decide for themselves what is and isn't relevant.) Wrong. Don't give up the day job...>> AS the *data* was already posted, your claim, fails.>> Except that your data failed to prove your contention. Wrong. A wedding industrial complex of $120 BILLION a year, fed by *women's media*, so your statement is again, wrong. You talk as if women are the only owners of "women's media". Thats irrelevent. The point isn't who owns what media outlets, rather, its *who's money are they programming for*. Exactly how much of "women's media" is actually owned by women? As I said, thats irrelevent.> As Mr Borgerson pointed out to you but you have not addressed. I kill filed Borgerson a long time ago, when he admitted to being nothing more than a troll. Did he really? lol Yep. I expect you were glad of an excuse to ignore his posts..... Why ? When another of our regulars sees his drivel, and shotts it full of the logical holes that it deserves, thats well covered. If hes still posting to me, well, thats more of his trolling, as I've said on soc.men that I kill filed the trolling fool.

If I wanted to post to Andre, I'd use his email address. If he prefers
to think that anything posted in a public forum in response to his
views is posting to him---after he's said he doesn't read the posts---
he's free to continue to think its all about HIM! How feminist!
(to use one of Andre's favorite expressions). (Sheesh! I find one regular soc.men poster who seems to be able to present a reasonable argument or three and Andre doesn't like him. Hmmm...hang on, my instincts must be good.) Translation: " I find the one *pussified SNAG* that will buy my cow****, and it turns out that no one on soc.men deigns to buy his cow****. How dare men have their own views ! "

Yeah, especially any man who might disagree with Andre!

<<SNIP>>

Mark Borgerson

Doug, (if you are married) go to the bathroom, count the number of feminine
articles in it, makeup, bubble baths, perfume, hygiene, etc. . Add them
up....now add up your toothbrush razor, deodorant, hairbrush. toothpaste,
costs of them now add up all the female stuff. It sort of dwarfs the beer
guzzling tit ogling belly scratching industries don't ya think?

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46Pzb.302631$9E1.1530122@attbi_s52... dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: "DrLith" (drlith@hotmail.com) writes: "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:1Abzb.155610$ri.22474196@twister.nyc.rr.com.. .> "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message> news:bqjab3$cpd$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...> > According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry is now so> > large, that were it a Fortune 500 company, it would be number> > six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year. BFD. OK, you don't care. Yet, you cared enough to post these
*irrelevancies*... The American Sportfishing Association reports that Americans spend $46 billiion a year on fishing tackle, trips, etc. And that probably
doesn't include the 6-packs of Old Milwaukee. So ? Are millions of men *making* women go along on such trips, blowing an average of $22,000 a trip ? No ? Then, you're trying to compare apples to Buicks... They spend an additional $20 billion annually on hunting (which probably doesn't include the cost of the
Ford Explorer). Toss in about 60 bil for internet pornography and probably another similar amount for professional sports tickets and merchandise (not including the cost of superbowl parties and big-screen tvs) and
its obvious that the amount spent on the American male's beer-guzzling, belly-scratching, titty-oogling activities vastly eclipse this
pathetic "wedding industry" sum. Ah, now its clear: " What women do/want=good, what men do/want=bad. " Actually _you_ are the only one applying "good"/"bad" labels. _You_ are attempting (using inflated numbers - here is a quote for you "false anecdotes aren't even data") to show that sociologically what women want matters more than men. You've proposed no way of measuring that, merely advancing the size of the wedding industry as evidence. When others point out that industries which cater primarily to men account for just as much money you respond with sarcasm.

"John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> writes:
Doug, (if you are married) go to the bathroom, count the number of feminine articles in it, makeup, bubble baths, perfume, hygiene, etc. . Add them up....now add up your toothbrush razor, deodorant, hairbrush. toothpaste, costs of them now add up all the female stuff. It sort of dwarfs the beer guzzling tit ogling belly scratching industries don't ya think?

It might. But spell it out for me: how does this prove Andre's
assertion that men are oppressed and controlled by women.

If anything, this tends to make me believe the opposite.

"Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bqp7bk$258jcq$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de...

You talk as if women are the only owners of "women's media". Exactly how much of "women's media" is actually owned by women?

Given that the media is generally of a corporate nature and that
corporations do not die as per se and given that women live longer than men
( as a rule) and as a rule inherit the estates of such men who started the
corporation to begin with I'd say the ownership of media IN GENERAL is
"Owned" by women far more extensively than is generally advertised.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> "DrLith" (drlith@hotmail.com) writes:> > "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message> > news:1Abzb.155610$ri.22474196@twister.nyc.rr.com.. .> >> "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message> >> news:bqjab3$cpd$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...> >> > According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry is now so> >> > large, that were it a Fortune 500 company, it would be number> >> > six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year.> >> > BFD.>> OK, you don't care. Yet, you cared enough to post these> *irrelevancies*...>> > The American Sportfishing Association reports that Americans spend> > $46 billiion a year on fishing tackle, trips, etc. And that probably> > doesn't include the 6-packs of Old Milwaukee.>> So ? Are millions of men *making* women go along on such trips, blowing> an average of $22,000 a trip ? No ? Then, you're trying to compare> apples to Buicks...>> > They spend an additional $20 billion annually on hunting> > (which probably doesn't include the cost of the Ford Explorer).> > Toss in about 60 bil for internet pornography and probably another> > similar amount for professional sports tickets and merchandise> > (not including the cost of superbowl parties and big-screen tvs)> > and its obvious that the amount spent on the American male's> > beer-guzzling, belly-scratching, titty-oogling activities vastly> > eclipse this pathetic "wedding industry" sum.>> Ah, now its clear: " What women do/want=good, what men do/want=bad. " Actually _you_ are the only one applying "good"/"bad" labels. Nope. That was YOU. By your *fallaciously* trying to equate things that are men, for the most part, *without* demanding that the women attend, So this is what the oppression is about? Men are "forced" to attend their own weddings?

Igor gave a good example of a guy whose own wishes would have been not
to vlow that loot on such an event, but that he agreed to *let her
have what she wnated*. Which was my point, that women tend to want and
demand this, and men, don't.
Against their will?

Against their choice. Is " choice " onbly good, if it's for women ?
Oh, brother.

Not even close...
and *without* accounting for the fact that the men's activities you tried to equte, AREN'T one time and day, events. Is this relevant?

Of course ! Any good student of statistics understand that you
compare *like with like*...

Only ignorant biased fools fail to grasp that elementary concept...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

XOR (xor31@netscape.net) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<bqlce1$bks$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>... Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes: We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. So, you agree that it's *women's whims* that create the *whole of that waste*. Thanks for agreeing with me... <g> I also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of wedding expenses. If people didn't get married, would they go on honeymoon ? I think not. Do you never take a vacation? Honeymoon = vacation/holiday

ROTFLMAO !!! Yeah, thats rich ! Woo hoo...

Let us know when the *wedding industry start offering seminars
in camping honeymoons*...

Most women tend to want a " once in a lifetime experience " in both
the wedding ceremony ( And, the attendent stuff, like the reception ),
as well as the honeymoon.

Not quite a weekend in the cabin up north...
And not every couple takes a "honeymoon."

Non sequitur. The *topic* was *trends*.

Hows that ESL course coming ? Gonna pass it this time ?

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

John Royer wrote: "Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bqp7bk$258jcq$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de...You talk as if women are the only owners of "women's media". Exactly howmuch of "women's media" is actually owned by women? Given that the media is generally of a corporate nature and that corporations do not die as per se and given that women live longer than men ( as a rule) and as a rule inherit the estates of such men who started the corporation to begin with I'd say the ownership of media IN GENERAL is "Owned" by women far more extensively than is generally advertised.

According to some estimates women own the majority of most large US
corporations for exactly the reasons you list.

Bob

Doug Anderson wrote: "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> writes: Doug, (if you are married) go to the bathroom, count the number of feminine articles in it, makeup, bubble baths, perfume, hygiene, etc. . Add them up....now add up your toothbrush razor, deodorant, hairbrush. toothpaste, costs of them now add up all the female stuff. It sort of dwarfs the beer guzzling tit ogling belly scratching industries don't ya think? It might. But spell it out for me: how does this prove Andre's assertion that men are oppressed and controlled by women.

A-n-d-r-e. There, does that help?

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Of course ! Any good student of statistics understand that you compare *like with like*...

But you haven't been doing statistics. You've been doing anecdote.
Your anecdote is that lots of money is spent on weddings.

Doing statistics is much, much harder.

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:26:10 -0500, John Royer
<jroyer@istar.ca> wrote: Doug, (if you are married) go to the bathroom, count the number of feminine articles in it, makeup, bubble baths, perfume, hygiene, etc. . Add them up....now add up your toothbrush razor, deodorant, hairbrush. toothpaste, costs of them now add up all the female stuff. It sort of dwarfs the beer guzzling tit ogling belly scratching industries don't ya think?

Hmm... Girly things... A scented candle. Guy stuff... Everything else.
:)

But then again, I have my own bathroom. We have a rule in my house... No
girly stuff in my bathroom, and I'll put the seat down in theirs when I'm
done. It's worked out pretty good so far.

-Tony
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:46Pzb.302631$9E1.1530122@attbi_s52... dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: "DrLith" (drlith@hotmail.com) writes: > "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message > news:1Abzb.155610$ri.22474196@twister.nyc.rr.com.. . >> "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message >> news:bqjab3$cpd$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... >> > According to PBS' NewsHour, the US wedding industry is now so >> > large, that were it a Fortune 500 company, it would be number >> > six, taking in some $120 *billion* a year. > > BFD. OK, you don't care. Yet, you cared enough to post these *irrelevancies*... > The American Sportfishing Association reports that Americans spend $46 > billiion a year on fishing tackle, trips, etc. And that probably doesn't > include the 6-packs of Old Milwaukee. So ? Are millions of men *making* women go along on such trips, blowing an average of $22,000 a trip ? No ? Then, you're trying to compare apples to Buicks... > They spend an additional $20 billion > annually on hunting (which probably doesn't include the cost of the Ford > Explorer). Toss in about 60 bil for internet pornography and probably > another similar amount for professional sports tickets and merchandise > (not including the cost of superbowl parties and big-screen tvs) and its > obvious that the amount spent on the American male's beer-guzzling, > belly-scratching, titty-oogling activities vastly eclipse this pathetic > "wedding industry" sum. Ah, now its clear: " What women do/want=good, what men do/want=bad. " Actually _you_ are the only one applying "good"/"bad" labels. _You_ are attempting (using inflated numbers - here is a quote for you "false anecdotes aren't even data") to show that sociologically what women want matters more than men. You've proposed no way of measuring that, merely advancing the size of the wedding industry as evidence. When others point out that industries which cater primarily to men account for just as much money you respond with sarcasm.


--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

In article <bqqj1b$q1a$1@news.eusc.inter.net>, jroyer@istar.ca says... "Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bqp7bk$258jcq$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... You talk as if women are the only owners of "women's media". Exactly how much of "women's media" is actually owned by women? Given that the media is generally of a corporate nature and that corporations do not die as per se and given that women live longer than men ( as a rule) and as a rule inherit the estates of such men who started the corporation to begin with I'd say the ownership of media IN GENERAL is "Owned" by women far more extensively than is generally advertised.

Is it advertised at all? What percentage of stocks are part of
inherited estates?


Even the relative longevity advantage of women pales in comparison to
the magnitude of institutional ownership of the larger stocks.

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1093/4_43/64458672/p1/article.jhtml

states that about 60% of the shares of the 1000 largest companies are
held by institutions such as mutual funds and pension funds. Issues
like that make it REALLY difficult to determine who controls large
corporations.

Mark Borgerson

In article <3FD0D21D.4090904@hotmail.com>, boby23456@hotmail.com says... John Royer wrote: "Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bqp7bk$258jcq$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de...You talk as if women are the only owners of "women's media". Exactly howmuch of "women's media" is actually owned by women? Given that the media is generally of a corporate nature and that corporations do not die as per se and given that women live longer than men ( as a rule) and as a rule inherit the estates of such men who started the corporation to begin with I'd say the ownership of media IN GENERAL is "Owned" by women far more extensively than is generally advertised. According to some estimates women own the majority of most large US corporations for exactly the reasons you list.
Whose estimates are those?

The estimates would be true only if you ignore the institutional
ownership issue. There are indications that the majority of the largest
corporations are owned by institutions and not by individuals. In order
to determine the
degree of control of an individual or group, you also need to know their
relationship to the major stockholding institutions.

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1093/4_43/64458672/p1/article.jhtml

Mark Borgerson

Mark Borgerson wrote: The estimates would be true only if you ignore the institutional ownership issue. There are indications that the majority of the largest corporations are owned by institutions and not by individuals.

Said institutions are primarily pension funds, IRAs, and 401Ks.
When my 401K buys a stock or mutual fund, the listed owner is
the 401K custodian. I am nevertheless the real owner of the stock.

Mark Borgerson wrote: In article <3FD0D21D.4090904@hotmail.com>, boby23456@hotmail.com says...John Royer wrote:"Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:bqp7bk$258jcq$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de...>You talk as if women are the only owners of "women's media". Exactly how>much of "women's media" is actually owned by women?Given that the media is generally of a corporate nature and thatcorporations do not die as per se and given that women live longer than men( as a rule) and as a rule inherit the estates of such men who started thecorporation to begin with I'd say the ownership of media IN GENERAL is"Owned" by women far more extensively than is generally advertised.According to some estimates women own the majority of most large UScorporations for exactly the reasons you list. Whose estimates are those? The estimates would be true only if you ignore the institutional ownership issue. There are indications that the majority of the largest corporations are owned by institutions and not by individuals. In order to determine the degree of control of an individual or group, you also need to know their relationship to the major stockholding institutions. http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1093/4_43/64458672/p1/article.jhtml Mark Borgerson


That would be true if you ignored the fact that institutions are owned
by individuals, many of whom are rich widows.

Bob

Mark Borgerson wrote: In article <bqqj1b$q1a$1@news.eusc.inter.net>, jroyer@istar.ca says..."Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:bqp7bk$258jcq$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de...You talk as if women are the only owners of "women's media". Exactly howmuch of "women's media" is actually owned by women?Given that the media is generally of a corporate nature and thatcorporations do not die as per se and given that women live longer than men( as a rule) and as a rule inherit the estates of such men who started thecorporation to begin with I'd say the ownership of media IN GENERAL is"Owned" by women far more extensively than is generally advertised. Is it advertised at all? What percentage of stocks are part of inherited estates? Even the relative longevity advantage of women pales in comparison to the magnitude of institutional ownership of the larger stocks. http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1093/4_43/64458672/p1/article.jhtml states that about 60% of the shares of the 1000 largest companies are held by institutions such as mutual funds and pension funds. Issues like that make it REALLY difficult to determine who controls large corporations. Mark Borgerson


Yes, but who owns the mutual funds and pension funds?

Bob

"John Royer" (jroyer@istar.ca) writes: "Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bqp7bk$258jcq$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... You talk as if women are the only owners of "women's media". Exactly how much of "women's media" is actually owned by women? Given that the media is generally of a corporate nature and that corporations do not die as per se and given that women live longer than men (as a rule) and as a rule inherit the estates of such men who started the corporation to begin with I'd say the ownership of media IN GENERAL is "Owned" by women far more extensively than is generally advertised.

The part that the women apologists also *fail to grasp*, is this:

Who *runs a business* is irrelevent, next to *who the business'
customers are*.

As studies not only have shown that women watch *more teevee* than
do men, but that the day time hours are the near sole province of
women's media, its clear enough that the messages of those media
will be *aimed at the customers' desires, not the owners*.

We have a word for owners of a business whose sole desire is to
please themselves...

*Bankrupt*...

So, since women do control some 80-85% of discretionary spending,
its only logical that even man-run firms aim their messages to
*what those mass of customers want*...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Of course ! Any good student of statistics understand that you compare *like with like*... But you haven't been doing statistics.

Non sequitur. I didn't claim to. I gave an *aggregate number*, and
showed quotes that *explained that aggregate number*.

One that, by the way, you have yet to offer *any rebuttal to*...

<laughs>
You've been doing anecdote.

Incorrect. That the wedding industrial complex is a $120
BILLION industry, is NOT an " anecdote ".

You just *failed English*... Try again...
Your anecdote is that lots of money is spent on weddings.

LOL ! So, when General Dynamics announces that it did, say,
$85 billion worth of business last year, thats an " anecdote "... ?

<laughs>
Doing statistics is much, much harder.

One wouldn't expect a *failure of basic english* to grasp anything
harder...

HTH.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

In article <t17Ab.4568$L6.3585@news.randori.com>, spammy@nospam.invalid
says... Mark Borgerson wrote: The estimates would be true only if you ignore the institutional ownership issue. There are indications that the majority of the largest corporations are owned by institutions and not by individuals. Said institutions are primarily pension funds, IRAs, and 401Ks. When my 401K buys a stock or mutual fund, the listed owner is the 401K custodian. I am nevertheless the real owner of the stock.
You may own the stock, but you have relenquished most of the
perogative of ownership---the primary one being a significant'
degree of control over the company. Even if you fill out
your proxy statements, your ability to influence the company
is near zero. You've delegated that power to the fund.

Mark Borgerson

In article <3FD0FF74.7070200@hotmail.com>, boby23456@hotmail.com says... Mark Borgerson wrote: In article <3FD0D21D.4090904@hotmail.com>, boby23456@hotmail.com says...John Royer wrote:>"Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in message>news:bqp7bk$258jcq$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de...>>>>>>You talk as if women are the only owners of "women's media". Exactly how>>much of "women's media" is actually owned by women?>>>Given that the media is generally of a corporate nature and that>corporations do not die as per se and given that women live longer than men>( as a rule) and as a rule inherit the estates of such men who started the>corporation to begin with I'd say the ownership of media IN GENERAL is>"Owned" by women far more extensively than is generally advertised.>>According to some estimates women own the majority of most large UScorporations for exactly the reasons you list. Whose estimates are those? The estimates would be true only if you ignore the institutional ownership issue. There are indications that the majority of the largest corporations are owned by institutions and not by individuals. In order to determine the degree of control of an individual or group, you also need to know their relationship to the major stockholding institutions. http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1093/4_43/64458672/p1/article.jhtml Mark Borgerson That would be true if you ignored the fact that institutions are owned by individuals, many of whom are rich widows.
LOL! does 'many' here mean 5 or five thousand? How many rich widows
are there?

Mark Borgerson

In article <3FD0FFB4.10904@hotmail.com>, boby23456@hotmail.com says... Mark Borgerson wrote: In article <bqqj1b$q1a$1@news.eusc.inter.net>, jroyer@istar.ca says..."Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:bqp7bk$258jcq$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de...>You talk as if women are the only owners of "women's media". Exactly how>much of "women's media" is actually owned by women?Given that the media is generally of a corporate nature and thatcorporations do not die as per se and given that women live longer than men( as a rule) and as a rule inherit the estates of such men who started thecorporation to begin with I'd say the ownership of media IN GENERAL is"Owned" by women far more extensively than is generally advertised. Is it advertised at all? What percentage of stocks are part of inherited estates? Even the relative longevity advantage of women pales in comparison to the magnitude of institutional ownership of the larger stocks. http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1093/4_43/64458672/p1/article.jhtml states that about 60% of the shares of the 1000 largest companies are held by institutions such as mutual funds and pension funds. Issues like that make it REALLY difficult to determine who controls large corporations. Mark Borgerson Yes, but who owns the mutual funds and pension funds?

Well, if you want to find out you can buy this report for
only $2000! ;-) The summary seems to indicate that men
still lead in mutual fund ownership.

http://www.marketresearch.com/product/display.asp?productID=546204&xs=r

http://www.ici.org/pdf/00fb_ch5.pdf

Indicates that most mutual funds are held buy households where
joint decision making is most common. I households where only
one gender makes investment decisions, men have a slight edge.


This page:
http://www.tdm.com/mediakit2/en10.pdf

Indicates that more men own funds and stocks, but doesn't address
the value of their holdings.


Mark Borgerson

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:mUUzb.307205$ao4.1053833@attbi_s51:
(Wait; maybe cats control the world, and we people are just front men.)

This is the most believeable statement in this entire thread! ;-D

Hope Munro Smith (pangrrl@NOSPAMyahoo.comedy) exuded: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in news:mUUzb.307205$ao4.1053833@attbi_s51: (Wait; maybe cats control the world, and we people are just front men.) This is the most believeable statement in this entire thread! ;-D

Yeah, but you're an alt.usenet.*kooks* lunatic, so, we consider
the source...

HTH.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

In article <bqr0br$98$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
says... Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Of course ! Any good student of statistics understand that you compare *like with like*... But you haven't been doing statistics. Non sequitur. I didn't claim to. I gave an *aggregate number*, and showed quotes that *explained that aggregate number*. One that, by the way, you have yet to offer *any rebuttal to*... <laughs> You've been doing anecdote. Incorrect. That the wedding industrial complex is a $120 BILLION industry, is NOT an " anecdote ".

It's not a supported fact either. It's an estimate from
a news show that provide no supporting data. You just *failed English*... Try again... Your anecdote is that lots of money is spent on weddings. LOL ! So, when General Dynamics announces that it did, say, $85 billion worth of business last year, thats an " anecdote "... ?

General Dynamics submits publishes annual financial statements.
When you can show us the same for the 'wedding industry', the
numbers may have more credence than the unsupported values
in the NewsHour broadcast. <laughs> Doing statistics is much, much harder. One wouldn't expect a *failure of basic english* to grasp anything harder...

Mark Borgerson

> Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in news:mUUzb.307205$ao4.1053833@attbi_s51:(Wait; maybe cats control the world, and we people are just frontmen.)


Mice. Bob read that it is mice.

Bob

On 05 Dec 2003 12:02:15 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com>
wrote:
dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Of course ! Any good student of statistics understand that you compare *like with like*...But you haven't been doing statistics. You've been doing anecdote.Your anecdote is that lots of money is spent on weddings.Doing statistics is much, much harder.

Andre has proven over and over again he doesn't know crap about
statistics

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:31:59 GMT, Mark Borgerson <m-a-r-k@oes.to>
wrote:
In article <bqr0br$98$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CAsays... Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> Of course ! Any good student of statistics understand that you> compare *like with like*... But you haven't been doing statistics. Non sequitur. I didn't claim to. I gave an *aggregate number*, and showed quotes that *explained that aggregate number*. One that, by the way, you have yet to offer *any rebuttal to*... <laughs> You've been doing anecdote. Incorrect. That the wedding industrial complex is a $120 BILLION industry, is NOT an " anecdote ".It's not a supported fact either. It's an estimate froma news show that provide no supporting data. You just *failed English*... Try again... Your anecdote is that lots of money is spent on weddings. LOL ! So, when General Dynamics announces that it did, say, $85 billion worth of business last year, thats an " anecdote "... ?General Dynamics submits publishes annual financial statements.When you can show us the same for the 'wedding industry', thenumbers may have more credence than the unsupported valuesin the NewsHour broadcast.

Another clue that Andre doesn't know the difference between
unsupported data and cold hard facts. <laughs> Doing statistics is much, much harder. One wouldn't expect a *failure of basic english* to grasp anything harder...Mark Borgerson

Rauni wrote: On 05 Dec 2003 12:02:15 -0800, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Of course ! Any good student of statistics understand that you compare *like with like*... But you haven't been doing statistics. You've been doing anecdote. Your anecdote is that lots of money is spent on weddings. Doing statistics is much, much harder. Andre has proven over and over again he doesn't know crap about statistics

I must have missed something. What DOES Andre know anything about?

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<bqqje5$pg$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>... XOR (xor31@netscape.net) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<bqlce1$bks$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>... Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes: > We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it was > up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. So, you agree that it's *women's whims* that create the *whole of that waste*. Thanks for agreeing with me... <g> > I also do > not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of > wedding expenses. If people didn't get married, would they go on honeymoon ? I think not. Do you never take a vacation? Honeymoon = vacation/holiday ROTFLMAO !!! Yeah, thats rich ! Woo hoo... Let us know when the *wedding industry start offering seminars in camping honeymoons*...


And that is relevant how? A honeymoon is a vacation that a newly
married couple take together. So, ok, if they didn't get married, they
may not call it a honeymoon, but they'd still go on a vacation.

FWIW - many people DO go camping for their honeymoons.
Most women tend to want a " once in a lifetime experience " in both the wedding ceremony ( And, the attendent stuff, like the reception ), as well as the honeymoon.

Shame. You need to meet some more women, or at least different ones.
This is a misconception the industry pushes. As men, why would you
choose a woman who has values so very different from your own?
Not quite a weekend in the cabin up north...

Why not?

XOR (xor31@netscape.net) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<bqqje5$pg$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>... XOR (xor31@netscape.net) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<bqlce1$bks$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...> Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes:> > We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it> > was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste.>> So, you agree that it's *women's whims* that create the *whole> of that waste*.>> Thanks for agreeing with me... <g>>> > I also do> > not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of> > wedding expenses.>> If people didn't get married, would they go on honeymoon ?>> I think not. Do you never take a vacation? Honeymoon = vacation/holiday ROTFLMAO !!! Yeah, thats rich ! Woo hoo... Let us know when the *wedding industry start offering seminars in camping honeymoons*... And that is relevant how? A honeymoon is a vacation that a newly married couple take together.

ROTFLMAO ! No, its a *special* type of " vacation " whose location,
and other particulars are *designed* around the *fact of the newlywed
status*.

All those places with the heart shaped beds and tubs *aren't* selling
them to anglers...
So, ok, if they didn't get married, they may not call it a honeymoon, but they'd still go on a vacation.

So, you are *unable* to see distinctions in type ?

Your problem, not mine...
FWIW - many people DO go camping for their honeymoons.

Cite ?

Yeah, didn't expect any...
Most women tend to want a " once in a lifetime experience " in both the wedding ceremony ( And, the attendent stuff, like the reception ), as well as the honeymoon. Shame. You need to meet some more women, or at least different ones.

LOL ! The statistics that the wedding industrial complex has already
created, speak mightily to the *delusion* of yours, *false that
it also is*, that this has *anything* to do with " women I know ",
since *I never brought them up*.

You only ASSumed that I was speaking about such a *relatively small*
population.

Your bad.
This is a misconception the industry pushes. As men, why would you choose a woman who has values so very different from your own?

Well, *I* wouldn't*. But, I'm more unique in such things, as I
would also tell her, " no wedding of more than $400 costs, no
rings of any sorts, I won't ever wear one myself, no honeymoon
that doesn't meet *both of our desires and tastes*, and so on. "
Not quite a weekend in the cabin up north... Why not?

Because *most women don't want one*.

Go read Bride Magazine ( And, again note the sheer *absense* of
any " Groom Magazine " ), and find me a batch of capming honeymmon
ads, then find out what *proportion* of couples go on them.

I'll bet *with* the House Odds. That way, I make fewer MS-takes..

Duh !

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

On 6 Dec 2003 10:42:53 -0800, xor31@netscape.net (XOR) wrote:
dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<bqqje5$pg$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>... XOR (xor31@netscape.net) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<bqlce1$bks$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...> Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes:> > We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it was> > up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste.>> So, you agree that it's *women's whims* that create the *whole> of that waste*.>> Thanks for agreeing with me... <g>>> > I also do> > not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of> > wedding expenses.>> If people didn't get married, would they go on honeymoon ?>> I think not. Do you never take a vacation? Honeymoon = vacation/holiday ROTFLMAO !!! Yeah, thats rich ! Woo hoo... Let us know when the *wedding industry start offering seminars in camping honeymoons*...And that is relevant how? A honeymoon is a vacation that a newlymarried couple take together. So, ok, if they didn't get married, theymay not call it a honeymoon, but they'd still go on a vacation.FWIW - many people DO go camping for their honeymoons.

I went scuba diving at Catalina Island. It was a pretty cheap
honeymoon. After all I didn't *buy* anything already had the gear.
Just the cost of food and the motel. Damn cheap really. Most women tend to want a " once in a lifetime experience " in both the wedding ceremony ( And, the attendent stuff, like the reception ), as well as the honeymoon.Shame. You need to meet some more women, or at least different ones.This is a misconception the industry pushes. As men, why would youchoose a woman who has values so very different from your own?

No **** Andre thinks all women are like the bad choices he made Not quite a weekend in the cabin up north...Why not?

And some of us live in a mountain cabin all year round.

Rauni (LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com) stalkingly exuded: On 6 Dec 2003 10:42:53 -0800, xor31@netscape.net (XOR) wrote:dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<bqqje5$pg$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>... XOR (xor31@netscape.net) writes: > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news: ><bqlce1$bks$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>... >> Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes: >> > We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it >> > was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. >> >> So, you agree that it's *women's whims* that create the *whole >> of that waste*. >> >> Thanks for agreeing with me... <g> >> >> > I also do >> > not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of >> > wedding expenses. >> >> If people didn't get married, would they go on honeymoon ? >> >> I think not. > > Do you never take a vacation? Honeymoon = vacation/holiday ROTFLMAO !!! Yeah, thats rich ! Woo hoo... Let us know when the *wedding industry start offering seminars in camping honeymoons*...And that is relevant how? A honeymoon is a vacation that a newlymarried couple take together. So, ok, if they didn't get married, theymay not call it a honeymoon, but they'd still go on a vacation.FWIW - many people DO go camping for their honeymoons. I went scuba diving at Catalina Island. It was a pretty cheap honeymoon. After all I didn't *buy* anything already had the gear. Just the cost of food and the motel. Damn cheap really.

There ya go, kiddies, thats ol' Rompin' Rauni's answer to everything:

" Me, me, me, its all about meeee !!! "

Talk about flaming *narcissism*, not to mention a totla *lack of
ability to grasp* that the topic isn't about what RR would do, or say
that she would do, but about what MILLIONS of women, for whom
Rauni CAN'T speak, for she shows, again and again, that if it ain't
about her, her, HER !, she *has no clue about it at all*...
Most women tend to want a " once in a lifetime experience " in both the wedding ceremony ( And, the attendent stuff, like the reception ), as well as the honeymoon.Shame. You need to meet some more women, or at least different ones.

I didn't catch this notion in my first reply...

So, if the women I do know are like this, thats MY *fault* ?

Shame, indeed, but for YOU, ol' WomenFirster.
This is a misconception the industry pushes. As men, why would youchoose a woman who has values so very different from your own? No **** Andre thinks all women are like the bad choices he made

No ****, Rauni can't answer anything I write, so she just trolls
away...
Not quite a weekend in the cabin up north...Why not? And some of us live in a mountain cabin all year round.

Feel free to *prove* that most women live that way... or want to...

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in news:bqr2gh$5g3$1
@freenet9.carleton.ca:
Hope Munro Smith (pangrrl@NOSPAMyahoo.comedy) exuded: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in news:mUUzb.307205$ao4.1053833@attbi_s51: (Wait; maybe cats control the world, and we people are just front men.) This is the most believeable statement in this entire thread! ;-D Yeah, but you're an alt.usenet.*kooks* lunatic, so, we consider the source...

Looks like you fixed that x-posting problem.

On 6 Dec 2003 19:02:39 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
Rauni (LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com) stalkingly exuded: On 6 Dec 2003 10:42:53 -0800, xor31@netscape.net (XOR) wrote:dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<bqqje5$pg$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...> XOR (xor31@netscape.net) writes:> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:> ><bqlce1$bks$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...> >> Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes:> >> > We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it> >> > was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste.> >>> >> So, you agree that it's *women's whims* that create the *whole> >> of that waste*.> >>> >> Thanks for agreeing with me... <g>> >>> >> > I also do> >> > not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of> >> > wedding expenses.> >>> >> If people didn't get married, would they go on honeymoon ?> >>> >> I think not.> >> > Do you never take a vacation? Honeymoon = vacation/holiday>> ROTFLMAO !!! Yeah, thats rich ! Woo hoo...>> Let us know when the *wedding industry start offering seminars> in camping honeymoons*...And that is relevant how? A honeymoon is a vacation that a newlymarried couple take together. So, ok, if they didn't get married, theymay not call it a honeymoon, but they'd still go on a vacation.FWIW - many people DO go camping for their honeymoons. I went scuba diving at Catalina Island. It was a pretty cheap honeymoon. After all I didn't *buy* anything already had the gear. Just the cost of food and the motel. Damn cheap really.There ya go, kiddies, thats ol' Rompin' Rauni's answer to everything:" Me, me, me, its all about meeee !!! "

Says the man who believes every one should think like him.Talk about flaming *narcissism*, not to mention a totla *lack ofability to grasp* that the topic isn't about what RR would do, or saythat she would do, but about what MILLIONS of women, for whomRauni CAN'T speak, for she shows, again and again, that if it ain'tabout her, her, HER !, she *has no clue about it at all*...

Millions huh? And not one iota of proof supporting that claim!
Come on Andre give us some proof!! Not some spit polish from wedding
ads. How about some *real* research. (not holding my breath here Andre
has demonstrated he don't *know* what real research is)
> Most women tend to want a " once in a lifetime experience " in both> the wedding ceremony ( And, the attendent stuff, like the reception ),> as well as the honeymoon.Shame. You need to meet some more women, or at least different ones.I didn't catch this notion in my first reply...So, if the women I do know are like this, thats MY *fault* ?

Yes if these are the only kind of women you meet repeatedlyShame, indeed, but for YOU, ol' WomenFirster.This is a misconception the industry pushes. As men, why would youchoose a woman who has values so very different from your own? No **** Andre thinks all women are like the bad choices he made.No ****, Rauni can't answer anything I write, so she just trollsaway...

Andre's definition of a troll, someone who disagrees with him.
> Not quite a weekend in the cabin up north...Why not? And some of us live in a mountain cabin all year round.Feel free to *prove* that most women live that way... or want to...
What a moron, there are 50 thousand people who live in the mountain
communities of San Bernardino. A lot of them are single women.
BTW Andre I suggest you prove your claims how wedding industry
*oppresses* men. Because right now you are sounding like a loon!

Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in news:3FD11C3C.3080304@hotmail.com:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in news:mUUzb.307205$ao4.1053833@attbi_s51:(Wait; maybe cats control the world, and we people are just frontmen.) Mice. Bob read that it is mice. Bob

Mice are the front men or rule the world?

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in
news:bqt94f$fhg$1@freenet9.carleton.ca:
Rauni (LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com) stalkingly exuded: On 6 Dec 2003 10:42:53 -0800, xor31@netscape.net (XOR) wrote:dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<bqqje5$pg$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...> XOR (xor31@netscape.net) writes:> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:> ><bqlce1$bks$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...> >> Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes:> >> > We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If> >> > it was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a> >> > waste.> >>> >> So, you agree that it's *women's whims* that create the *whole> >> of that waste*.> >>> >> Thanks for agreeing with me... <g>> >>> >> > I also do> >> > not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part> >> > of wedding expenses.> >>> >> If people didn't get married, would they go on honeymoon ?> >>> >> I think not.> >> > Do you never take a vacation? Honeymoon = vacation/holiday>> ROTFLMAO !!! Yeah, thats rich ! Woo hoo...>> Let us know when the *wedding industry start offering seminars> in camping honeymoons*...And that is relevant how? A honeymoon is a vacation that a newlymarried couple take together. So, ok, if they didn't get married,they may not call it a honeymoon, but they'd still go on a vacation.FWIW - many people DO go camping for their honeymoons. I went scuba diving at Catalina Island. It was a pretty cheap honeymoon. After all I didn't *buy* anything already had the gear. Just the cost of food and the motel. Damn cheap really. There ya go, kiddies, thats ol' Rompin' Rauni's answer to everything: " Me, me, me, its all about meeee !!! " Talk about flaming *narcissism*, not to mention a totla *lack of ability to grasp* that the topic isn't about what RR would do, or say that she would do, but about what MILLIONS of women, for whom Rauni CAN'T speak, for she shows, again and again, that if it ain't about her, her, HER !, she *has no clue about it at all*...> Most women tend to want a " once in a lifetime experience " in both> the wedding ceremony ( And, the attendent stuff, like the reception> ), as well as the honeymoon.Shame. You need to meet some more women, or at least different ones. I didn't catch this notion in my first reply... So, if the women I do know are like this, thats MY *fault* ? Shame, indeed, but for YOU, ol' WomenFirster.This is a misconception the industry pushes. As men, why would youchoose a woman who has values so very different from your own? No **** Andre thinks all women are like the bad choices he made No ****, Rauni can't answer anything I write, so she just trolls away...> Not quite a weekend in the cabin up north...Why not? And some of us live in a mountain cabin all year round. Feel free to *prove* that most women live that way... or want to... <laughs>

Has Oprah said when she is going to get married?

Rauni wrote:
I went scuba diving at Catalina Island. It was a pretty cheap honeymoon. After all I didn't *buy* anything already had the gear. Just the cost of food and the motel. Damn cheap really.

That's great Rauni. You did what you liked to do, and spent what you wanted to. That's the way it should be.
Do you think there is something wrong with spending a fortune on a trip if that's what another couple wants to
do? Is something wrong with wanting to travel first class and stay in 5 star hotels if one can afford it
(which, by the way, as many men as women like)?!

Far more than absolute amount of money that people spend on different activities when they can afford it, I
find going into debt (spending money that you don't have, even if it is not that much) problematic. I am
always amazed at the amount that people spend on their cars, when they have to borrow it!

I am not addressing the kooks who have no life other than being obsessed with finding something against women
in everything, but the rational, happy, and mentally balanced people who are participating in this thread. I
guess I am just puzzled at all the posts announcing how little their wedding or honeymoon cost. Am I the only
one who doesn't feel the need to justify to anyone what we did or didn't spend on our wedding, travels, or any
other lifestyle choice? It's OUR money and we spend it as we wish. Yes, I agree that the excesses of our
capitalistic society is perhaps immoral, considering how poor most of the world is. But that goes for
everything, not just weddings and honeymoons. To me, the very popular "cruise industry" is more offensive than
a big wedding party. The food that gets wasted on these ships can feed a nation, and these trips are mostly
marketed to the elderly men and women.
And some of us live in a mountain cabin all year round.

Again, good for you for living the way you like. It's good to be free spirited and not need many things, as it
usually makes one a more free and happy person, but is there some inherent virtue (other than the general
immorality of capitalist waste) in avoiding luxuries if your labor can provide them? , Next, we'll start
seeing people boasting about driving old beat up cars :-)

Being tired of lurking, on Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:18:30 +0000, Hope Munro
Smith posted:
dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in news:bqr2gh$5g3$1 @freenet9.carleton.ca: Hope Munro Smith (pangrrl@NOSPAMyahoo.comedy) exuded: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in news:mUUzb.307205$ao4.1053833@attbi_s51:> (Wait; maybe cats control the world, and we people are just front> men.) This is the most believeable statement in this entire thread! ;-D Yeah, but you're an alt.usenet.*kooks* lunatic, so, we consider the source... Looks like you fixed that x-posting problem.

About time it was "fixored"..


--
mhm 27x12
smeeter #28
Usenet Valhalla Circle #19 & #21
CEO Alcatroll Labs Inc.

On 6 Dec 2003 18:56:28 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
XOR (xor31@netscape.net) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<bqqje5$pg$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>... XOR (xor31@netscape.net) writes: > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news: ><bqlce1$bks$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>... >> Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes: >> > We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it >> > was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. >> >> So, you agree that it's *women's whims* that create the *whole >> of that waste*. >> >> Thanks for agreeing with me... <g> >> >> > I also do >> > not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of >> > wedding expenses. >> >> If people didn't get married, would they go on honeymoon ? >> >> I think not. > > Do you never take a vacation? Honeymoon = vacation/holiday ROTFLMAO !!! Yeah, thats rich ! Woo hoo... Let us know when the *wedding industry start offering seminars in camping honeymoons*... And that is relevant how? A honeymoon is a vacation that a newly married couple take together.ROTFLMAO ! No, its a *special* type of " vacation " whose location,and other particulars are *designed* around the *fact of the newlywedstatus*.All those places with the heart shaped beds and tubs *aren't* sellingthem to anglers...
You really are a monon......you actually think that *most* people who
go on honeymoons go to places that have heart shaped beds and tubs?

PS there *really* are some women who enjoy fly fishing. So, ok, if they didn't get married, they may not call it a honeymoon, but they'd still go on a vacation.So, you are *unable* to see distinctions in type ?Your problem, not mine...

Seems to be it is Andre who is whining about heart shaped beds and
bathtubs. FWIW - many people DO go camping for their honeymoons.Cite ?

You first! Lest see some statistics about the really big buck business
those places with the heart shaped bed and tubs do!Yeah, didn't expect any...

Why should any one give you cites? So far *you* haven't provided any. Most women tend to want a " once in a lifetime experience " in both the wedding ceremony ( And, the attendent stuff, like the reception ), as well as the honeymoon. Shame. You need to meet some more women, or at least different ones.LOL ! The statistics that the wedding industrial complex has alreadycreated, speak mightily to the *delusion* of yours, *false thatit also is*, that this has *anything* to do with " women I know ",since *I never brought them up*.

What statistics? You gave a quote from a TV show. No references no
cite and no methodology.
You only ASSumed that I was speaking about such a *relatively small*population.

We have no idea what the size of the population you are speaking about
because you have given us do *hard* data. You have done is foam at the
mouth about the evil empire know as the wedding industry. Oh yeah and
how this evil empire of wedding professionals oppress men.Your bad. This is a misconception the industry pushes. As men, why would you choose a woman who has values so very different from your own?Well, *I* wouldn't*. But, I'm more unique in such things, as Iwould also tell her, " no wedding of more than $400 costs, norings of any sorts, I won't ever wear one myself, no honeymoonthat doesn't meet *both of our desires and tastes*, and so on. " Not quite a weekend in the cabin up north... Why not?Because *most women don't want one*.Go read Bride Magazine ( And, again note the sheer *absense* ofany " Groom Magazine " ), and find me a batch of capming honeymmonads, then find out what *proportion* of couples go on them.I'll bet *with* the House Odds. That way, I make fewer MS-takes..Duh !Andre

Rauni wrote:
What a moron, there are 50 thousand people who live in the mountain communities of San Bernardino. A lot of them are single women.

And then there are ALL the men that I know, many of them single. Not ONE likes
to live in a mountain cabin (or else they would)! What does that tell you? I
guess you and I can't do a lot of match making :-)

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:24:26 GMT, Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Rauni wrote: I went scuba diving at Catalina Island. It was a pretty cheap honeymoon. After all I didn't *buy* anything already had the gear. Just the cost of food and the motel. Damn cheap really.That's great Rauni. You did what you liked to do, and spent what you wanted to. That's the way it should be.Do you think there is something wrong with spending a fortune on a trip if that's what another couple wants todo? Is something wrong with wanting to travel first class and stay in 5 star hotels if one can afford it(which, by the way, as many men as women like)?!

Nope it both want to do it I think it's cool. I had a friend when I
was growing up (his family made a fortune selling condoms from venting
machines in mens bathroom). He always wanted to go first class on
every think. He had a *huge* wedding and spent two weeks in Hawaii. My
brother was like that too. Even rented a horse drawn carriage for him
and his new bride. They went to Europe for their honeymoon.Far more than absolute amount of money that people spend on different activities when they can afford it, Ifind going into debt (spending money that you don't have, even if it is not that much) problematic. I amalways amazed at the amount that people spend on their cars, when they have to borrow it!
Me too. I always pay cash for my cars. My husbands takes out loans
but pays them of before the year is out.I am not addressing the kooks who have no life other than being obsessed with finding something against womenin everything, but the rational, happy, and mentally balanced people who are participating in this thread. Iguess I am just puzzled at all the posts announcing how little their wedding or honeymoon cost. Am I the onlyone who doesn't feel the need to justify to anyone what we did or didn't spend on our wedding, travels, or anyother lifestyle choice? It's OUR money and we spend it as we wish. Yes, I agree that the excesses of ourcapitalistic society is perhaps immoral, considering how poor most of the world is. But that goes foreverything, not just weddings and honeymoons. To me, the very popular "cruise industry" is more offensive than

Well I don't find a big wedding offensive. Heck I like a good party as
well as the next person. I am just point out to Andre that the desire
to spend a lot of money is not just a female thing. There are a lot of
men that also enjoy spending the big bucks as well. And contrary to
Andre's assertion there are a lot of women who don't give a rat's ***
about *stuff*!
a big wedding party. The food that gets wasted on these ships can feed a nation, and these trips are mostlymarketed to the elderly men and women.

Oh I agree with you. I just don't get cruises. I would rather spend my
money at my destination. Not to mention now days people can get sick
on cruises. And some of us live in a mountain cabin all year round.Again, good for you for living the way you like. It's good to be free spirited and not need many things, as itusually makes one a more free and happy person, but is there some inherent virtue (other than the generalimmorality of capitalist waste) in avoiding luxuries if your labor can provide them? , Next, we'll startseeing people boasting about driving old beat up cars :-)
Well from my perspective living in a mountain cabin is a luxury. It is
quite and smog free. If I get up early enough I am lucky to see bears,
deers, quails foxes,cyotes, ad raccoons.

And where my house is located I am lucky my roads are plough when it
snows and I have a 4 wheel drive car so I hardly ever have to put on
chains. (no boast about driving an old beat up here. We just bough a
new 4 wheel drive car last week)

When I was a kid we had a house in BC that was so far out of the way
on a dirt road that one need 4wheel drive if the weather got bad. Not
to mention no TV reception and hardly any radio (I loved that place
though it was a *real* log cabin). Heck I have a satellite dish and
get center ice. To me this is luxury.



"It is hard to free fools from chains they revere."-Voltaire

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:33:29 GMT, Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Rauni wrote: What a moron, there are 50 thousand people who live in the mountain communities of San Bernardino. A lot of them are single women.And then there are ALL the men that I know, many of them single. Not ONE likesto live in a mountain cabin (or else they would)! What does that tell you? Iguess you and I can't do a lot of match making :-)

Oh well. Heh my daughter grew up here. She never really took to the
mountains. She loved sailing and wanted a place by the ocean.
Different people like different things. Funny that!!

Rauni wrote:
Well I don't find a big wedding offensive. Heck I like a good party as well as the next person.

I like a good party too, but most of the big weddings that I've attended haven't been "good parties"!!
I am just point out to Andre that the desire to spend a lot of money is not just a female thing.

Of course it isn't! But you need to have a rational and healthy mind to be able to see that reality!
There are a lot of men that also enjoy spending the big bucks as well. And contrary to Andre's assertion there are a lot of women who don't give a rat's *** about *stuff*!

True. But Andre's assertions are, well, just that: Andre's assertions :-) . No need to refute them. Those with his
mindset can't SEE reality, and those with clear sights don't care about his assertions.
Oh I agree with you. I just don't get cruises. I would rather spend my money at my destination. Not to mention now days people can get sick on cruises.

Well, we went on a cruise and enjoyed the trip. But the amount of waste was rather revolting to me!
Well from my perspective living in a mountain cabin is a luxury.

Yes, it sure can be.

Hope Munro Smith wrote: Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in news:3FD11C3C.3080304@hotmail.com:Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote innews:mUUzb.307205$ao4.1053833@attbi_s51:>(Wait; maybe cats control the world, and we people are just front>men.)Mice. Bob read that it is mice.Bob Mice are the front men or rule the world?


According to "The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy," mice rule the world.

Bob

Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in news:3FD24B41.9090804@hotmail.com:
Hope Munro Smith wrote: Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in news:3FD11C3C.3080304@hotmail.com:>Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in>news:mUUzb.307205$ao4.1053833@attbi_s51:>>>>>(Wait; maybe cats control the world, and we people are just front>>men.)>Mice. Bob read that it is mice.Bob Mice are the front men or rule the world? According to "The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy," mice rule the world.

So are they giving cats kickbacks for not eating them or what?

On 6 Dec 2003 18:56:28 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
All those places with the heart shaped beds and tubs *aren't* sellingthem to anglers...

ROTFLOL I guess Andre thinks everyone honeymoons in the Poconos or The
Smoky Mountains.
BTW one only has to look on google to find other kinds of honeymoon
packages than what Andre's limited knowledge can come up with. Such as
*Alaska Adventure Honeymoon Package* That includes a kayak trip and
salmon and halibut fishing. I found honeymoon packages that included
fishing & hunting destinations, a honeymoon safari, hiking,
snowshoeing, sailing, cycling and Seal Watching.

Heh none of them have heart beds or tubs.

On other words Andre doesn't have a clue what he is talking about!
Damn what a surprise!

Hope Munro Smith wrote: Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in news:3FD24B41.9090804@hotmail.com:Hope Munro Smith wrote:Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote innews:3FD11C3C.3080304@hotmail.com:>>Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in>>news:mUUzb.307205$ao4.1053833@attbi_s51:>>>>>>>>>>>(Wait; maybe cats control the world, and we people are just front>>>men.)>>>Mice. Bob read that it is mice.>>Bob>Mice are the front men or rule the world?According to "The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy," mice rule theworld. So are they giving cats kickbacks for not eating them or what?

It's pretty complicated. But bring a bath towel and you will survive.

Bob

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<bqr2gh$5g3$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>... Hope Munro Smith (pangrrl@NOSPAMyahoo.comedy) exuded: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in news:mUUzb.307205$ao4.1053833@attbi_s51: (Wait; maybe cats control the world, and we people are just front men.) This is the most believeable statement in this entire thread! ;-D Yeah, but you're an alt.usenet.*kooks* lunatic, so, we consider the source... HTH.

On the contrary, the genus Felidae evolved a preternatural
sophistication of design quite pleasing to the perception of certain
large-brained, visually-oriented primates whom, as it occurred several
thousand years ago, voluntarily assumed stewardship of these creatures
and acted as agents to enhance their propagation. Human civilization
grew in leaps and bounds after forming its symbiotic relationship with
feloids; for example, it is well-known that plumbing was originally
invented as an entertainment device for cats. Feloids represent the
ultimate earthly bio-form -- one which humans subconsciously seek to
attain, judging from the ubiquity of feloid imagery in modern culture.
Not to mention, FluFFy RuLEs!!!!!!!!!!1!!!

Oh, and one more thing: Do grow a sense of humor, you supercilious
puff-toad. :)

HTH.

Rauni (LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com) writes: On 6 Dec 2003 19:02:39 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:Rauni (LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com) stalkingly exuded: On 6 Dec 2003 10:42:53 -0800, xor31@netscape.net (XOR) wrote:>dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<bqqje5$pg$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...>> XOR (xor31@netscape.net) writes:>> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:>> ><bqlce1$bks$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...>> >> Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes:>> >> > We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it>> >> > was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste.>> >>>> >> So, you agree that it's *women's whims* that create the *whole>> >> of that waste*.>> >>>> >> Thanks for agreeing with me... <g>>> >>>> >> > I also do>> >> > not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of>> >> > wedding expenses.>> >>>> >> If people didn't get married, would they go on honeymoon ?>> >>>> >> I think not.>> >>> > Do you never take a vacation? Honeymoon = vacation/holiday>>>> ROTFLMAO !!! Yeah, thats rich ! Woo hoo...>>>> Let us know when the *wedding industry start offering seminars>> in camping honeymoons*...>>And that is relevant how? A honeymoon is a vacation that a newly>married couple take together. So, ok, if they didn't get married, they>may not call it a honeymoon, but they'd still go on a vacation.>>FWIW - many people DO go camping for their honeymoons. I went scuba diving at Catalina Island. It was a pretty cheap honeymoon. After all I didn't *buy* anything already had the gear. Just the cost of food and the motel. Damn cheap really.There ya go, kiddies, thats ol' Rompin' Rauni's answer to everything:" Me, me, me, its all about meeee !!! " Says the man who believes every one should think like him.

Translation: " Since I CAN'T refute Andre's views in *honest
debate*, I will try to impugn the idea that his being *correct*
in this matter is somehow 'bad'... "

<laughs>
Talk about flaming *narcissism*, not to mention a totla *lack ofability to grasp* that the topic isn't about what RR would do, or saythat she would do, but about what MILLIONS of women, for whomRauni CAN'T speak, for she shows, again and again, that if it ain'tabout her, her, HER !, she *has no clue about it at all*... Millions huh? And not one iota of proof supporting that claim!

$120 BILLION annual revenue wedding industrial complex. A plethora
of well selling *bridal* periodicals, including one which set
a pair of world records a couple of years back, for largest page
count of a periodical, 1200 pages, and largest ad page count in on,
about 900.

Easily verifyable in *any magazine shop*...

<laughs>
Come on Andre give us some proof!! Not some spit polish from wedding ads. How about some *real* research. (not holding my breath here Andre has demonstrated he don't *know* what real research is)

So, my claims, which were sourced from a renowned media outlet, are
somehow " unproven ", but *your claims* to the contrary, sourced by
NOTHING but your mouth, don't need to be " proven " ?

Irony Meter: [....../]
>> Most women tend to want a " once in a lifetime experience " in both>> the wedding ceremony ( And, the attendent stuff, like the reception ),>> as well as the honeymoon.>>Shame. You need to meet some more women, or at least different ones.I didn't catch this notion in my first reply...So, if the women I do know are like this, thats MY *fault* ? Yes if these are the only kind of women you meet repeatedly

" If " being the operative word...

Free Clue: *I* know the people I know *better than you do*...

And, in any case, my comments WEREN'T about my circles of friends
and acquaintences, *since I'm smart enough to know that such a
" sample " is NOT scalable in ANY way, whatsoever*...
Shame, indeed, but for YOU, ol' WomenFirster.>This is a misconception the industry pushes. As men, why would you>choose a woman who has values so very different from your own? No **** Andre thinks all women are like the bad choices he made.No ****, Rauni can't answer anything I write, so she just trollsaway... Andre's definition of a troll, someone who disagrees with him.

LOL ! Its much *easier* for you, to just keep... making **** up, eh,
oh slurping stalker ?

Wheres *your case, complete with proofs and cites*... ?

Oh, of course, *you don't have to offer any such, because it's
all about... *you*...

<laughs>
>> Not quite a weekend in the cabin up north...>>Why not? And some of us live in a mountain cabin all year round.Feel free to *prove* that most women live that way... or want to... What a moron, there are 50 thousand people who live in the mountain communities of San Bernardino. A lot of them are single women.

The population of North America is about 310,000,000. 50,000 is, well,
1/6200th of them. Hardly a " plurality "...

BTW, suburbs in hilly terrain do NOT qualify as " mountain *cabins*... "
BTW Andre I suggest you prove your claims how wedding industry *oppresses* men. Because right now you are sounding like a loon!

Consider the source... <laughs>

And, all men have to do to not be " oppressed " by the wedding industrial
complex is... to say NO. Its real easy, guys, and for doing that, you
can make sure that you're getting a woman who's ready for a *marriage*,
not just a wedding...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Kooks nipped, as they're, well, idiots...

Hope Munro Smith (pangrrl@yahoo.comedy) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in news:bqr2gh$5g3$1 @freenet9.carleton.ca: Hope Munro Smith (pangrrl@NOSPAMyahoo.comedy) exuded: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in news:mUUzb.307205$ao4.1053833@attbi_s51:> (Wait; maybe cats control the world, and we people are just front> men.) This is the most believeable statement in this entire thread! ;-D Yeah, but you're an alt.usenet.*kooks* lunatic, so, we consider the source... Looks like you fixed that x-posting problem.

Freenet made some upgrades. You've never heard of upgrades
at ISP's ?

Sheesh.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Hope Munro Smith (pangrrl@NOSPAMyahoo.comedy) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in news:bqt94f$fhg$1@freenet9.carleton.ca: Rauni (LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com) stalkingly exuded: On 6 Dec 2003 10:42:53 -0800, xor31@netscape.net (XOR) wrote:>dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<bqqje5$pg$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...>> XOR (xor31@netscape.net) writes:>> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:>> ><bqlce1$bks$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...>> >> Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes:>> >> > We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If>> >> > it was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a>> >> > waste.>> >>>> >> So, you agree that it's *women's whims* that create the *whole>> >> of that waste*.>> >>>> >> Thanks for agreeing with me... <g>>> >>>> >> > I also do>> >> > not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part>> >> > of wedding expenses.>> >>>> >> If people didn't get married, would they go on honeymoon ?>> >>>> >> I think not.>> >>> > Do you never take a vacation? Honeymoon = vacation/holiday>>>> ROTFLMAO !!! Yeah, thats rich ! Woo hoo...>>>> Let us know when the *wedding industry start offering seminars>> in camping honeymoons*...>>And that is relevant how? A honeymoon is a vacation that a newly>married couple take together. So, ok, if they didn't get married,>they may not call it a honeymoon, but they'd still go on a vacation.>>FWIW - many people DO go camping for their honeymoons. I went scuba diving at Catalina Island. It was a pretty cheap honeymoon. After all I didn't *buy* anything already had the gear. Just the cost of food and the motel. Damn cheap really. There ya go, kiddies, thats ol' Rompin' Rauni's answer to everything: " Me, me, me, its all about meeee !!! " Talk about flaming *narcissism*, not to mention a totla *lack of ability to grasp* that the topic isn't about what RR would do, or say that she would do, but about what MILLIONS of women, for whom Rauni CAN'T speak, for she shows, again and again, that if it ain't about her, her, HER !, she *has no clue about it at all*...>> Most women tend to want a " once in a lifetime experience " in both>> the wedding ceremony ( And, the attendent stuff, like the reception>> ), as well as the honeymoon.>>Shame. You need to meet some more women, or at least different ones. I didn't catch this notion in my first reply... So, if the women I do know are like this, thats MY *fault* ? Shame, indeed, but for YOU, ol' WomenFirster.>This is a misconception the industry pushes. As men, why would you>choose a woman who has values so very different from your own? No **** Andre thinks all women are like the bad choices he made No ****, Rauni can't answer anything I write, so she just trolls away...>> Not quite a weekend in the cabin up north...>>Why not? And some of us live in a mountain cabin all year round. Feel free to *prove* that most women live that way... or want to... <laughs> Has Oprah said when she is going to get married?

Who is of so little mind, soul, and character, that they *care* ?

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Rauni wrote: What a moron, there are 50 thousand people who live in the mountain communities of San Bernardino. A lot of them are single women. And then there are ALL the men that I know, many of them single. Not ONE likes to live in a mountain cabin (or else they would)! What does that tell you?

That you are UNABLE to grasp:

" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
I guess you and I can't do a lot of match making :-)

Or, any science...

Andre



--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

>Nah, I didn't participate in the discussion except to read it. I wasimpressed by the patience they showed to you especially considering thecharmless and insulting way you have of posting. I don't know how you endedup thinking the "other side" conceded - at best you received an 'agree todisagree'.But then your power of self-delusion has awed me for some time.Carry on.....Tai

Tai, what I've been impressed with is Andre's commitment to nurturing his fear
and antipathy towards women. It is very clear that he seeks out all possible
ways of providing sustenance to his feelings. I can only imagine the number of
hours he's invested in this pursuit.

Sheila

>"Ignoramus11065" <ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid> wrote in messagenews:bql6rr$pk1$2@pita.alt.net... We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. I also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of wedding expenses.Just curious - why did you spend the $ then? Did you wife *have* to have thewedding? If so, why? Parents expected it?I hear a lot of men say that if they had their way, they'd spend very littleon the wedding, making me think this is mostly female-driven with menbasically going along to avoid a fight (let's just say now that I'm awareexceptions exist)JWB

I feel sure that is true that women drive the wedding industry (although my DH
and I ran off to Vegas and spent very little on our wedding -- I found my dress
on the clearance rack of Lord & Taylor for less than $50!). But, I suspect
this is one of those trade-off things that men and women negotiate in a
marriage. For instance, I suspect that more men than women pursue buying
big-screen televisions, boats, and expensive cars. I know I have no use for
that ShopSmith in our basement, the titanium golf clubs, or the various
electronic toys that my DH has.

I certainly don't think this has anything to do with women's "control" over
men, any more than I believe that my husband buying season tickets to the
Skin's games (a purchase I would never, in a million years, make) demonstrates
my husband's control over me.

Sheila

On 6 Dec 2003 23:42:35 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
Rauni (LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com) writes: On 6 Dec 2003 19:02:39 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:Rauni (LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com) stalkingly exuded:> On 6 Dec 2003 10:42:53 -0800, xor31@netscape.net (XOR) wrote:>>>dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:><bqqje5$pg$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...>>> XOR (xor31@netscape.net) writes:>>> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:>>> ><bqlce1$bks$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>...>>> >> Ignoramus11065 (ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid) writes:>>> >> > We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it>>> >> > was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste.>>> >>>>> >> So, you agree that it's *women's whims* that create the *whole>>> >> of that waste*.>>> >>>>> >> Thanks for agreeing with me... <g>>>> >>>>> >> > I also do>>> >> > not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of>>> >> > wedding expenses.>>> >>>>> >> If people didn't get married, would they go on honeymoon ?>>> >>>>> >> I think not.>>> >>>> > Do you never take a vacation? Honeymoon = vacation/holiday>>>>>> ROTFLMAO !!! Yeah, thats rich ! Woo hoo...>>>>>> Let us know when the *wedding industry start offering seminars>>> in camping honeymoons*...>>>>And that is relevant how? A honeymoon is a vacation that a newly>>married couple take together. So, ok, if they didn't get married, they>>may not call it a honeymoon, but they'd still go on a vacation.>>>>FWIW - many people DO go camping for their honeymoons.>> I went scuba diving at Catalina Island. It was a pretty cheap> honeymoon. After all I didn't *buy* anything already had the gear.> Just the cost of food and the motel. Damn cheap really.There ya go, kiddies, thats ol' Rompin' Rauni's answer to everything:" Me, me, me, its all about meeee !!! " Says the man who believes every one should think like him.Translation: " Since I CAN'T refute Andre's views in *honestdebate*, I will try to impugn the idea that his being *correct*in this matter is somehow 'bad'... "<laughs>Talk about flaming *narcissism*, not to mention a totla *lack ofability to grasp* that the topic isn't about what RR would do, or saythat she would do, but about what MILLIONS of women, for whomRauni CAN'T speak, for she shows, again and again, that if it ain'tabout her, her, HER !, she *has no clue about it at all*... Millions huh? And not one iota of proof supporting that claim!$120 BILLION annual revenue wedding industrial complex. A plethoraof well selling *bridal* periodicals, including one which seta pair of world records a couple of years back, for largest pagecount of a periodical, 1200 pages, and largest ad page count in on,about 900.Easily verifyable in *any magazine shop*...<laughs> Come on Andre give us some proof!! Not some spit polish from wedding ads. How about some *real* research. (not holding my breath here Andre has demonstrated he don't *know* what real research is)So, my claims, which were sourced from a renowned media outlet, aresomehow " unproven ", but *your claims* to the contrary, sourced byNOTHING but your mouth, don't need to be " proven " ?

ROTFLOL Really Andre do you really want everyone who reads you to
think you are that gullible? I read the transcript from the show.
There is no references as to how that number was derived! It was just
thrown out there. I am sorry just because it is on TeeVee doesn't
make it so! Various statistics from the web have it at half that
number.Irony Meter: [....../]
No **** I'm laughing at your sheer gullibility "if it's on a PBS show
it;s must be true!"

Turn off the tube Andre your brain is shriveling up!>>> Most women tend to want a " once in a lifetime experience " in both>>> the wedding ceremony ( And, the attendent stuff, like the reception ),>>> as well as the honeymoon.>>>>Shame. You need to meet some more women, or at least different ones.I didn't catch this notion in my first reply...So, if the women I do know are like this, thats MY *fault* ? Yes if these are the only kind of women you meet repeatedly" If " being the operative word...Free Clue: *I* know the people I know *better than you do*...And, in any case, my comments WEREN'T about my circles of friendsand acquaintences, *since I'm smart enough to know that such a" sample " is NOT scalable in ANY way, whatsoever*...Shame, indeed, but for YOU, ol' WomenFirster.>>This is a misconception the industry pushes. As men, why would you>>choose a woman who has values so very different from your own?>> No **** Andre thinks all women are like the bad choices he made.No ****, Rauni can't answer anything I write, so she just trollsaway... Andre's definition of a troll, someone who disagrees with him.LOL ! Its much *easier* for you, to just keep... making **** up, eh,oh slurping stalker ?Wheres *your case, complete with proofs and cites*... ?Oh, of course, *you don't have to offer any such, because it'sall about... *you*...<laughs>>>> Not quite a weekend in the cabin up north...>>>>Why not?>> And some of us live in a mountain cabin all year round.Feel free to *prove* that most women live that way... or want to... What a moron, there are 50 thousand people who live in the mountain communities of San Bernardino. A lot of them are single women.The population of North America is about 310,000,000. 50,000 is, well,1/6200th of them. Hardly a " plurality "...BTW, suburbs in hilly terrain do NOT qualify as " mountain *cabins*... " BTW Andre I suggest you prove your claims how wedding industry *oppresses* men. Because right now you are sounding like a loon!Consider the source... <laughs>And, all men have to do to not be " oppressed " by the wedding industrialcomplex is... to say NO. Its real easy, guys, and for doing that, youcan make sure that you're getting a woman who's ready for a *marriage*,not just a wedding...Andre

On 6 Dec 2003 23:48:30 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Rauni wrote: What a moron, there are 50 thousand people who live in the mountain communities of San Bernardino. A lot of them are single women. And then there are ALL the men that I know, many of them single. Not ONE likes to live in a mountain cabin (or else they would)! What does that tell you?That you are UNABLE to grasp:" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
And that PBS show was nothing but anecdotes. I guess you and I can't do a lot of match making :-)Or, any science...Andre

Rauni (LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com) writes: On 6 Dec 2003 23:48:30 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Rauni wrote:> What a moron, there are 50 thousand people who live in the mountain> communities of San Bernardino. A lot of them are single women. And then there are ALL the men that I know, many of them single. Not ONE likes to live in a mountain cabin (or else they would)! What does that tell you?That you are UNABLE to grasp:" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. " And that PBS show was nothing but anecdotes.

Oh ? You saw it, then, did you ? You have their production notes,
complete with sources, have you ?

You keep whining that other's don't offer *proofs*, and yet...

YOU offer NO proofs...

Irony Meter [....../]

<laughs>
I guess you and I can't do a lot of match making :-)Or, any science...

Andre



--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

>That's great Rauni. You did what you liked to do, and spent what you wantedto. That's the way it should be.Do you think there is something wrong with spending a fortune on a trip ifthat's what another couple wants todo? Is something wrong with wanting to travel first class and stay in 5 starhotels if one can afford it(which, by the way, as many men as women like)?!

True enough. My husband is more likely to want to "upgrade" than I.

Far more than absolute amount of money that people spend on differentactivities when they can afford it, Ifind going into debt (spending money that you don't have, even if it is notthat much) problematic. I amalways amazed at the amount that people spend on their cars, when they haveto borrow it!I am not addressing the kooks who have no life other than being obsessed withfinding something against womenin everything, but the rational, happy, and mentally balanced people who areparticipating in this thread. Iguess I am just puzzled at all the posts announcing how little their weddingor honeymoon cost. Am I the onlyone who doesn't feel the need to justify to anyone what we did or didn'tspend on our wedding, travels, or anyother lifestyle choice? It's OUR money and we spend it as we wish. Yes, Iagree that the excesses of ourcapitalistic society is perhaps immoral, considering how poor most of theworld is. But that goes foreverything, not just weddings and honeymoons. To me, the very popular "cruiseindustry" is more offensive thana big wedding party. The food that gets wasted on these ships can feed anation, and these trips are mostlymarketed to the elderly men and women.

Also true. I agree with you that what people do with their disposible income
is entirely their business. When my DH and I got together, we had nothing....
except debt! We worked hard, put in a lot of sweat equity, and now we are
getting to the point where we are allowing ourselves some luxuries -- and I
agree with you, we don't need to justify them.

Neither or us felt a strong desire for a big wedding. We'd been together for
five years already; it was a second marriage for both of us. It wasn't
something that either of us wanted to spend a ton of money on. OTOH, summer
before last we took the kids to DisneyWorld (my first visit ever) and my DH
made all the arrangements -- first class all the way. Did I feel a bit guilty?
Yes, actually I did. But, I also enjoyed every second of it. It was the
first real, non-extended-family related vacation we'd ever taken, and I'm glad
we spent the money to do it the way we wanted.

You are right. It is interesting how we start defending our choices on how we
spend our money, when it really isn't anyone else's business.

Sheila

In article <3FD2508D.6030709@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Hope Munro Smith wrote: Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in news:3FD24B41.9090804@hotmail.com:Hope Munro Smith wrote:>Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in>news:3FD11C3C.3080304@hotmail.com:>>>>>>Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in>>>news:mUUzb.307205$ao4.1053833@attbi_s51:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(Wait; maybe cats control the world, and we people are just front>>>>men.)>>>>>Mice. Bob read that it is mice.>>>>Bob>>>>>Mice are the front men or rule the world?According to "The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy," mice rule theworld. So are they giving cats kickbacks for not eating them or what? It's pretty complicated. But bring a bath towel and you will survive.

Always bring a towel, says Towlie!

Andre Lieven wrote:
And then there are ALL the men that I know, many of them single. Not ONE likes to live in a mountain cabin (or else they would)! What does that tell you? That you are UNABLE to grasp: " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

LOL. Do tell Andre, what percentage of men and what percentage of women live in
mountain cabins? Of course, being the nothing-but-proven-data kind of guy that
you are, I'm sure you'll give us accurate and reliable citation. I for one am
very interested to learn the precise distribution. Thank you.

>(I get the impression he does a lot of that sort at-keyboard wriggling....;) )Tai

Given his general demeanor and disdain towards women, it may well be the only
kind of "wigglin'" he gets to do. ;-)

Sheila

Hope Munro Smith wrote: In article <3FD2508D.6030709@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Hope Munro Smith wrote:Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in news:3FD24B41.9090804@hotmail.com:>Hope Munro Smith wrote:>>>>Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in>>news:3FD11C3C.3080304@hotmail.com:>>>>>>>>>>>>Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in>>>>news:mUUzb.307205$ao4.1053833@attbi_s51:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(Wait; maybe cats control the world, and we people are just front>>>>>men.)>>>>>>>Mice. Bob read that it is mice.>>>>>>Bob>>>>>>>>>Mice are the front men or rule the world?>>>According to "The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Universe," mice rule the>world.>So are they giving cats kickbacks for not eating them or what?It's pretty complicated. But bring a bath towel and you will survive. Always bring a towel, says Towlie!

Your literary ignorance is showing again. The "Hitchhiker's Guide" says
to bring a bath towel.

Bob

Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: And then there are ALL the men that I know, many of them single. Not ONE likes to live in a mountain cabin (or else they would)! What does that tell you? That you are UNABLE to grasp: " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. " LOL.

Indeed. Your claims are that funny.

Pray tell, since *youse guys* brought up " mountain cabins ",
show *your cites* that would suggest that 50%+1 of North Americans
live in such domiciles.

As population stats show that North American is primarily *urban
and sub-urban*. Neither categoory *includes* " mountain cabins "
as qualifying locales and domiciles.

<laughs>
Do tell Andre, what percentage of men and what percentage of women live in mountain cabins?

Why should I ? *I* idn't make the claim that they were in any way
*representative* of North Americans.

Rompin' Rauni made that claim. Bust her chops fgor her inanity...
Of course, being the nothing-but-proven-data kind of guy that you are, I'm sure you'll give us accurate and reliable citation.

Why ? It wasn't my claim that it was relevent. Ibid RR.
I for one am very interested to learn the precise distribution.

Then... *do your own homework*. Sheesh. Trolls are bad enough,
but *lazy trolls*...
Thank you.

Eat Rush Limbaugh.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

In article <3FD276F4.3030005@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Hope Munro Smith wrote: In article <3FD2508D.6030709@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Hope Munro Smith wrote:>Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in news:3FD24B41.9090804@hotmail.com:>>>>>Hope Munro Smith wrote:>>>>>>>Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in>>>news:3FD11C3C.3080304@hotmail.com:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in>>>>>news:mUUzb.307205$ao4.1053833@attbi_s51:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(Wait; maybe cats control the world, and we people are just front>>>>>>men.)>>>>>>>>>Mice. Bob read that it is mice.>>>>>>>>Bob>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mice are the front men or rule the world?>>>>>>According to "The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Universe," mice rule the>>world.>>>>>So are they giving cats kickbacks for not eating them or what?It's pretty complicated. But bring a bath towel and you will survive. Always bring a towel, says Towlie! Your literary ignorance is showing again. The "Hitchhiker's Guide" says to bring a bath towel.

Yes, I got your reference, I was just adding further emphasis
from a qualified expert.

In article <5kh4tvci7r088l60jt97lg48hpkg53noi0@4ax.com>,
Rauni <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 6 Dec 2003 18:56:28 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:All those places with the heart shaped beds and tubs *aren't* sellingthem to anglers... ROTFLOL I guess Andre thinks everyone honeymoons in the Poconos or The Smoky Mountains. BTW one only has to look on google to find other kinds of honeymoon packages than what Andre's limited knowledge can come up with. Such as *Alaska Adventure Honeymoon Package* That includes a kayak trip and salmon and halibut fishing. I found honeymoon packages that included fishing & hunting destinations, a honeymoon safari, hiking, snowshoeing, sailing, cycling and Seal Watching. Heh none of them have heart beds or tubs. On other words Andre doesn't have a clue what he is talking about! Damn what a surprise!

Hey folks, TLC has an entire show about weddings:

http://tlc.discovery.com/fansites/weddingstory/weddingstory.html

Maybe you'll find useful info on the site, or watch it on TLC,
they show it every other hour during the daytime.

WhansaMi wrote:
OTOH, summer before last we took the kids to DisneyWorld (my first visit ever) and my DH made all the arrangements -- first class all the way. Did I feel a bit guilty? Yes, actually I did. But, I also enjoyed every second of it.

It's good that you enjoyed it - that is what vacations are for. I wouldn't even
feel guilty about it!!

My husband and I like to travel comfortably. We usually stay at nice hotels and
don't skimp on things that contribute to our comfort and pleasure. I don't feel the
least bit uncomfortable spending money on things that give me happiness, but feel
terrible when I see *waste* and unnecessary luxury that is just for show-off and
doesn't add to the experience. My husband shares my feelings and we never argue
about the arrangements for our trips - or local entertainment.

At our wedding (which was relatively small) we fussed to find the best caterer and
chose the highest quality food. We also asked, and paid more, for comfortable
chairs for the gusts! One of my peeves in these long parties at cheesy places is
the uncomfortable chairs that you have to sit in for several hours :-) But when it
came to centerpieces for the tables we chose a very simple arrangements with
inexpensive flowers. And it was the same for all the other stuff that was
peripheral in our view. The goal was for everyone to have a good time and eat good
food, not to be impressed by how much the decoration cost us! That is the standard
that we have kept ever since for ourselves and events that we host. I love
decorating with flowers and candles, but never buy very expensive flowers. In my
view they don't necessarily look better, just cost more!

On 7 Dec 2003 00:22:14 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
Rauni (LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com) writes: On 6 Dec 2003 23:48:30 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes:> Rauni wrote:>>> What a moron, there are 50 thousand people who live in the mountain>> communities of San Bernardino. A lot of them are single women.>> And then there are ALL the men that I know, many of them single. Not ONE> likes to live in a mountain cabin (or else they would)! What does that> tell you?That you are UNABLE to grasp:" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. " And that PBS show was nothing but anecdotes.Oh ? You saw it, then, did you ? You have their production notes,complete with sources, have you ?

The entire transcript is on line. A link was already posted to it.
There is no reference as to how these figures were derived. So unless
you have access to their research my information is as good as yours.You keep whining that other's don't offer *proofs*, and yet...

Well I expect you to at least hold to the *same* standards that you
demand from the rest of us. So where is the research?YOU offer NO proofs...

Neither have you!! Nothing, nada, just that you watched a TeeVee show
on PBS. Pretty weak.

Do you believe *everything* you see on the tube?Irony Meter [....../]<laughs>> I guess you and I can't do a lot of match making :-)Or, any science...Andre

On 7 Dec 2003 00:43:03 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: > And then there are ALL the men that I know, many of them single. Not ONE > likes to live in a mountain cabin (or else they would)! What does that > tell you? That you are UNABLE to grasp: " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. " LOL.Indeed. Your claims are that funny.Pray tell, since *youse guys* brought up " mountain cabins ",show *your cites* that would suggest that 50%+1 of North Americanslive in such domiciles.As population stats show that North American is primarily *urbanand sub-urban*. Neither categoory *includes* " mountain cabins "as qualifying locales and domiciles.<laughs> Do tell Andre, what percentage of men and what percentage of women live in mountain cabins?Why should I ? *I* idn't make the claim that they were in any way*representative* of North Americans.

I think you need to go to an reading outreach program I didn't make
that claim either.Rompin' Rauni made that claim. Bust her chops fgor her inanity... Of course, being the nothing-but-proven-data kind of guy that you are, I'm sure you'll give us accurate and reliable citation.Why ? It wasn't my claim that it was relevent. Ibid RR. I for one am very interested to learn the precise distribution.Then... *do your own homework*. Sheesh. Trolls are bad enough,but *lazy trolls*... Thank you.Eat Rush Limbaugh.
No thanks I don't do drugsAndre

Andre Lieven wrote:
Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: > And then there are ALL the men that I know, many of them single. Not ONE > likes to live in a mountain cabin (or else they would)! What does that > tell you? That you are UNABLE to grasp: " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. " LOL. Indeed. Your claims are that funny. Pray tell, since *youse guys* brought up " mountain cabins ", show *your cites* that would suggest that 50%+1 of North Americans live in such domiciles. As population stats show that North American is primarily *urban and sub-urban*. Neither categoory *includes* " mountain cabins " as qualifying locales and domiciles.

Well, thank you for agreeing what I said above! Oh, I forgot, you thought you
were disagreeing with me! Or did you not realize that my point was that not that
many people DID live in mountain cabins?! Andre, you really have to learn how to
read some day...

Ellie wrote: Andre Lieven wrote: Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote:>> And then there are ALL the men that I know, many of them single. Not ONE>> likes to live in a mountain cabin (or else they would)! What does that>> tell you?>> That you are UNABLE to grasp:>> " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. " LOL. Indeed. Your claims are that funny. Pray tell, since *youse guys* brought up " mountain cabins ", show *your cites* that would suggest that 50%+1 of North Americans live in such domiciles. As population stats show that North American is primarily *urban and sub-urban*. Neither categoory *includes* " mountain cabins " as qualifying locales and domiciles. Well, thank you for agreeing what I said above! Oh, I forgot, you thought you were disagreeing with me! Or did you not realize that my point was that not that many people DID live in mountain cabins?! Andre, you really have to learn how to read some day...

Huh? Not if he knows everything already. Really, Ellie.....

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:01:08 GMT, Hope Munro Smith
<pangrrl@yahoo.comedy> wrote:
In article <5kh4tvci7r088l60jt97lg48hpkg53noi0@4ax.com>, Rauni <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote: On 6 Dec 2003 18:56:28 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:All those places with the heart shaped beds and tubs *aren't* sellingthem to anglers... ROTFLOL I guess Andre thinks everyone honeymoons in the Poconos or The Smoky Mountains. BTW one only has to look on google to find other kinds of honeymoon packages than what Andre's limited knowledge can come up with. Such as *Alaska Adventure Honeymoon Package* That includes a kayak trip and salmon and halibut fishing. I found honeymoon packages that included fishing & hunting destinations, a honeymoon safari, hiking, snowshoeing, sailing, cycling and Seal Watching. Heh none of them have heart beds or tubs. On other words Andre doesn't have a clue what he is talking about! Damn what a surprise!Hey folks, TLC has an entire show about weddings:http://tlc.discovery.com/fansites/weddingstory/weddingstory.htmlMaybe you'll find useful info on the site, or watch it on TLC,they show it every other hour during the daytime.

I already knew about that show they also have a baby story and an
adoption story. I don't really watch to much TV unless it is hockey.

In article <7405tvstajdbgv2pqvg6ap3dr980dvt4ts@4ax.com>,
Rauni <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:01:08 GMT, Hope Munro Smith <pangrrl@yahoo.comedy> wrote:In article <5kh4tvci7r088l60jt97lg48hpkg53noi0@4ax.com>, Rauni <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote: On 6 Dec 2003 18:56:28 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote: >All those places with the heart shaped beds and tubs *aren't* selling >them to anglers... ROTFLOL I guess Andre thinks everyone honeymoons in the Poconos or The Smoky Mountains. BTW one only has to look on google to find other kinds of honeymoon packages than what Andre's limited knowledge can come up with. Such as *Alaska Adventure Honeymoon Package* That includes a kayak trip and salmon and halibut fishing. I found honeymoon packages that included fishing & hunting destinations, a honeymoon safari, hiking, snowshoeing, sailing, cycling and Seal Watching. Heh none of them have heart beds or tubs. On other words Andre doesn't have a clue what he is talking about! Damn what a surprise!Hey folks, TLC has an entire show about weddings:http://tlc.discovery.com/fansites/weddingstory/weddingstory.htmlMaybe you'll find useful info on the site, or watch it on TLC,they show it every other hour during the daytime. I already knew about that show they also have a baby story and an adoption story. I don't really watch to much TV unless it is hockey.

I've seen the end of those shows while awaiting Trading Spaces.
That's all I know, that and that I have no desire to watch them.

Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> with the help of a thousand monkeys banging
on keyboards, was finally able to type out the following
news:3FD276F4.3030005@hotmail.com:
Hope Munro Smith wrote: In article <3FD2508D.6030709@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Hope Munro Smith wrote:>Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in news:3FD24B41.9090804
@hotmail.com:>>>>>Hope Munro Smith wrote:>>>>>>>Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in>>>news:3FD11C3C.3080304@hotmail.com:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in>>>>>news:mUUzb.307205$ao4.1053833@attbi_s51:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(Wait; maybe cats control the world, and we people are just
front>>>>>>men.)>>>>>>>>>Mice. Bob read that it is mice.>>>>>>>>Bob>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mice are the front men or rule the world?>>>>>>According to "The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Universe," mice rule
the>>world.>>>>>So are they giving cats kickbacks for not eating them or what?It's pretty complicated. But bring a bath towel and you will survive. Always bring a towel, says Towlie! Your literary ignorance is showing again. The "Hitchhiker's Guide"
says to bring a bath towel. Bob

And you showed your ignorance of "South Park".


--
Nemesis
ICQ #4610826

http://www.tehawk.com
http://home.earthlink.net/~tehawk

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:
Nah, I didn't participate in the discussion except to read it. I wasimpressed by the patience they showed to you especially considering thecharmless and insulting way you have of posting. I don't know how you endedup thinking the "other side" conceded - at best you received an 'agree todisagree'.But then your power of self-delusion has awed me for some time.Carry on.....Tai Tai, what I've been impressed with is Andre's commitment to nurturing his fear and antipathy towards women. It is very clear that he seeks out all possible ways of providing sustenance to his feelings. I can only imagine the number of hours he's invested in this pursuit.

What I can't help wondering is what came first, his misogyny or his
divorce? I have my suspicions, although he claims to the contrary
that divorce opened his eyes and he has been taking opportunities to
develop his misogyny ever since.

"Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:5kh4tvci7r088l60jt97lg48hpkg53noi0@4ax.com... On 6 Dec 2003 18:56:28 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:All those places with the heart shaped beds and tubs *aren't* sellingthem to anglers... ROTFLOL I guess Andre thinks everyone honeymoons in the Poconos or The Smoky Mountains. BTW one only has to look on google to find other kinds of honeymoon packages than what Andre's limited knowledge can come up with. Such as *Alaska Adventure Honeymoon Package* That includes a kayak trip and salmon and halibut fishing. I found honeymoon packages that included fishing & hunting destinations, a honeymoon safari, hiking, snowshoeing, sailing, cycling and Seal Watching. Heh none of them have heart beds or tubs. On other words Andre doesn't have a clue what he is talking about! Damn what a surprise!

Anecdote alert! Anecdote alert! Not meant to prove anything about hunting
and fishing honeymoons:

But...

My dream honeymoon would be to spend a week canoeing in the Canajun boundary
waters. It just so happens than the first time I did that, the group I was
with stayed at the honeymoon suite of some rinkydink motel in northern
Minnesota after we pulled out. It was actually a very affordable option for
a party of 6, and after 8 days of paddling on those bone-chillin' Canajun
lakes, nothing beats a 2 hour soak in the jacuzzi. My and my partner lost
the draw for the heart-shaped bed, though, and had to sleep on the fold-out.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1ZwAb.251159$Dw6.870068@attbi_s02... What I can't help wondering is what came first, his misogyny or his divorce? I have my suspicions, although he claims to the contrary that divorce opened his eyes and he has been taking opportunities to develop his misogyny ever since.

Whatever it is, he certainly seems less rational than he did 4 years ago,
when he used to be a regular on ASD. He was, certainly, argumentative in
those days, but not in the pointless, blinders-on manner that he seems to
today.

DrLith wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1ZwAb.251159$Dw6.870068@attbi_s02... What I can't help wondering is what came first, his misogyny or his divorce? I have my suspicions, although he claims to the contrary that divorce opened his eyes and he has been taking opportunities to develop his misogyny ever since. Whatever it is, he certainly seems less rational than he did 4 years ago, when he used to be a regular on ASD. He was, certainly, argumentative in those days, but not in the pointless, blinders-on manner that he seems to today.

I believe he is on disability, since he's not working, but he may not be taking
his meds anymore - which can make a big difference. (Meds aren't exactly
cheap, you know).

Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote:> > And then there are ALL the men that I know, many of them single.> > Not ONE likes to live in a mountain cabin (or else they would)!> > What does that tell you?>> That you are UNABLE to grasp:>> " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. " LOL. Indeed. Your claims are that funny. Pray tell, since *youse guys* brought up " mountain cabins ", show *your cites* that would suggest that 50%+1 of North Americans live in such domiciles. As population stats show that North American is primarily *urban and sub-urban*. Neither categoory *includes* " mountain cabins " as qualifying locales and domiciles. Well, thank you for agreeing what I said above! Oh, I forgot, you thought you were disagreeing with me! Or did you not realize that my point was that not that many people DID live in mountain cabins?! Andre, you really have to learn how to read some day...

Non sequitur. When you and Rauni can get your stories straight, maybe
you might have something to tell others.

In any case, the matter is clear enough: Most honeymooners don't
buy " roughing it " honeymoons. Nor does the wedding industrial
complex want to sell them that, as it would eat into sales numbers.

Now, feel free to go tell Rompin' Rauni that *her claim was full
of cow*****...

Since, well, it was...

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
So, my claims, which were sourced from a renowned media outlet, are somehow " unproven ", but *your claims* to the contrary, sourced by NOTHING but your mouth, don't need to be " proven " ?

Your claims, as I and others have pointed out, are inconsistent with
information provided by the US census bureau. You still want to stand
by TV as your bible?

Hal Sadofsky (sadofsky@meerkat.local) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: So, my claims, which were sourced from a renowned media outlet, are somehow " unproven ", but *your claims* to the contrary, sourced by NOTHING but your mouth, don't need to be " proven " ? Your claims, as I and others have pointed out, are inconsistent with information provided by the US census bureau.

Nitpicking. The point stands that the *bridal* market is orders
of magnitude *greater* than the " groom " market.
You still want to stand by TV as your bible?

Why not ? Their core point was clear, that that market, as
huge as it is, is driven by *women's desires*.

Feel free to *post proof* of sales of " Grooms " magazine...

Of course... you *can't*, since there is no such animal...

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bqmcu9$222q8s$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de>... JWB wrote: "Ignoramus11065" <ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid> wrote in message news:bql6rr$pk1$2@pita.alt.net... We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. I also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of wedding expenses. Just curious - why did you spend the $ then? Did you wife *have* to have the wedding? If so, why? Parents expected it? I hear a lot of men say that if they had their way, they'd spend very little on the wedding, making me think this is mostly female-driven with men basically going along to avoid a fight (let's just say now that I'm aware exceptions exist) I get the impression that quite a bit of money can be spent on the all-singing, all-dancing bachelor party nowadays...

However, when the woman who complains about the $1,000
bachelor party is indulging HERSELF ina $30,000 wedding,
that to miss the hypocrisy, one has to actively work at it.

Tai

"Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bqmg96$24ld68$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de>... Andre Lieven wrote: "Tai" (taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com) writes: JWB wrote:> "Ignoramus11065" <ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid> wrote in> message news:bql6rr$pk1$2@pita.alt.net...>> We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it>> was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. I>> also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as>> part of wedding expenses.>> Just curious - why did you spend the $ then? Did you wife *have* to> have the wedding? If so, why? Parents expected it?>> I hear a lot of men say that if they had their way, they'd spend> very little on the wedding, making me think this is mostly> female-driven with men basically going along to avoid a fight> (let's just say now that I'm aware exceptions exist) I get the impression that quite a bit of money can be spent on the all-singing, all-dancing bachelor party nowadays... Cites ? Anyhting close to an *average* of $22,000 ? I sincerely hope not. Can you read for understanding at all, Andre? Some men like to spend money on the brouhaha associated with getting married, that's all.

VERY VERY VERY few.

All power to them if that's what they and their fiancees want to do as long as they aren't robbing banks and aren't asking me to finance them.

It dumps a financial burden on the couple, which, invariably,
the MAN (and only him) is expected to pay off.

Thought not. Yes, I've noticed you don't seem to be able to think very well. Ttai

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<dcBzb.419621$Fm2.427394@attbi_s04>... dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:> > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> >> >> I made *specific comments*, ones that facts back up. YOUR *ignorance*> >> of them doesn't make them any less *real*...> >> > Very amusing. Where "fact" here means "Andre's opinion.">> Thanks for showing that when you *can't refute an argument*, you...>> LIE.>> The *facts* I mentioned came direct from PBS' NewsHour. If you have an> issue with them, take it up with them, *and* the other sources cited in> this thread that *supported* those facts. You may have mentioned things My OP cited the source, and gave specific numbers, such as an average spending per wedding of $22,000 USD. If your memory is *so poor* as to be that deficient, again, thats not my problem... Sure, there is no doubt people spend lots on weddings. I don't dispute that. And so what?

Why does society accept (even promote) women's self-indulgent spending
at the expense of stable marriages ("money problems" are ranked as the
number one cause of divorce. I'll give you one guess about who's doing
the majority of the spending in said marriages).


If you want to see, Doug, you must first remove the blindfold, you idiot.

Nemesis wrote: Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> with the help of a thousand monkeys banging on keyboards, was finally able to type out the following news:3FD276F4.3030005@hotmail.com:Hope Munro Smith wrote:In article <3FD2508D.6030709@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>wrote:>Hope Munro Smith wrote:>>Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in news:3FD24B41.9090804 @hotmail.com:>>>Hope Munro Smith wrote:>>>>Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in>>>>news:3FD11C3C.3080304@hotmail.com:>>>>>>Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in>>>>>>news:mUUzb.307205$ao4.1053833@attbi_s51:>>>>>>>>>>>>>(Wait; maybe cats control the world, and we people are just front men.)>>>>>>>>>>>Mice. Bob read that it is mice.>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mice are the front men or rule the world?>>>>>>According to "The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Universe," mice rule>>> the world.>>>>So are they giving cats kickbacks for not eating them or what?>>It's pretty complicated. But bring a bath towel and you will survive.Always bring a towel, says Towlie!Your literary ignorance is showing again. The "Hitchhiker's Guide" saysto bring a bath towel. And you showed your ignorance of "South Park".

That's the Idiot Box. You are showing your ignorance referring to it.

Bob

On 6 Dec 2003 21:47:08 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose
Goblin) wrote:
"Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bqmg96$24ld68$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de>... Andre Lieven wrote: "Tai" (taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com) writes:> JWB wrote:>> "Ignoramus11065" <ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid> wrote in>> message news:bql6rr$pk1$2@pita.alt.net...>>> We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it>>> was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding. What a waste. I>>> also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as>>> part of wedding expenses.>>>> Just curious - why did you spend the $ then? Did you wife *have* to>> have the wedding? If so, why? Parents expected it?>>>> I hear a lot of men say that if they had their way, they'd spend>> very little on the wedding, making me think this is mostly>> female-driven with men basically going along to avoid a fight>> (let's just say now that I'm aware exceptions exist)>> I get the impression that quite a bit of money can be spent on the> all-singing, all-dancing bachelor party nowadays... Cites ? Anyhting close to an *average* of $22,000 ? I sincerely hope not. Can you read for understanding at all, Andre? Some men like to spend money on the brouhaha associated with getting married, that's all.VERY VERY VERY few. All power to them if that's what they and their fiancees want to do as long as they aren't robbing banks and aren't asking me to finance them.It dumps a financial burden on the couple, which, invariably,the MAN (and only him) is expected to pay off.

On that must be why the wedding pages I went to says that both the
bride and the groom foot the bill.

You do know that over 70% of couples who get married both the husband
and the wife work. And in 30% the woman bring home the bigger
paycheck.

Besides why would you care what strangers do? Worry about you own
pocket book Thought not. Yes, I've noticed you don't seem to be able to think very well. Ttai

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FCE6A1C.C94F4DE3@hotmail.com>... Rauni wrote: And remember some of those big wedding are wanted by the parents. Sometimes by the husband to be. Very much so. Among the ones that I know the biggest weddings are given by the parents (primarily of the bride, but in many cases with contributions from the groom). The ones which are paid by the couple themselves are usually much simpler - even when they have a lot of money!


Yep, that was the case for my wedding back in the 80s. I didn't pay a
dime for it; my parents footed the bill (except for the rehearsal
dinner, which was paid by the in-laws). We had a huge wedding with
over 200 people. The major cost was for the reception & feeding all
those people. I did object once or twice, but my folks really wanted
to have that many people, most of whom were relatives coming from out
of state. We have a big family but far flung. Weddings are pretty much
the only occassion we can get everyone together for the weekend. So it
was more like a family reunion. My sister's wedding was the same way,
as were my cousin's weddings -- an excuse to get everyone together.

For this next wedding, my fiance and I would really like to do
something very simple, like elope to Vegas! Our preference is to just
include the kids and that's it. Since we're both from big families,
once we start inviting family, the list gets outrageous. Of course my
family is already offering to host something at their house.... so we
can invite more people..... sigh.....

Our second preference is to have something low-key and casual here at
a local sci-fi-themed candlepin bowling alley/restaurant/bar that's
funky and cool. They do weddings at very minimal cost per person. You
can even have an Elvis impersonator and walk down the (bowling) aisle.

Meanwhile, my fiance's brother just got married yesterday. They had a
low-key church wedding and only invited the parents, maid of honor,
and best man. No other family was invited -- they also concluded that
the list would get too outrageous! "If I invite Aunt and Uncle, then I
have to invite my niece and nephew. If I invite them, then I have to
invite....." and so on. Trouble is, my fiance and his brothers --
although they do understand this dilemma -- can't help but feel left
out and slighted. ("I understand not inviting aunt and uncle, but not
inviting YOUR OWN BROTHERS???").

IMHO, this is why weddings get so out of control. It's the guest list,
stupid! :-0

jen

Andre Lieven wrote:
And, all men have to do to not be " oppressed " by the wedding industrial complex is... to say NO.

Now THAT is my kind of oppression! Just say NO and it'll go away. May all the
oppressions of the world be like this!

Andre, are all the oppressions of men that you are huffing and puffing about
like this? Educate yourself a bit, it's good for you. You may learn the
difference between "choice" and "oppression".

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bqvll3$sqt$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Free Clue: Something called the BRIDAL industry is clearly telling *men* " Your 'choice' doesn't count with us ! ".

spineless, gutless men, maybe. And as far as I'm concerned, those saps get
what's coming to them.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<bqt8os$ek9$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>... XOR (xor31@netscape.net) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:
Let us know when the *wedding industry start offering seminars in camping honeymoons*... And that is relevant how? A honeymoon is a vacation that a newly married couple take together. ROTFLMAO ! No, its a *special* type of " vacation " whose location, and other particulars are *designed* around the *fact of the newlywed status*.

Shrug. Suit yourself. There's no reason why it can't be a special
vacation that isn't surrounded by wedding hoopla. If you buy into all
that, that's your own problem.
All those places with the heart shaped beds and tubs *aren't* selling them to anglers...

Shame, they'd probably do a good business if they marketed them as
such.

Honey, it's all about marketing and capitalism. The 'industry' tells
you you NEED this, silly consumer buys into it, they sell you
goods/services, the industry blossoms. You are not required to have a
'honeymoon', and you are certainly not required to have one involving
a heart shaped bed.
FWIW - many people DO go camping for their honeymoons. Cite ? Yeah, didn't expect any...

Why should I cite? I didn't say "studies suggest". I'm merely talking
from personal experience.
Most women tend to want a " once in a lifetime experience " in both the wedding ceremony ( And, the attendent stuff, like the reception ), as well as the honeymoon. Shame. You need to meet some more women, or at least different ones. LOL ! The statistics that the wedding industrial complex has already created, speak mightily to the *delusion* of yours, *false that it also is*, that this has *anything* to do with " women I know ", since *I never brought them up*.

And who makes up the sample size studied? Women buying wedding
magazines... people uninterested in that stuff are not likely to be
taking such a survey. It's called bias.

Oh, the industry exists, and takes advantage of folks like yourself,
but that's capitalism. We need not all buy into it.
This is a misconception the industry pushes. As men, why would you choose a woman who has values so very different from your own? Well, *I* wouldn't*. But, I'm more unique in such things, as I would also tell her, " no wedding of more than $400 costs, no rings of any sorts, I won't ever wear one myself, no honeymoon that doesn't meet *both of our desires and tastes*, and so on. "

Then why are you *****ing? Presumably, if your tastes are simple, you
will be marrying someone with similar tastes. I have not one iota of
sympathy for any man who says who got corralled into spending oodles
of money, or was forced to put up with all the fuss.
Not quite a weekend in the cabin up north... Why not? Because *most women don't want one*.

Ok, perhaps in your world.

News flash. There is no "most women." No more than all men want to
spend a weekend in a cabin. We are each different creatures.
Go read Bride Magazine ( And, again note the sheer *absense* of any " Groom Magazine " ),

Common complaint of grooms, such that there are now websites devoted
to grooms. All seems silly to me, but whatever.
and find me a batch of capming honeymmon ads, then find out what *proportion* of couples go on them.

Camping honeymoons cost little, and camping tends to appeal to those
people who want to escape things like commercialism, therefore placing
ads in magazines would be counterproductive.

BUT, FWIW - places like REI and other outdoor oriented stores have
jumped on the wedding bandwagon.

I'll bet *with* the House Odds. That way, I make fewer MS-takes..

Good, so go find yourself a nice woman who cries if she doesn't get
the 2K ring and 20K wedding, and you can prove your point.

FYI - no one requires such things, no one is forced to buy into all
the hoopla. If you do so, it's your choice. And it's no one's fault
but your own.

WhansaMi wrote:
"Ignoramus11065" <ignoramus11065@NOSPAM.11065.invalid> wrote in messagenews:bql6rr$pk1$2@pita.alt.net... We spent about $10k on the wedding, some recouped by gifts. If it was up to me, we would spend $0 on the wedding.

But did you get any satisfaction for doing something that your wife liked to do? Or
you agreed with protest and feeling taken advantage of?!
What a waste. I also do not think that itis proper to count honeymoon expenses as part of wedding expenses.Just curious - why did you spend the $ then? Did you wife *have* to have thewedding? If so, why? Parents expected it?

For many people that is indeed a big part of the decision (and usually when parents
want it they pay for it too). And in my view there is nothing wrong with doing
something to please our parents. Of course it depends on the relationships, but
unlike many people, my husband and I value our parents very much, and enjoy
pleasing them.

Our wedding was a long time ago, and not very big (our parents jointly paid for
most of it). But I remember that it was a very special day not only for us but also
for our parents and grand parents. I can't imagine having deprived them of the joy
that it brought them. It's very common to tell the bride that this is *your* day. I
didn't feel that way at all. It sure was *my* day, but it was also my husband's,
his parents, and my parents too. I feel very fortunate not to live as an isolated
island where no one else matters in the big events of my life.
I hear a lot of men say that if they had their way, they'd spend very littleon the wedding, making me think this is mostly female-driven with menbasically going along to avoid a fight (let's just say now that I'm awareexceptions exist)JWB

Or maybe they do it because it gives them pleasure to do something that pleases
their loved ones. Of course there are limits to everything. I would never agree to
have a wedding like some of the ones that I've seen, because it would be totally
against my values and personality. But when my husband's grandmother wanted to give
a small speech at the ceremony, though it wasn't something that I would've chosen,
I agreed with delight, because it was sooooo important to her, and she was
important to me (and now that she has passed on I am so happy to have the wonderful
memory and the video of her speech). I am sure that my husband wouldn't have chosen
all the people that his parents wanted to invite to the wedding, but so what? It
just wasn't a big deal to him, and he was happy to please his parents. The same was
for me.
I certainly don't think this has anything to do with women's "control" over men, any more than I believe that my husband buying season tickets to the Skin's games (a purchase I would never, in a million years, make) demonstrates my husband's control over me.

Yes, this is what a relationship is all about. Not every compromise is done with a
negative feeling or to avoid fights. I didn't like the expensive car that my
husband wanted to buy, but agreed to it because it made him happy. I could've
insisted that we didn't need it, and I'm sure he would've given up on it without a
fight. But why should I? Why shouldn't I agree with something that makes him happy
when it's not a big deal for me? It wasn't like we couldn't afford it or had to go
in debt for it, it's just that I consider luxury cars a totally unnecessary waste.
But his happiness was more important to me than my aversion to this kind of
indulgence!

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:br0lfh$dmt$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
Go look up all the media shrieking about men being too " selfish " to give the widdle wimmins what they want... Let's see a few recent, mainstream cites relating to the wedding
industry. Obviously, they're all over, being that the media is "shrieking" and
all. Translation: " I can't refute what you said, so I'll belittle it "

Translation - "I can't provide the cite to back my words up, so I'll dodge
the request."

Loser.

JWB

XOR (xor31@netscape.net) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<bqt8os$ek9$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>... XOR (xor31@netscape.net) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:> Let us know when the *wedding industry start offering seminars> in camping honeymoons*... And that is relevant how? A honeymoon is a vacation that a newly married couple take together. ROTFLMAO ! No, its a *special* type of " vacation " whose location, and other particulars are *designed* around the *fact of the newlywed status*. Shrug. Suit yourself. There's no reason why it can't be a special vacation that isn't surrounded by wedding hoopla. If you buy into all that, that's your own problem.

Non sequitur. I never said it *can't be*, I merely described that,
for most people planning honeymoons, *it simply isn't*.

And, you seem to want to place all the burden on the consumer, without
addressing *who the vast bulk of the buyers driving the market are*.

IOW, you're a woman appologist. QED.
All those places with the heart shaped beds and tubs *aren't* selling them to anglers... Shame, they'd probably do a good business if they marketed them as such.

Somehow, the smell of fish guts in a room you want to rent out to
" romantic newlyweds " seems rather.... contra-indicated.

But, feel free to buy such a place, try it, and report your
ensuing bankruptcy...
Honey, it's all about marketing and capitalism. The 'industry' tells you you NEED this, silly consumer buys into it, they sell you goods/services, the industry blossoms. You are not required to have a 'honeymoon', and you are certainly not required to have one involving a heart shaped bed.

Straw woman. As I never said that anyone had to, you're argueing
at self created phantoms.

Rather, I was speaking of precisely WHO is the vast bulk of that
willing and demanding market...

DO try to *read for some comprehension*...
FWIW - many people DO go camping for their honeymoons. Cite ? Yeah, didn't expect any... Why should I cite? I didn't say "studies suggest". I'm merely talking from personal experience.

" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

Since you have *nothing to offer*, besides your limited experience,
then you have zero useful to add.
> Most women tend to want a " once in a lifetime experience " in both> the wedding ceremony ( And, the attendent stuff, like the reception ),> as well as the honeymoon. Shame. You need to meet some more women, or at least different ones. LOL ! The statistics that the wedding industrial complex has already created, speak mightily to the *delusion* of yours, *false that it also is*, that this has *anything* to do with " women I know ", since *I never brought them up*. And who makes up the sample size studied? Women buying wedding magazines... people uninterested in that stuff are not likely to be taking such a survey. It's called bias.

LOL. Yes, when studying a market demographic, you don't mix it up with
never-buyers...
Oh, the industry exists, and takes advantage of folks like yourself, but that's capitalism. We need not all buy into it.

Yet, most *women* DO...
This is a misconception the industry pushes. As men, why would you choose a woman who has values so very different from your own? Well, *I* wouldn't*. But, I'm more unique in such things, as I would also tell her, " no wedding of more than $400 costs, no rings of any sorts, I won't ever wear one myself, no honeymoon that doesn't meet *both of our desires and tastes*, and so on. " Then why are you *****ing?

Because, unlike narcissistic morons, I DO take an interest beyond
my personal horizon.

If it piques you so, then exercise your *self-control*, and stop
reading what I say.

And, do look up " Free Speech " sometime...
Presumably, if your tastes are simple, you will be marrying someone with similar tastes.

Operative word being " presumably ". When it's inaccurate, all
based on it... *collapses*...
I have not one iota of sympathy for any man who says who got corralled into spending oodles of money, or was forced to put up with all the fuss.

Yes, we understand that you can't tolerate anything different from
yourself.

Thats merely vile, hardly lauditory...
> Not quite a weekend in the cabin up north... Why not? Because *most women don't want one*. Ok, perhaps in your world. News flash. There is no "most women."

LOL ! Take a course on statistics, and this time... *pass it*.
No more than all men want to spend a weekend in a cabin.

Dishonesty alert. You *changed from " some " to " all ", and tried
to *equate the two*.

Take that ESL course, as well, and also, try to pass it for the first
time, as even elementary words seem to be outside your competancy.
We are each different creatures.

Really ? What mixture of gasseous elements do you ingest ?
Go read Bride Magazine ( And, again note the sheer *absense* of any " Groom Magazine " ), Common complaint of grooms, such that there are now websites devoted to grooms. All seems silly to me, but whatever.

Ah, the shrug of the truely *ignorant*.

Your father must be.... very proud.
and find me a batch of capming honeymmon ads, then find out what *proportion* of couples go on them. Camping honeymoons cost little, and camping tends to appeal to those people who want to escape things like commercialism, therefore placing ads in magazines would be counterproductive.

LOL ! There ARE camping magazine, you know...

Oh, wait a sec, you've shown that you're *proudly ignorant*.
So, you may not know. OK.
BUT, FWIW - places like REI and other outdoor oriented stores have jumped on the wedding bandwagon.

Market share ? Uh huh.
I'll bet *with* the House Odds. That way, I make fewer MS-takes.. Good, so go find yourself a nice woman who cries if she doesn't get the 2K ring and 20K wedding, and you can prove your point.

I've found loads of them. Start with any subscriber or buyer of
" Bride "... Theres millions of them...
FYI - no one requires such things, no one is forced to buy into all the hoopla. If you do so, it's your choice. And it's no one's fault but your own.

Again, if you wish to address points that *no one but you invented*,
feel free to do so, but leave me out of it.

And, get back to your Prozac supply... Perhaps that would assist
you in figuring out what I did say, and what *you seem to wish I
had said*...

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"JWB" (jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:br0lfh$dmt$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message> Go look up all the media shrieking about men being too " selfish "> to give the widdle wimmins what they want... Let's see a few recent, mainstream cites relating to the wedding industry. Obviously, they're all over, being that the media is "shrieking" and all. Translation: " I can't refute what you said, so I'll belittle it " Translation - "I can't provide the cite to back my words up, so I'll dodge the request."

So, when *you make claims*, you *don't have to back any up*.

Only *I* have to*.

Got it.

Hypocrite.

Google up the " marriage strike " and " Susan Reimer " threads.
Loser.

Mirror.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:br0nme$j66$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:br0lfh$dmt$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com) writes: > "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message >> Go look up all the media shrieking about men being too " selfish " >> to give the widdle wimmins what they want... > > Let's see a few recent, mainstream cites relating to the wedding industry. > Obviously, they're all over, being that the media is "shrieking" and all. Translation: " I can't refute what you said, so I'll belittle it " Translation - "I can't provide the cite to back my words up, so I'll
dodge the request." So, when *you make claims*, you *don't have to back any up*. Only *I* have to*.

ahh, but there's a flaw in your logic (again) - I didn't *make* any claims
that would even remotely need a cite. And even if I did, you certainly
didn't ask for a cite (I'd happily provide one if I made some claim that
needed backing).

Bottom line - you made an outlandish claim that the media is "shrieking"
about men being too selfish to give women what they want in relation to
weddings. I asked for some mainstream media proof of that, and you couldn't
(can't) provide it. That's where we are.

Your "claim" has been called. Provide some proof to back your hot air. If
you can't provide it, there's nothing left to argue about (there's your
opening to crawl away)

JWB

On 8 Dec 2003 02:29:34 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
"JWB" (jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:br0lfh$dmt$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com) writes: > "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message >> Go look up all the media shrieking about men being too " selfish " >> to give the widdle wimmins what they want... > > Let's see a few recent, mainstream cites relating to the wedding industry. > Obviously, they're all over, being that the media is "shrieking" and all. Translation: " I can't refute what you said, so I'll belittle it " Translation - "I can't provide the cite to back my words up, so I'll dodge the request."So, when *you make claims*, you *don't have to back any up*.Only *I* have to*.
ROTFLOL further proof that Andre is suffering from delusions. Has he
provide one single shred of evidence that men are being systematically
*oppressed* by the *evil* wedding industry?


he hasn't............
Got it.Hypocrite.Google up the " marriage strike " and " Susan Reimer " threads. Loser.Mirror.

Truth hurts huh Andre.......Andre

"JWB" (jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:br0nme$j66$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:br0lfh$dmt$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...> "JWB" (jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com) writes:> > "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message> >> Go look up all the media shrieking about men being too " selfish "> >> to give the widdle wimmins what they want...> >> > Let's see a few recent, mainstream cites relating to the wedding industry.> > Obviously, they're all over, being that the media is "shrieking" and all.>> Translation: " I can't refute what you said, so I'll belittle it " Translation - "I can't provide the cite to back my words up, so I'll dodge the request." So, when *you make claims*, you *don't have to back any up*. Only *I* have to*. ahh, but there's a flaw in your logic (again) -

Wrong.
I didn't *make* any claims that would even remotely need a cite.

The claim that the data that I cited as coming from HewsHour were
wrong IS a claim.

Yours. As yet *unsupported* by you...
And even if I did, you certainly didn't ask for a cite (I'd happily provide one if I made some claim that needed backing).

Can't prove that by your posts here...
Bottom line - you made an outlandish claim that the media is "shrieking"

Non sequitur. " The media " is not a monolith.

Plenty of media commentators, mostly female ones, are doing that.
I cited Susan Reimer as one such, and suggested that you google
her screeds, and the replies to them.
about men being too selfish to give women what they want in relation to weddings. I asked for some mainstream media proof of that, and you couldn't (can't) provide it. That's where we are.

Gee, Dr. Phil has had plenty of that. Care to recieve videotapes of
such ?
Your "claim" has been called. Provide some proof to back your hot air. If you can't provide it, there's nothing left to argue about (there's your opening to crawl away)

Yet, *your claim* that the figures that PBS provided were wrong, has
*yet to be substantiated by you*. As such, they stand, and stand as
a *cite by myself*.

By that measure, you're *already in your rock*...

I don't offer to hypocrites more than they put forth. Deal with it.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:br0peo$nh9
Yet, *your claim* that the figures that PBS provided were wrong, has *yet to be substantiated by you*. As such, they stand, and stand as a *cite by myself*.

I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Really? *I* made that claim? Can you
cite where I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Go ahead, try and find
the post. It'll be fun watching you try and find something that doesn't
exist.

This is almost comical. You just keep making **** up. You must *really* hate
losing an argument.

Loser.

JWB

magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) writes:
Why does society accept (even promote) women's self-indulgent spending at the expense of stable marriages ("money problems" are ranked as the number one cause of divorce. I'll give you one guess about who's doing the majority of the spending in said marriages).

I don't buy that wedding expenses cause unstable marriages. I _do_
think that people getting married who shouldn't be getting married at
all may cause unstable marriages. And if they have a disagreement
about what kind of wedding to have, and can't resolve it happily, that
should be considered a warning.

I also don't by the "money problems" as being an important cause of
divorce. Though it is true that if you aren't getting along, it is
easy to argue about, and focus on, money.
If you want to see, Doug, you must first remove the blindfold, you idiot.

Nothing quite like calling someone names to get them to listen to you.
How's that working for you?

Seems to work really well for Andre, no?

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 03:02:38 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) writes: Why does society accept (even promote) women's self-indulgent spending at the expense of stable marriages ("money problems" are ranked as the number one cause of divorce. I'll give you one guess about who's doing the majority of the spending in said marriages).I don't buy that wedding expenses cause unstable marriages. I _do_think that people getting married who shouldn't be getting married atall may cause unstable marriages. And if they have a disagreementabout what kind of wedding to have, and can't resolve it happily, thatshould be considered a warning.I also don't by the "money problems" as being an important cause ofdivorce. Though it is true that if you aren't getting along, it iseasy to argue about, and focus on, money. If you want to see, Doug, you must first remove the blindfold, you idiot.Nothing quite like calling someone names to get them to listen to you.How's that working for you?Seems to work really well for Andre, no?

LOL Well believe or not Aaron is a *bigger* fruit cake than Andre.
Right now he is pretending to be his cousin while claiming that Aaron
is deployed. Only think is he misspells the same way Aaron does uses
the same insults and still get me mixed up with my sister. So far no
one is fooled.

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes:
"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:br0peo$nh9 Yet, *your claim* that the figures that PBS provided were wrong, has *yet to be substantiated by you*. As such, they stand, and stand as a *cite by myself*. I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Really? *I* made that claim? Can you cite where I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Go ahead, try and find the post. It'll be fun watching you try and find something that doesn't exist. This is almost comical. You just keep making **** up. You must *really* hate losing an argument.

He may have confused me with you. I pointed out that the figures he
quoted as from PBS (which may indeed be from that source) contradict
the US census bureau's figures (on the number of marriages per year).

Of course to understand the contradiction, you need to be able to
multiply, which could be the problem - I don't know.

While it is true that there is an error in the figures he quotes from
PBS, it hardly matters. Whether the numbers he quotes are right or
wrong, there is no doubt that the US spends plenty on weddings. The
part of Andre's point that _really_ seems ludicrous is that this is
somehow evidence of man's oppression at the hand of woman.

"JWB" (jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:br0peo$nh9 Yet, *your claim* that the figures that PBS provided were wrong, has *yet to be substantiated by you*. As such, they stand, and stand as a *cite by myself*. I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Really? *I* made that claim? Can you cite where I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Go ahead, try and find the post. It'll be fun watching you try and find something that doesn't exist.

Then, what *are* your panties in such a bunch over ?
This is almost comical. You just keep making **** up.

LOL ! Beats *strenuously avoiding the point of the raised topic*...
You must *really* hate losing an argument.

Dunno. Hasn't happened yet... <g>
Loser.

" If you CAN'T answer a person's arguments, don't worry ! You can
always call him names ! " Oscar Wilde.

Seems it's *you* who gets all a'flutter over " losing an argument "...

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:br0peo$nh9 Yet, *your claim* that the figures that PBS provided were wrong, has *yet to be substantiated by you*. As such, they stand, and stand as a *cite by myself*. I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Really? *I* made that claim? Can you cite where I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Go ahead, try and find the post. It'll be fun watching you try and find something that doesn't exist. This is almost comical. You just keep making **** up. You must *really* hate losing an argument. He may have confused me with you. I pointed out that the figures he quoted as from PBS (which may indeed be from that source) contradict the US census bureau's figures (on the number of marriages per year).

Or, that the calculation of the wedding industrial complex doesn't
stop at only marriages. Consider that bridal publications rake
in a heckuva lot of money, yet aren't specifically parts of actual
weddings. Nor need one be immediately getting married, in order
to spend in such areas.

So, the census' figures are likely limited in failing to cover the
total range of the industry, and instead are limited to only
immediate wedding costs.

This would be like buying a car, paying that cost, and then not
considering the costs of actaully driving the car, or the
research done before buying it, as car related spending.

Further, as Mr. Snyder, over here on soc.men has well shown,
US Gov figures on such matters as criminal sentencing and
child care costs, related to Child Support, contain within them
many flaws, so they are not to be necessarlily taken as Gospel
in all matters.
Of course to understand the contradiction, you need to be able to multiply, which could be the problem - I don't know.

" If you CAN'T answer a person's arguments, don't worry ! You
can always call him names ! " Oscar Wilde.
While it is true that there is an error in the figures he quotes from PBS, it hardly matters. Whether the numbers he quotes are right or wrong, there is no doubt that the US spends plenty on weddings. The part of Andre's point that _really_ seems ludicrous is that this is somehow evidence of man's oppression at the hand of woman.

Its so easy, when you MS-state my positions into what you *wish* I had
said.

Rather, the extent of the wedding industrial complex shows well
enough just *whose* interests are most looked after, even with
matters of trivial concerns to civil rights, et al.

Now, if the Festering Femmeroids were right ( Hah ! ) and men
did " rule " things, well, the wedding industrial complex would
be about the size of the buggy whip industry...

Now, when you consider that meaning, and ADD it to the wealth
of other data, that tells us whose interests come first in
matters of public and family policy, then the thread between
female's interests coming first, in wedding spending, becomes
clearly *consistant* over to the public policy areas.

IOW, neither is an exception to the so called and mythical
" Patriarchy ".

But, since " nuance " is a concept that seems to consistantly
excape you, I don't really expect you to understand this
explanation, either.

Pearls before swine, and all...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:br0peo$nh9 > Yet, *your claim* that the figures that PBS provided were wrong, has > *yet to be substantiated by you*. As such, they stand, and stand as > a *cite by myself*. I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Really? *I* made that claim? Can you cite where I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Go ahead, try and find the post. It'll be fun watching you try and find something that doesn't exist. This is almost comical. You just keep making **** up. You must *really* hate losing an argument. He may have confused me with you. I pointed out that the figures he quoted as from PBS (which may indeed be from that source) contradict the US census bureau's figures (on the number of marriages per year). Or, that the calculation of the wedding industrial complex doesn't stop at only marriages. Consider that bridal publications rake in a heckuva lot of money, yet aren't specifically parts of actual weddings. Nor need one be immediately getting married, in order to spend in such areas. So, the census' figures are likely limited in failing to cover the total range of the industry, and instead are limited to only immediate wedding costs.

You don't get it. The figures you quoted from PBS contradict _each
other_ if you rely on the US census to measure number of marriages per
year. (Hence all you need to know to see the problem in the figures
you quoted is how to multiply.)

So stop throwing in folderol. I'll say it again; the figures you
quoted contradict _each other_. So at least one of them is wrong, and
it casts doubt on the source you are relying one.

(The US census bureau makes no attempt to measure the amount spent
annually on marriages, bridal magazines, garters, or wedding cake.)

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes:> "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:br0peo$nh9>> > Yet, *your claim* that the figures that PBS provided were wrong, has> > *yet to be substantiated by you*. As such, they stand, and stand as> > a *cite by myself*.>> I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Really? *I* made that claim? Can> you cite where I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Go ahead, try and> find the post. It'll be fun watching you try and find something that> doesn't exist.>> This is almost comical. You just keep making **** up. You must *really*> hate losing an argument. He may have confused me with you. I pointed out that the figures he quoted as from PBS (which may indeed be from that source) contradict the US census bureau's figures (on the number of marriages per year). Or, that the calculation of the wedding industrial complex doesn't stop at only marriages. Consider that bridal publications rake in a heckuva lot of money, yet aren't specifically parts of actual weddings. Nor need one be immediately getting married, in order to spend in such areas. So, the census' figures are likely limited in failing to cover the total range of the industry, and instead are limited to only immediate wedding costs. You don't get it.

No, you don't. You're trying to do a very limited addition, that
of " # of weddings " times " average costs ".

I'm saying that theres *more to the industry than that*.
The figures you quoted from PBS contradict _each other_ if you rely on the US census to measure number of marriages per year. (Hence all you need to know to see the problem in the figures you quoted is how to multiply.)

Indeed, and if thats all it was... But, its not.

As I explained *and you snipped out*.

Coward.
So stop throwing in folderol. I'll say it again; the figures you quoted contradict _each other_. So at least one of them is wrong, and it casts doubt on the source you are relying one.

Prove your premise. Prove that the wedding industry STOPS at
those actual wedding costs, and has zero other income.

YOUR claim, YOUR burden to prove...
(The US census bureau makes no attempt to measure the amount spent annually on marriages, bridal magazines, garters, or wedding cake.)

Which is why, for this purpose, they're.... *useless*.

Thanks for proving my point...

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: > "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: > >> "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:br0peo$nh9 >> >> > Yet, *your claim* that the figures that PBS provided were wrong, has >> > *yet to be substantiated by you*. As such, they stand, and stand as >> > a *cite by myself*. >> >> I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Really? *I* made that claim? Can >> you cite where I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Go ahead, try and >> find the post. It'll be fun watching you try and find something that >> doesn't exist. >> >> This is almost comical. You just keep making **** up. You must *really* >> hate losing an argument. > > He may have confused me with you. I pointed out that the figures he > quoted as from PBS (which may indeed be from that source) contradict > the US census bureau's figures (on the number of marriages per year). Or, that the calculation of the wedding industrial complex doesn't stop at only marriages. Consider that bridal publications rake in a heckuva lot of money, yet aren't specifically parts of actual weddings. Nor need one be immediately getting married, in order to spend in such areas. So, the census' figures are likely limited in failing to cover the total range of the industry, and instead are limited to only immediate wedding costs. You don't get it. No, you don't. You're trying to do a very limited addition, that of " # of weddings " times " average costs ".

OK. Which statistic do you think is wrong? The one you quoted on
"average costs?" The one you quoted on "total costs?" Or the US
census statistic on number of weddings per year?

Or are you seriously claiming that

(number of weddings) times (average costs) _isn't_ the (total cost)?

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:br0v1n$7cb$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:br0peo$nh9 Yet, *your claim* that the figures that PBS provided were wrong, has *yet to be substantiated by you*. As such, they stand, and stand as a *cite by myself*. I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Really? *I* made that claim? Can
you cite where I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Go ahead, try and
find the post. It'll be fun watching you try and find something that doesn't exist. Then, what *are* your panties in such a bunch over ?

Once again, you make a claim, and when asked to back it up, you fail to do
so. There is no point in this anymore. You just make things up as you go
along. We're done (there's your out)

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes:> > "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes:> >> >> "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:br0peo$nh9> >>> >> > Yet, *your claim* that the figures that PBS provided were wrong, has> >> > *yet to be substantiated by you*. As such, they stand, and stand as> >> > a *cite by myself*.> >>> >> I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Really? *I* made that claim? Can> >> you cite where I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Go ahead, try and> >> find the post. It'll be fun watching you try and find something that> >> doesn't exist.> >>> >> This is almost comical. You just keep making **** up. You must *really*> >> hate losing an argument.> >> > He may have confused me with you. I pointed out that the figures he> > quoted as from PBS (which may indeed be from that source) contradict> > the US census bureau's figures (on the number of marriages per year).>> Or, that the calculation of the wedding industrial complex doesn't> stop at only marriages. Consider that bridal publications rake> in a heckuva lot of money, yet aren't specifically parts of actual> weddings. Nor need one be immediately getting married, in order> to spend in such areas.>> So, the census' figures are likely limited in failing to cover the> total range of the industry, and instead are limited to only> immediate wedding costs. You don't get it. No, you don't. You're trying to do a very limited addition, that of " # of weddings " times " average costs ". OK. Which statistic do you think is wrong?

Did I make a claim which was wrong ? Or, are you trying to, once
again, MISS the point, by diversionary tactics ?

I vote " B "...
The one you quoted on "average costs?" The one you quoted on "total costs?" Or the US census statistic on number of weddings per year?

Your questions, you find out...
Or are you seriously claiming that (number of weddings) times (average costs) _isn't_ the

Heres your latest MS-statement...
(total cost)?

I never claimed a " totla cost ". Thats *your straw woman*, so
play with it on your own time.

The cited stat was the *fiscal size of the wedding industry*.

This claim of *yours* is akin to saying, the auto industry is
" price of cars, time cars produced. "

This, of course, leaves out development costs, ad costs....
etc., etc.

Thats why *I didn't make such a limited claim as to the
size of the industry*, so *I'm not responsible for your
delusions/desires that I should have made that claim.

Thanks for proving that you never passed Economics 101...

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"JWB" (jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:br0v1n$7cb$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "JWB" (jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:br0peo$nh9> Yet, *your claim* that the figures that PBS provided were wrong, has> *yet to be substantiated by you*. As such, they stand, and stand as> a *cite by myself*. I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Really? *I* made that claim? Can you cite where I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Go ahead, try and find the post. It'll be fun watching you try and find something that doesn't exist. Then, what *are* your panties in such a bunch over ? Once again, you make a claim, and when asked to back it up, you fail to do so. There is no point in this anymore. You just make things up as you go along. We're done (there's your out)

I made the claim, *and I supported it with the PBS number*.

If you have an issue with that number, *take it up with PBS.
But, to keep claiming that I " made it up " or some such inanity
of yours, when *it came from PBS' NewsHour*, is, well, your LIE.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Doug Anderson wrote: magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) writes: Why does society accept (even promote) women's self-indulgent spending at the expense of stable marriages ("money problems" are ranked as the number one cause of divorce. I'll give you one guess about who's doing the majority of the spending in said marriages). I don't buy that wedding expenses cause unstable marriages. I _do_ think that people getting married who shouldn't be getting married at all may cause unstable marriages. And if they have a disagreement about what kind of wedding to have, and can't resolve it happily, that should be considered a warning. I also don't by the "money problems" as being an important cause of divorce. Though it is true that if you aren't getting along, it is easy to argue about, and focus on, money. If you want to see, Doug, you must first remove the blindfold, you idiot. Nothing quite like calling someone names to get them to listen to you. How's that working for you? Seems to work really well for Andre, no?

No, you forget Andre's famous last phrase: ad hominem!! He never does
it - only others do.

In article <br0mll$gdn$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg411
@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says... XOR (xor31@netscape.net) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<bqt8os$ek9$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>... XOR (xor31@netscape.net) writes: > dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news: >> Let us know when the *wedding industry start offering seminars >> in camping honeymoons*... > > And that is relevant how? A honeymoon is a vacation that a newly > married couple take together. ROTFLMAO ! No, its a *special* type of " vacation " whose location, and other particulars are *designed* around the *fact of the newlywed status*. Shrug. Suit yourself. There's no reason why it can't be a special vacation that isn't surrounded by wedding hoopla. If you buy into all that, that's your own problem. Non sequitur. I never said it *can't be*, I merely described that, for most people planning honeymoons, *it simply isn't*.

Based on what data? And, you seem to want to place all the burden on the consumer, without addressing *who the vast bulk of the buyers driving the market are*. IOW, you're a woman appologist. QED. All those places with the heart shaped beds and tubs *aren't* selling them to anglers... Shame, they'd probably do a good business if they marketed them as such. Somehow, the smell of fish guts in a room you want to rent out to " romantic newlyweds " seems rather.... contra-indicated.


ROTFLMAO! I've been to quire a number of resorts that cater to
fisherman. I have not yet visited one where the room has smelled
of fish before we cooked one for dinner. Most of them have signs
specifically requiring you to clean your fish in the cleaning shacks
down by the docks. With all the lakes and fishing resorts in Ontario,
you'd think that Andre would have figured that out---unless he's
just a city boy who never visits the lakeside.

But, feel free to buy such a place, try it, and report your ensuing bankruptcy...

The reality of 'fishing' resorts in the Western US is that they
probably get more than half their income from non-fishing customers.
Rustic honeymoons, hikers, and cross-country skiers are a growth
segment of the 'fish camp' industry now. (Based on my own rental
patterns at least).
Honey, it's all about marketing and capitalism. The 'industry' tells you you NEED this, silly consumer buys into it, they sell you goods/services, the industry blossoms. You are not required to have a 'honeymoon', and you are certainly not required to have one involving a heart shaped bed. Straw woman. As I never said that anyone had to, you're argueing at self created phantoms.
(SP)

If no one has to have the 'classic' honeymoon, I guess no one must
be imposing them on unwilling grooms. Rather, I was speaking of precisely WHO is the vast bulk of that willing and demanding market...

And that 'WHO' may well be the parents of the bride---rather than
the bride or groom. DO try to *read for some comprehension*... > FWIW - many people DO go camping for their honeymoons. Cite ? Yeah, didn't expect any... Why should I cite? I didn't say "studies suggest". I'm merely talking from personal experience. " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
And the repetition of opinion is not reality. Since you have *nothing to offer*, besides your limited experience, then you have zero useful to add.
I've always found zero to be a very useful concept.

Seems that you have nothing to offer except one PBS program. That
doesn't seem to be very impressive either. >> Most women tend to want a " once in a lifetime experience " in both >> the wedding ceremony ( And, the attendent stuff, like the reception ), >> as well as the honeymoon. > > Shame. You need to meet some more women, or at least different ones. LOL ! The statistics that the wedding industrial complex has already created, speak mightily to the *delusion* of yours, *false that it also is*, that this has *anything* to do with " women I know ", since *I never brought them up*. And who makes up the sample size studied? Women buying wedding magazines... people uninterested in that stuff are not likely to be taking such a survey. It's called bias. LOL. Yes, when studying a market demographic, you don't mix it up with never-buyers...

Huh??? Since Buyers + Never-buyers = total population, the two
are inextricably linked! Marketers concentrate heavily on the
never-buyers, as that is the way to increase market share! Oh, the industry exists, and takes advantage of folks like yourself, but that's capitalism. We need not all buy into it. Yet, most *women* DO...

Got a cite showing 'most'----or even 40%? That was not at all
apparent in the NewsHour transcript.
> This is a misconception the industry pushes. As men, why would you > choose a woman who has values so very different from your own? Well, *I* wouldn't*. But, I'm more unique in such things, as I would also tell her, " no wedding of more than $400 costs, no rings of any sorts, I won't ever wear one myself, no honeymoon that doesn't meet *both of our desires and tastes*, and so on. " Then why are you *****ing? Because, unlike narcissistic morons, I DO take an interest beyond my personal horizon.

And, what, exactly is your interest here? If it piques you so, then exercise your *self-control*, and stop reading what I say. And, do look up " Free Speech " sometime...

True. Free speech does allow anyone to say whatever they
want, provided it is only nonsensical, and not harmful. That
pretty well describes some of Andre's positions.

Presumably, if your tastes are simple, you will be marrying someone with similar tastes. Operative word being " presumably ". When it's inaccurate, all based on it... *collapses*... I have not one iota of sympathy for any man who says who got corralled into spending oodles of money, or was forced to put up with all the fuss. Yes, we understand that you can't tolerate anything different from yourself.

And tell us again how you have demonstrated your tolerance of
people whose positions on the wedding industry differ from
your own. Thats merely vile, hardly lauditory...

(SP) >> Not quite a weekend in the cabin up north... > > Why not? Because *most women don't want one*. Ok, perhaps in your world. News flash. There is no "most women." LOL ! Take a course on statistics, and this time... *pass it*.

I've taken basic statistics, analysis of variance, and
at least a half dozen graduate-level courses that involved
statistical analysis of experimental data. None of those
has prepared me for Andre's analysis of the data on the
wedding industry. Certainly none has prepared me to
make any statements about 'most women'.


I wonder which university taught Andre's courses (if he has
actually taken any). No more than all men want to spend a weekend in a cabin. Dishonesty alert. You *changed from " some " to " all ", and tried to *equate the two*. Take that ESL course, as well, and also, try to pass it for the first time, as even elementary words seem to be outside your competancy.


Hmm--perhaps as far out as the spelling of 'competency' is from
your capabilities? Now which was your first language?

We are each different creatures. Really ? What mixture of gasseous elements do you ingest ?

Andre really does need a spelling checker that exceeds his
own capabilities. (Or his 's' key is sticky.) And the
only time I actually 'ingested' gases was when I wanted to
create a really gross burp! ;-) Perhaps after all those
science fiction conventions, Andre does believe some people
actually swallow and digest gases. Go read Bride Magazine ( And, again note the sheer *absense* of any " Groom Magazine " ),

Common sense says Andre really meant 'absence'. Common complaint of grooms, such that there are now websites devoted to grooms. All seems silly to me, but whatever. Ah, the shrug of the truely *ignorant*. Your father must be.... very proud. and find me a batch of capming honeymmon

I'll ascribe this one to a sticky 'm' key or being
distracted by wiping the spittle from his lips as he
types. (Hmmm, perhaps excess salivation does lead to
keyboard errors.) ads, then find out what *proportion* of couples go on them.

Camping honeymoons cost little, and camping tends to appeal to those people who want to escape things like commercialism, therefore placing ads in magazines would be counterproductive. LOL ! There ARE camping magazine, you know... Oh, wait a sec, you've shown that you're *proudly ignorant*. So, you may not know. OK. BUT, FWIW - places like REI and other outdoor oriented stores have jumped on the wedding bandwagon. Market share ? Uh huh.
Rejected. No data. I'll bet *with* the House Odds. That way, I make fewer MS-takes..
Intentional spelling error, I assume. Good, so go find yourself a nice woman who cries if she doesn't get the 2K ring and 20K wedding, and you can prove your point. I've found loads of them. Start with any subscriber or buyer of " Bride "... Theres millions of them...
Another apostrophe disappears into the ether! Tell us how many of
those subscribers cried, Andre.

To say nothing of the fact that "Brides Magazine" only has a circulation
of about 429,000, about 140,000 behind 'Bassmaster Magazine' ;-)

http://www.adage.com/page.cms?pageId=943 FYI - no one requires such things, no one is forced to buy into all the hoopla. If you do so, it's your choice. And it's no one's fault but your own. Again, if you wish to address points that *no one but you invented*, feel free to do so, but leave me out of it. And, get back to your Prozac supply... Perhaps that would assist you in figuring out what I did say, and what *you seem to wish I had said*...
As if anyone could figure that out in the first place! Andre


You know, considering that Andre generally has excellent diction
and says he drinks very little, I wonder how all the spelling
errors creep into his posts? Does he not actually read what
he writes, or does he not see the errors when he does?

Based many of these posts, I would have to characterize Andre as
having great passion for his work, but little discipline in
in ensuring that the point is well presented.


Mark Borgerson

In article <iRRAb.263841$Dw6.902697@attbi_s02>, ethelthelog@yahoo.com
says... magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) writes: Why does society accept (even promote) women's self-indulgent spending at the expense of stable marriages ("money problems" are ranked as the number one cause of divorce. I'll give you one guess about who's doing the majority of the spending in said marriages). I don't buy that wedding expenses cause unstable marriages. I _do_ think that people getting married who shouldn't be getting married at all may cause unstable marriages. And if they have a disagreement about what kind of wedding to have, and can't resolve it happily, that should be considered a warning. I also don't by the "money problems" as being an important cause of divorce. Though it is true that if you aren't getting along, it is easy to argue about, and focus on, money. If you want to see, Doug, you must first remove the blindfold, you idiot. Nothing quite like calling someone names to get them to listen to you. How's that working for you? Seems to work really well for Andre, no?
Sometimes Andre reminds me of the man I heard speaking from
a bench in Trafalgar Square on the way to the National Gallery.
I knew he was there, and I knew he was speaking English, but
I couldn't quite figure out what he was talking about. However, that
gentleman never insulted me as far as I could tell. (But given
my limited knowledge of London slang terms, I'm not really sure.)

Mark Borgerson

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<iRRAb.263841$Dw6.902697@attbi_s02>... magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) writes: Why does society accept (even promote) women's self-indulgent spending at the expense of stable marriages ("money problems" are ranked as the number one cause of divorce. I'll give you one guess about who's doing the majority of the spending in said marriages). I don't buy that wedding expenses cause unstable marriages. I _do_

You don't think that they set a precedent with respect to the couple's
money management (or lack thereof).

think that people getting married who shouldn't be getting married at all may cause unstable marriages. And if they have a disagreement about what kind of wedding to have, and can't resolve it happily, that should be considered a warning. I also don't by the "money problems" as being an important cause of divorce.

Marriage counselors unanimously disagree with you.


Though it is true that if you aren't getting along, it is easy to argue about, and focus on, money. If you want to see, Doug, you must first remove the blindfold, you idiot. Nothing quite like calling someone names to get them to listen to you. How's that working for you? Seems to work really well for Andre, no?

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<iRRAb.263841$Dw6.902697@attbi_s02>... magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) writes: Why does society accept (even promote) women's self-indulgent spending at the expense of stable marriages ("money problems" are ranked as the number one cause of divorce. I'll give you one guess about who's doing the majority of the spending in said marriages). I don't buy that wedding expenses cause unstable marriages. I _do_ think that people getting married who shouldn't be getting married at all may cause unstable marriages. And if they have a disagreement about what kind of wedding to have, and can't resolve it happily, that should be considered a warning. I also don't by the "money problems" as being an important cause of divorce. Though it is true that if you aren't getting along, it is easy to argue about, and focus on, money. If you want to see, Doug, you must first remove the blindfold, you idiot. Nothing quite like calling someone names to get them to listen to you. How's that working for you? Seems to work really well for Andre, no?


Any woman deserving of namecalling is NOT good enough for a relationship
with me. If I'm calling a woman name (or even a group of woman), you can
guarantee that *I* have already written them off as unsuitable for any
sort of relationship.

Mark Borgerson <m-a-r-k@oes.to> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a3dca17698d9c47989ca3@Netnews.Comcast.net>... In article <iRRAb.263841$Dw6.902697@attbi_s02>, ethelthelog@yahoo.com says... magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) writes: Why does society accept (even promote) women's self-indulgent spending at the expense of stable marriages ("money problems" are ranked as the number one cause of divorce. I'll give you one guess about who's doing the majority of the spending in said marriages). I don't buy that wedding expenses cause unstable marriages. I _do_ think that people getting married who shouldn't be getting married at all may cause unstable marriages. And if they have a disagreement about what kind of wedding to have, and can't resolve it happily, that should be considered a warning. I also don't by the "money problems" as being an important cause of divorce. Though it is true that if you aren't getting along, it is easy to argue about, and focus on, money. If you want to see, Doug, you must first remove the blindfold, you idiot. Nothing quite like calling someone names to get them to listen to you. How's that working for you? Seems to work really well for Andre, no? Sometimes Andre reminds me of the man I heard speaking from a bench in Trafalgar Square on the way to the National Gallery. I knew he was there, and I knew he was speaking English, but I couldn't quite figure out what he was talking about. However, that

Your lack of critical thinking skills and observation skills
is NOT indicative of a problem on the part of Andre'.

Hope that helps, idiot.

gentleman never insulted me as far as I could tell. (But given my limited knowledge of London slang terms, I'm not really sure.) Mark Borgerson

magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<iRRAb.263841$Dw6.902697@attbi_s02>... magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) writes: Why does society accept (even promote) women's self-indulgent spending at the expense of stable marriages ("money problems" are ranked as the number one cause of divorce. I'll give you one guess about who's doing the majority of the spending in said marriages). I don't buy that wedding expenses cause unstable marriages. I _do_ You don't think that they set a precedent with respect to the couple's money management (or lack thereof).

Not necessarily, no. People who manage money poorly don't do so
_because_ they had a big wedding.
think that people getting married who shouldn't be getting married at all may cause unstable marriages. And if they have a disagreement about what kind of wedding to have, and can't resolve it happily, that should be considered a warning. I also don't by the "money problems" as being an important cause of divorce. Marriage counselors unanimously disagree with you.

You should be able to provide evidence for such a strong statement, no?

On 8 Dec 2003 02:32:39 -0800, magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose
Goblin) wrote:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<iRRAb.263841$Dw6.902697@attbi_s02>... magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) writes: Why does society accept (even promote) women's self-indulgent spending at the expense of stable marriages ("money problems" are ranked as the number one cause of divorce. I'll give you one guess about who's doing the majority of the spending in said marriages). I don't buy that wedding expenses cause unstable marriages. I _do_ think that people getting married who shouldn't be getting married at all may cause unstable marriages. And if they have a disagreement about what kind of wedding to have, and can't resolve it happily, that should be considered a warning. I also don't by the "money problems" as being an important cause of divorce. Though it is true that if you aren't getting along, it is easy to argue about, and focus on, money. If you want to see, Doug, you must first remove the blindfold, you idiot. Nothing quite like calling someone names to get them to listen to you. How's that working for you? Seems to work really well for Andre, no?Any woman deserving of namecalling is NOT good enough for a relationshipwith me. If I'm calling a woman name (or even a group of woman), you canguarantee that *I* have already written them off as unsuitable for anysort of relationship.

Must explain why you are still single Aaron!

Actually I would suspect that his divorce came first ( I don't know that he
is divorced, I'm taking the posters statement) but any man who had gone
through an ugly divorce in the courts system would have to be a SAINT to not
feel a resentment to the way men are treated by the divorce courts. Anyone
who would disagree on this issue has very little credibility.
It reminds me of a talk show I listened to last night. A black woman was on
the show claiming police brutality against her nephew, whom the police had
beaten up after stopping him in his vehicle. He was suspected of a double
rape. When stopped ( he was drunk, apparently stinking drunk) he pulled out
a gun. The double rape was the aunt on the show and her sister. Her
complaint was anyone black was discriminated against. Even the black men who
called into the show and disagreed with her were not black but Grey.
The facts are men ARE discriminated in the family courts ( not 100% ) but
enough to cause a real hatred in the men who are treated so.
Even Sheila whom I believe is from Australia should know better. Her country
closely parallels her neighbors but is she informed? Unlikely, but so that
she can,if she wishes, become better informed.........

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6708/

Ah the beauty of ignorance and blessedness of avoidance


"Bill in Co." <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hvyAb.3211$rP6.1658@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... DrLith wrote: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1ZwAb.251159$Dw6.870068@attbi_s02... What I can't help wondering is what came first, his misogyny or his divorce? I have my suspicions, although he claims to the contrary that divorce opened his eyes and he has been taking opportunities to develop his misogyny ever since. Whatever it is, he certainly seems less rational than he did 4 years
ago, when he used to be a regular on ASD. He was, certainly, argumentative in those days, but not in the pointless, blinders-on manner that he seems
to today. I believe he is on disability, since he's not working, but he may not be
taking his meds anymore - which can make a big difference. (Meds aren't exactly cheap, you know).

Alright..since the obvious isn't enough....I'll spell it out.
A wedding day is all about the bride......from the start to finish..the
dress the reception the brides maids dresses the invitations etc. There may
be a couple of guys on this planet who are willing to spend thousands and
thousands of dollars on a day which has a 50% chance of failure but most I
suspect faced with such odds would pass. Even you Doug ( think about it)
$20,000 ( a figure) you have a 50-50 chance of losing it all on a bet,
divorce ,75% of which are initiated by the female ( the reward)? lol. Would
you take that bet?
Further take a walk in a mall count the number of stores dedicated to
men.......now count the woman's stores........
The family courts
control of spending
no means no.....even tho I said yes....
He MIGHT hit me..go to jail..lose your kids......your house, half of what is
left of your paycheck.
Doug don't look now but that wall coming towards you is a truck that will
run over you if you but dare step off the path that has been so carefully
cultivated for you. As long as you stay on that path you'll be relatively
safe. Dare to piss off a female in the legal system and we'll be happy to
pick you up off the road with a bucket and a shovel.


"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mhd6b3unea.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> writes: Doug, (if you are married) go to the bathroom, count the number of
feminine articles in it, makeup, bubble baths, perfume, hygiene, etc. . Add them up....now add up your toothbrush razor, deodorant, hairbrush.
toothpaste, costs of them now add up all the female stuff. It sort of dwarfs the
beer guzzling tit ogling belly scratching industries don't ya think? It might. But spell it out for me: how does this prove Andre's assertion that men are oppressed and controlled by women. If anything, this tends to make me believe the opposite.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<iRRAb.263841$Dw6.902697@attbi_s02>... magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) writes: > Why does society accept (even promote) women's self-indulgent > spending at the expense of stable marriages ("money problems" are > ranked as the number one cause of divorce. I'll give you one > guess about who's doing the majority of the spending in said > marriages). I don't buy that wedding expenses cause unstable marriages. I _do_ You don't think that they set a precedent with respect to the couple's money management (or lack thereof). Not necessarily, no. People who manage money poorly don't do so _because_ they had a big wedding. think that people getting married who shouldn't be getting married at all may cause unstable marriages. And if they have a disagreement about what kind of wedding to have, and can't resolve it happily, that should be considered a warning. I also don't by the "money problems" as being an important cause of divorce. Marriage counselors unanimously disagree with you. You should be able to provide evidence for such a strong statement, no?

Why ? *YOU* didn't bother to provide *any such* for *your claims,
above*...

H y p o c r i t e......

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:
I also don't by the "money problems" as being an important cause of divorce.

Not only that, but even if "money problem" is an important cause of
divorce, it doesn't follow that wedding expense is the major (or even
minor!) contributor to the said money problem. I think it's rare that
a couple go into debt for a luxury wedding (they do, after the
wedding, for buying house, car, electronic equipment, vacation,
clothes, etc. which are way beyond their means). Most likely the big
weddings are paid for by parents, and if they didn't pay for the
wedding, they wouldn't necessarily give the cash to the couple! Most
parents pay for the big party because THEY want to show off to their
friends. A young couple with little money usually come out pretty good
out of the big wedding, by the gifts and money that they receive!

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:
I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Really? *I* made that claim? Can you cite where I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Go ahead, try and find the post. It'll be fun watching you try and find something that doesn't exist. This is almost comical. You just keep making **** up. You must *really* hate losing an argument.

Yes, it's quite amusing (for a while, then it gets boring!). He
responded to a post by me, trying to refute what I supposedly said,
only to confirm it himself! It turned out he was really refuting what
Rauni had said, but because he's unable to distinguish between people
and can't read for comprehension, he just ASSumed that I was saying
the same thing. Funny thing is he even quoted what I actually said in
his post!!

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<iRRAb.263841$Dw6.902697@attbi_s02>... > magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) writes: > > > Why does society accept (even promote) women's self-indulgent > > spending at the expense of stable marriages ("money problems" are > > ranked as the number one cause of divorce. I'll give you one > > guess about who's doing the majority of the spending in said > > marriages). > > I don't buy that wedding expenses cause unstable marriages. I _do_ You don't think that they set a precedent with respect to the couple's money management (or lack thereof). Not necessarily, no. People who manage money poorly don't do so _because_ they had a big wedding. > think that people getting married who shouldn't be getting married at > all may cause unstable marriages. And if they have a disagreement > about what kind of wedding to have, and can't resolve it happily, that > should be considered a warning. > > I also don't by the "money problems" as being an important cause of > divorce. Marriage counselors unanimously disagree with you. You should be able to provide evidence for such a strong statement, no? Why ? *YOU* didn't bother to provide *any such* for *your claims, above*...

I didn't make a claim. Magicnose, or whoever he is did.


If I say "the world is run by little green martians" its up to me to
produce evidence for that, not up to you to produce evidence against
it.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) writes:> Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<iRRAb.263841$Dw6.902697@attbi_s02>...> > magicnosegob@yahoo.com (Magic Nose Goblin) writes:> >> > > Why does society accept (even promote) women's self-indulgent> > > spending at the expense of stable marriages ("money problems" are> > > ranked as the number one cause of divorce. I'll give you one> > > guess about who's doing the majority of the spending in said> > > marriages).> >> > I don't buy that wedding expenses cause unstable marriages. I _do_

Here *starts your claim*....
> You don't think that they set a precedent with respect to the couple's> money management (or lack thereof). Not necessarily, no. People who manage money poorly don't do so _because_ they had a big wedding.> > think that people getting married who shouldn't be getting married> > at all may cause unstable marriages.

And, hers the rest of *your claim*...

Funny how *you didn't have to back it up AT ALL*....
> > And if they have a disagreement> > about what kind of wedding to have, and can't resolve it happily,> > that should be considered a warning.> >> > I also don't by the "money problems" as being an important cause of> > divorce.>> Marriage counselors unanimously disagree with you. You should be able to provide evidence for such a strong statement, no? Why ? *YOU* didn't bother to provide *any such* for *your claims, above*... I didn't make a claim. Magicnose, or whoever he is did.

Lie.
If I say "the world is run by little green martians" its up to me to produce evidence for that, not up to you to produce evidence against it.

And, you did, above.

CAN'T you remember what you wrote ?

<laughs>

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:
Most forms of oppression tend to be robbed of their power by enough people simply saying " No ! ".

OK, I'll try to explain it at the elementary level so you can
understand.

There is NO oppression to be eliminated. ANYONE can say NO and not buy
what they sell! There is ONLY a choice to be made by people who are
capable of making a choice.

The so called "oppression" only exists in the little mind of little
people who don't realize that the marketing scheme of an industry has
no power on them if they simply exercise their free will and decide
for themselves to buy or not buy what the said industry offers! Of
course a person has to be a mature adult with minimally functioning
faculties. But the lack of this minimal ability in some people doesn't
make an industry oppressive!

Is that simple enough for you to comprehend or do I have to go into
more detail?

On 8 Dec 2003 08:16:12 -0800, ellie_first@hotmail.com (Ellie) wrote:
"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news: I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Really? *I* made that claim? Can you cite where I claimed your PBS figures were wrong? Go ahead, try and find the post. It'll be fun watching you try and find something that doesn't exist. This is almost comical. You just keep making **** up. You must *really* hate losing an argument.Yes, it's quite amusing (for a while, then it gets boring!). Heresponded to a post by me, trying to refute what I supposedly said,only to confirm it himself! It turned out he was really refuting whatRauni had said, but because he's unable to distinguish between peopleand can't read for comprehension, he just ASSumed that I was sayingthe same thing. Funny thing is he even quoted what I actually said inhis post!!

Andre tends to forget who posted what and can't remember one thread
from another.

Then he accuses others of not reading for comprehension.

John Royer <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote:
Alright..since the obvious isn't enough....I'll spell it out. A wedding day is all about the bride......from the start to finish.

Those people are doing it wrong. IMO, anyway. The wedding should be a
time to celebrate the marriage, see people you love and don't see
enough, and have a great party. Dresses and bridesmaids are side
issues.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:18:22 GMT, mbjq@earthlink.net (Emma Anne)
wrote:
John Royer <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote: Alright..since the obvious isn't enough....I'll spell it out. A wedding day is all about the bride......from the start to finish.Those people are doing it wrong. IMO, anyway. The wedding should be atime to celebrate the marriage, see people you love and don't seeenough, and have a great party. Dresses and bridesmaids are sideissues.

When I was first married it was my *parents* who wanted the big assed
wedding. Geez I hardly knew anyone.

Later my husband and I had a small part with just *our* friends at our
home. It was potluck and way more fun than the big wedding and
reception my parents threw.

With my second wedding we got married by the county clerk at the local
library went to starbuck afterwards. Actually it was pretty fun.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<br0mll$gdn$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>... Shrug. Suit yourself. There's no reason why it can't be a special vacation that isn't surrounded by wedding hoopla. If you buy into all that, that's your own problem. Non sequitur. I never said it *can't be*, I merely described that, for most people planning honeymoons, *it simply isn't*.

Pity for them.
And, you seem to want to place all the burden on the consumer, without addressing *who the vast bulk of the buyers driving the market are*.

Er, um, who's buying the products? Who is getting sucked into the mass
marketing hoopla? The 'industry' works because people buy into it.
Sure, it's a vicious circle. No one's being forced to buy into it
though. You do have free will you know.
But, feel free to buy such a place, try it, and report your ensuing bankruptcy...

Why would I? I've no interest in the wedding industry. Nor would I
ever visit such a place.
Honey, it's all about marketing and capitalism. The 'industry' tells you you NEED this, silly consumer buys into it, they sell you goods/services, the industry blossoms. You are not required to have a 'honeymoon', and you are certainly not required to have one involving a heart shaped bed. Straw woman. As I never said that anyone had to, you're argueing at self created phantoms.

What exactly are you complaining about then? That the industry exists?
That it is profitable? it's no different from the car industry coming
out with 'must have cars' every year, or electronics.
Rather, I was speaking of precisely WHO is the vast bulk of that willing and demanding market...

Ok, sure. But as long as you are not marrying someone who buys into
that, what's the problem? Are you complaining that other people choose
to spend their money a particular way?


Why should I cite? I didn't say "studies suggest". I'm merely talking from personal experience. " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

I did not offer a citation. I offered an anecdote.
Since you have *nothing to offer*, besides your limited experience, then you have zero useful to add.

My own experience is quite extensive actually.

And who makes up the sample size studied? Women buying wedding magazines... people uninterested in that stuff are not likely to be taking such a survey. It's called bias. LOL. Yes, when studying a market demographic, you don't mix it up with never-buyers...

Then you're not accurately reflecting a population. If I was studying
how many deaths occur due to heart failure among men over 50, I
wouldn't have a sample that included only men with pre-existing heart
disease.

But actually, a real market survey should aim to include never-buyers,
since the entire aim is to get those never-buyers to become buyers.
That the vast majority of wedding-industry related surveys are
conducted by the industry thru such sources as their own products, the
sample is biased.
Oh, the industry exists, and takes advantage of folks like yourself, but that's capitalism. We need not all buy into it. Yet, most *women* DO...

Fortunately, there are many women who do not. I'm sorry you don't seem
to be meeting them. perhaps you need to change your own focus so you
can meet women who share your values.
And, do look up " Free Speech " sometime...

? I've yet to suggest you're not entitled to it. I merely asked why
you were *****ing about something. ***** all you want. Say anything
you want. It may be wrong, but that's ok.
Presumably, if your tastes are simple, you will be marrying someone with similar tastes. Operative word being " presumably ". When it's inaccurate, all based on it... *collapses*...

Well, if you choose someone whose values and tastes are so very
different from your own, the 'collapse' is your own fault.
I have not one iota of sympathy for any man who says who got corralled into spending oodles of money, or was forced to put up with all the fuss. Yes, we understand that you can't tolerate anything different from yourself.

My tolerance level is extraordinately high, actually. Still doesn't
give me much sympathy for people who make choices - such as spending
money they don't want to spend - and them complain about it. If you
don't choose to exercise your own free will, that's not the fault of
some industry, it's one's own.



Because *most women don't want one*. Ok, perhaps in your world. News flash. There is no "most women." LOL ! Take a course on statistics, and this time... *pass it*.

It's part of what I do for a living. "most women" reading a bridal
magazine taking a survey are not a valid sample. "Studies" based on
stereotypes, which validate those stereotypes only by including those
who fulfill are not likely to pass a peer review.


FWIW - I don't buy it whenever someone says "most men want this"
either.
Go read Bride Magazine ( And, again note the sheer *absense* of any " Groom Magazine " ), Common complaint of grooms, such that there are now websites devoted to grooms. All seems silly to me, but whatever. Ah, the shrug of the truely *ignorant*.

?? Ignorant of what?
Your father must be.... very proud.

Yup! He is indeed very proud.
I'll bet *with* the House Odds. That way, I make fewer MS-takes.. Good, so go find yourself a nice woman who cries if she doesn't get the 2K ring and 20K wedding, and you can prove your point. I've found loads of them. Start with any subscriber or buyer of " Bride "... Theres millions of them...

Well, again, sampling bias. If you start with a subscriber to Bride's
Magazine, you're going to get the sort of person who likes the things
shown in Bride's Mags.

-that's not a diss on people who like that stuff. But if *you* don't,
why are you looking there?

Why not go to suscribers of Backpacker? Or Outside (tho the latter I
find to be a bit too commercial for my tastes)

What you want is an excuse to blame the world - blame women, blame an
industry - for your own inadequacies. The world doesn't owe you.

On 8 Dec 2003 11:10:00 -0800, xor31@netscape.net (XOR) wrote:
dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<br0mll$gdn$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>... Shrug. Suit yourself. There's no reason why it can't be a special vacation that isn't surrounded by wedding hoopla. If you buy into all that, that's your own problem. Non sequitur. I never said it *can't be*, I merely described that, for most people planning honeymoons, *it simply isn't*.Pity for them. And, you seem to want to place all the burden on the consumer, without addressing *who the vast bulk of the buyers driving the market are*.Er, um, who's buying the products? Who is getting sucked into the massmarketing hoopla? The 'industry' works because people buy into it.Sure, it's a vicious circle. No one's being forced to buy into itthough. You do have free will you know. But, feel free to buy such a place, try it, and report your ensuing bankruptcy...Why would I? I've no interest in the wedding industry. Nor would Iever visit such a place. Honey, it's all about marketing and capitalism. The 'industry' tells you you NEED this, silly consumer buys into it, they sell you goods/services, the industry blossoms. You are not required to have a 'honeymoon', and you are certainly not required to have one involving a heart shaped bed. Straw woman. As I never said that anyone had to, you're argueing at self created phantoms.What exactly are you complaining about then? That the industry exists?That it is profitable? it's no different from the car industry comingout with 'must have cars' every year, or electronics. Rather, I was speaking of precisely WHO is the vast bulk of that willing and demanding market...Ok, sure. But as long as you are not marrying someone who buys intothat, what's the problem? Are you complaining that other people chooseto spend their money a particular way? Why should I cite? I didn't say "studies suggest". I'm merely talking from personal experience. " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "I did not offer a citation. I offered an anecdote. Since you have *nothing to offer*, besides your limited experience, then you have zero useful to add.My own experience is quite extensive actually. And who makes up the sample size studied? Women buying wedding magazines... people uninterested in that stuff are not likely to be taking such a survey. It's called bias. LOL. Yes, when studying a market demographic, you don't mix it up with never-buyers...Then you're not accurately reflecting a population. If I was studyinghow many deaths occur due to heart failure among men over 50, Iwouldn't have a sample that included only men with pre-existing heartdisease.But actually, a real market survey should aim to include never-buyers,since the entire aim is to get those never-buyers to become buyers.That the vast majority of wedding-industry related surveys areconducted by the industry thru such sources as their own products, thesample is biased. Oh, the industry exists, and takes advantage of folks like yourself, but that's capitalism. We need not all buy into it. Yet, most *women* DO...Fortunately, there are many women who do not. I'm sorry you don't seemto be meeting them. perhaps you need to change your own focus so youcan meet women who share your values. And, do look up " Free Speech " sometime...? I've yet to suggest you're not entitled to it. I merely asked whyyou were *****ing about something. ***** all you want. Say anythingyou want. It may be wrong, but that's ok. Presumably, if your tastes are simple, you will be marrying someone with similar tastes. Operative word being " presumably ". When it's inaccurate, all based on it... *collapses*...Well, if you choose someone whose values and tastes are so verydifferent from your own, the 'collapse' is your own fault. I have not one iota of sympathy for any man who says who got corralled into spending oodles of money, or was forced to put up with all the fuss. Yes, we understand that you can't tolerate anything different from yourself.My tolerance level is extraordinately high, actually. Still doesn'tgive me much sympathy for people who make choices - such as spendingmoney they don't want to spend - and them complain about it. If youdon't choose to exercise your own free will, that's not the fault ofsome industry, it's one's own.> Because *most women don't want one*. Ok, perhaps in your world. News flash. There is no "most women." LOL ! Take a course on statistics, and this time... *pass it*.It's part of what I do for a living. "most women" reading a bridalmagazine taking a survey are not a valid sample. "Studies" based onstereotypes, which validate those stereotypes only by including thosewho fulfill are not likely to pass a peer review.
I have also taken graduate level Stat. It is pretty clear that Andre
has no clue about sampling, target population and generalizing to the
larger population.
FWIW - I don't buy it whenever someone says "most men want this"either.

Yup I agree
> Go read Bride Magazine ( And, again note the sheer *absense* of> any " Groom Magazine " ), Common complaint of grooms, such that there are now websites devoted to grooms. All seems silly to me, but whatever. Ah, the shrug of the truely *ignorant*.?? Ignorant of what? Your father must be.... very proud.Yup! He is indeed very proud.> I'll bet *with* the House Odds. That way, I make fewer MS-takes.. Good, so go find yourself a nice woman who cries if she doesn't get the 2K ring and 20K wedding, and you can prove your point. I've found loads of them. Start with any subscriber or buyer of " Bride "... Theres millions of them...Well, again, sampling bias. If you start with a subscriber to Bride'sMagazine, you're going to get the sort of person who likes the thingsshown in Bride's Mags.

How about the number of women who *don't* subscribe to Brides.-that's not a diss on people who like that stuff. But if *you* don't,why are you looking there?Why not go to suscribers of Backpacker? Or Outside (tho the latter Ifind to be a bit too commercial for my tastes)What you want is an excuse to blame the world - blame women, blame antried of it.industry - for your own inadequacies. The world doesn't owe you.

Andre is trying to make a political statement by being using the
victim model.

"John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote in message news:<br22lr$22q$1@news.eusc.inter.net>... Alright..since the obvious isn't enough....I'll spell it out. A wedding day is all about the bride......from the start to finish..the dress the reception the brides maids dresses the invitations etc.


Nah... actually, the wedding has a lot to do with the guests! The
reception -- feeding all those guests -- is the single biggest expense
at a wedding.

Check it out:

http://www.mikesartwedding.com/tools/costplanner/average.php?Q=Reception

jen

>Even Sheila whom I believe is from Australia should know better. Her countryclosely parallels her neighbors but is she informed? Unlikely, but so thatshe can,if she wishes, become better informed.........

I'm a US citizen. :-)

I also married a man who went through an "ugly divorce" in the US court system
(complete with allegations of abuse, which she agreed she'd drop *if* he gave
her the property settlement she wanted). Actually, my own divorce was pretty
ugly itself for a while. My ex is one of a group that Andre probably likes
even less than women --- he's an attorney --- and he did his best to make me
miserable and penniless.

I left my marriage with a tad less than 8% of the assets and 50% of the debt.
My earnings in the first couple of years were about 19% of what his was. So,
yes, I personally know what it is like to feel at a disadvantage in the court
system, *and* I've watched my DH be accused of all kinds of things I am sure he
didn't do, and watched his ex tried to extort money out of him in order to drop
the "charges".

But... (if you are asking for my perspective, and it appears you are) life goes
on. You let it go, you set new goals, and you don't let the negativity
paralyze you. You stop ranting and railing at the "injustice" of it all, you
pull yourself up by the bootstraps and create your own destiny, instead of
sitting around moaning and groaning about what you *should* have what
*shouldn't* have happened. And, you know what? After a while, if you don't
feed it and nurture it, the negativity fades. Good things happen in your life.
You meet your goals, and you feel really good about having overcome obstacles
in doing so. Even the negative feelings toward the person who "did this to
you" can dissipate. My ex and I have a really good relationship today. I can
do that because *I'm happy*.

This is what I see to be the common thread amongst those who are desperately
angry and unhappy here (like Andre). They not only *refuse* to move on, but
they actively feed their anger and negativity. The really sad thing is that,
more than anything else, they are damaging their ability to have a happy life
FAR more than anyone else could ever have damaged it.

Sheila

XOR wrote:
What exactly are you complaining about then? That the industry exists? That it is profitable? it's no different from the car industry coming out with 'must have cars' every year, or electronics.

Exactly. But don't expect any coherent answers from Andre!

Nothing matches the car industry for creating fantasy images and sucking people into spending way over
what they can afford for something to take them from point A to point B - and in the process waste a lot
of natural resources and damage the environment much more than necessary.

My neighbor has bought one of those monster Hummers that hardly fits in his driveway. He has had it for
over a year now, and according to himself the only *dirt* that his tires have touched is a bit of his
front yard when he misses the curb and runs over the corner of the grassed area when he turns into the
driveway!

Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: XOR wrote: What exactly are you complaining about then? That the industry exists? That it is profitable? it's no different from the car industry coming out with 'must have cars' every year, or electronics. Exactly. But don't expect any coherent answers from Andre!

How controlling of you to ASSume that you speak for me...

Rest assured... you *don't*.

Now, lets have a look at your latest Straw Woman...
Nothing matches the car industry for creating fantasy images and sucking people into spending way over what they can afford for something to take them from point A to point B - and in the process waste a lot of natural resources and damage the environment much more than necessary.

Yet, most people keep their cars for more than... *a day*...

So, it seems that this latest attempt at comparing the uncomparable,
also... fails.

Now, if you tried to compare wedding blowouts, with, say, buying junk
food, which is *also consumed in one day, or less*, then you might have
had a point...
My neighbor has bought one of those monster Hummers that hardly fits in his driveway.

Its so *cute* that you feeul that its OK to complain about *what you don't
like*, but its NOT OK for *other people to complain about what they don't
like...

Hmm... Theres a word for people like that....

H y p o c r i t e....

There ya go, and all done by your own hands.

How... kind of you. <laughs>
He has had it for over a year now, and according to himself the only *dirt* that his tires have touched is a bit of his front yard when he misses the curb and runs over the corner of the grassed area when he turns into the driveway!

Notice that no one is deluded enough to believe that SUVs are
supposed to be " special romantic " things...

Which also was rather my point...

Thanks for agreeing with it. <bg>

Andre



--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message news:<br2sn9$m70$1@freenet9.carleton.ca>... XOR (xor31@netscape.net) writes:
What exactly are you complaining about then? That the industry exists? That it is profitable? it's no different from the car industry coming out with 'must have cars' every year, or electronics. The views of it's defenders. Do you have a problem with Free Speech ? If you don't like what I'm saying, you DO have the right... NOT to read it.


No problem with free speech. Just wondered what exactly your complaint
was. That the industry exists? That it feeds off easily swayed
consumers? It's not the only industry which does so. I'm not fond of
the way the capitalist economy works, but western societies seem to
embrace it, and as long as people buy into it....

I don't mind what you are saying, I just don't think it applies across
the board. And if you broadened your mind, and perhaps dropped your
blaming of society for your own ills, you might see that you are in
control of your own destiny. So what the 'wedding industry' does or
does not due is, and should be, irrelevant in your own life. If more
people adhered to that, any industry's marketing tactics would be
irrelevant. Does one *really* need a 52" HDTV?
Then you're not accurately reflecting a population. If I was studying how many deaths occur due to heart failure among men over 50, I wouldn't have a sample that included only men with pre-existing heart disease. Non sequitur. This isn't a disease issue.

You were talking statistics. A major component of statistical analysis
is sampling - where does the sample come from? what are the biases in
sampling? One can not conclude anything about a 'study' until such
things are considered.

you need to change your own focus so you can meet women who share your values. Perhaps you need to change your own focus so you can *learn that some people can discuss things that haven't happened to them*...

Then why the bitterness? Why the anger? I too agree that the wedding
industry is out of hand - because I believe it focuses on irrelevant
fluff. BUT, others find that "fluff' vital. It's their money to spend.
I disagree on the electronics industry promoting spending US$1000+ on
TVs, but if the consumer is convinced he wants to buy it, that's his
perogative. And it's not the industry's fault.
? I've yet to suggest you're not entitled to it. LOL ! So, why do you repeatedly demand to know why I'm saying what I am ?

Just trying to figure out what your point is. Apart from the ramblings
of a bitter man.

I merely asked why you were *****ing about something. Time after time, after time...

So you ***** about everything all the time? Ah, that explains things.
Thanks. All clear now.

Well, if you choose someone whose values and tastes are so very different from your own, the 'collapse' is your own fault. Thanks for once again pointing out that, no matter what they do, you just CAN'T ever hold a *woman responsible for her actions*...

I'm sorry? Each and every individual is responsible for their own
actions. No excuses. A woman who chooses a man whose values are so
different from her own is responsible for her choices and must deal
with the consequences. A man doing the same is equally as responsible.
He doesn't get off the hook by blaming all women. He still made his
choice. She still made her choice.
"most women" reading a bridal magazine taking a survey are not a valid sample. "Studies" based on stereotypes, which validate those stereotypes only by including those who fulfill are not likely to pass a peer review. Yet, they will pass a marketing review... Whihc rather was the point...

Are we talking statistics or marketing? You keep suggesting one take
statistics courses. In reality, they are two different concepts. Or
rather, scientific statistical analysis has a different aim than
marketing (generally - pharmaceutical companies aside).
FWIW - I don't buy it whenever someone says "most men want this" either. Riiigghhhttt...

Yes. If you say "most men want X" I will no doubt remind you that I
know plenty of men who don't, so I don't buy the 'most' anything.
Stereotypes do little for the advancement of relations between any
groups of people. We rarely fall into neat little categories. That's
what makes us special as humans.
Well, again, sampling bias. If you start with a subscriber to Bride's Magazine, you're going to get the sort of person who likes the things shown in Bride's Mags. Yep, so they're the ones you know you can sell to with *success*...

Doesn't refute that it is sampling bias, however.
-that's not a diss on people who like that stuff. But if *you* don't, why are you looking there? To... *learn*... Look that up, too...

Hmmm. And what are you learning? From what you've posted, it's mostly
recycled stereotype garbage. If you want to learn, try meeting new and
varied people. Open your mind and your world and let go of your
preconceived notions.
What you want is an excuse to blame the world - blame women, blame an industry - for your own inadequacies. The world doesn't owe you. You MS-spelled " hold responsible "... I understand why. You get your panties in a bunch over the idea of holding women *as responsible for themselves as men are*...

Sorry? As stated above, each person is responsible for his own actions
and own choices. Women no less so than men. Unless someone is forcing
you to pay for something you don't want by holding a gun to your head,
you've made the choice. That holds true for a woman as well as for a
man. I have a hard time believing that any one is *forced* to spend
more money than they want for a wedding. If you don't buy into the
industry, don't buy it's products. REally, my friend, it is THAT
simple. But using it as an excuse for why you can't find a woman is
kind of hopeless. The reasons for THAT, are already rather clear.

"XOR" <xor31@netscape.net> wrote in message
Does one *really* need a 52" HDTV?

No. 43" is big enough for most rooms (assuming it's widescreen)

> "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message For that matter, heres another thinking point. When a couple ( Of, in first world lands, of nominally equal people ) get engaged, the societal and cultural norm is that the *man* spends a pile of loot on a useless bauble for the *woman's* pleasure.

Actually, this seems to be limited only to certain countries in the
West. In Germany and Switzerland at least, it is not common to buy a
diamond. There are likely others (most of my Spanish, Dutch and French
friends do not have engagement rings, but I've never discussed the
details with them)... the norm is to have a ring similar to a wedding
band, that merely switches hands upon the marriage. I know it's common
in the US, UK, and Ireland to have diamonds. Not sure about Eastern
Europe or Scandanavia. Hrm, I shall have to begin a survey.

And, yes, you CAN actually find women who do not WANT an engagement
ring. They do exist. But if you're the sort to try to find a woman by
throwing around your fancy car, electronic equipment, and income
levels, chances are, yes, you will find a woman who wants a uselss
bauble. I don't disagree that such women exist, but there's no reason
a man needs to limit himself to such a group if it's not his
inclination. If he *wants* to show off his wealth thusly, or simply,
wants to give a gift to his beloved because he's a generous soul and
his bride to be would like it, go for it. But he is not required to do
so. Presumably his bride to be would love him no less. There is no law
in western societies stating that a man must present an expensive
diamond - or any diamond - to his bride to be.

Newsflash dear Andre, one need not follow "The Norm." In fact, life is
a lot more fun when one doesn't! :) Give it a try! And report back
when you're done.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message
Exactly. But don't expect any coherent answers from Andre! How controlling of you to ASSume that you speak for me...

Oh Andre, you should learn to use a dictionary more often.
Controlling?! Do you know what it means? All I did was an
*observation*, based on the response that you already had written to
that post. Read your own response again and judge for yourself - does
it address the point that was raised in any way?!
Yet, most people keep their cars for more than... *a day*...

Ah.. now I get it. Your beef with the wedding industry is not about
the absolute wasteful and ridiculous images that they sell to the
shallow-minded people, your problem is that their product is consumed
in one day! Why didn't you say that from the beginning. You may be
giving the industry an idea - a prolonged year long honeymoon, say,
with every week starting with a new theme or something :-)
So, it seems that this latest attempt at comparing the uncomparable, also... fails.

Only in your mind. They are totally comparable in that they are both
industries that create fantasy images to sell things that people don't
need, at an inflated price. And the care industry is MUCH bigger.
My neighbor has bought one of those monster Hummers that hardly fits in his driveway. Its so *cute* that you feeul that its OK to complain about *what you don't like*, but its NOT OK for *other people to complain about what they don't like...

Complain?! Who is complaining (other than you, that is)? Again, learn
to read what's written, will ya? I just reported what he did. We are
friends and he jokes about his huge monster himself. I have no
complaints against him wasting his money, though I once reminded him
that he is contributing more than his share to the environmental
pollution, because he always comments on this issue himself. His
response was that he knows that, but he goes out of his way to do
everything else right (like taking his own shopping bag to grocery
store, recycling as much as possible, keeping his house not too warm
or cold to save energy etc), that overall he does less damage than
most people. So he feels justified to have this "weakness" (his word)
about the yellow monster (again, as he calls it)! I totally agree with
him, and told him more power to you!!
Hmm... Theres a word for people like that.... H y p o c r i t e....

You wish...
Notice that no one is deluded enough to believe that SUVs are supposed to be " special romantic " things...

Oh, believe me, my neighbor disagrees with you!! Well, maybe not
"romantic" in the sense of relationship between people, but he has a
deep affection for his yellow monster! You should see how he treats
the beast, much better than some people treat their spouse :-)

Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message Exactly. But don't expect any coherent answers from Andre! How controlling of you to ASSume that you speak for me... Oh Andre, you should learn to use a dictionary more often.

Free Clue: That you are such a narcissist that you ASSume that what
you say about others *must* be right, does not render those other's
views " faulty ".

I dare say that I know my views far *better* than you do...
Controlling?! Do you know what it means? All I did was an *observation*, based on the response that you already had written to that post. Read your own response again and judge for yourself - does it address the point that was raised in any way?!

Yep. Your bad.
Yet, most people keep their cars for more than... *a day*... Ah.. now I get it. Your beef with the wedding industry is not about the absolute wasteful and ridiculous images that they sell to the shallow-minded people, your problem is that their product is consumed in one day! Why didn't you say that from the beginning. You may be giving the industry an idea - a prolonged year long honeymoon, say, with every week starting with a new theme or something :-)

Non sequitur. Blowing tens of thousands of bucks for a one day
consumtive fest, demanded by *women*, is insane.

Blowing that money on *useful, long term* things, suggests at least
an ability to plan for the long term.

A skill that those demanding brides... lack.
So, it seems that this latest attempt at comparing the uncomparable, also... fails. Only in your mind. They are totally comparable in that they are both industries that create fantasy images to sell things that people don't need, at an inflated price. And the care industry is MUCH bigger.

Irrelevent. Thats like saying " Why deal with rape, theres still lots of
murders ".

The one has zero to do with the other.

Just more of your MS-direction.
My neighbor has bought one of those monster Hummers that hardly fits in his driveway. Its so *cute* that you feeul that its OK to complain about *what you don't like*, but its NOT OK for *other people to complain about what they don't like... Complain?! Who is complaining (other than you, that is)?

YOU ! If you are not pleased by my points, you could... *not read
them*...

Duh !

But, thats beyond your obsessive abilities, so you *whine, *****, moan,
and complain about my posting of my views.
Again, learn to read what's written, will ya? I just reported what he did. We are friends and he jokes about his huge monster himself.

<yawn> Who *cares* ?

Free Clue: This ISN'T " alt.support.Ellie's.narcissism ".
I have no complaints against him wasting his money, though I once reminded him that he is contributing more than his share to the environmental pollution, because he always comments on this issue himself. His response was that he knows that, but he goes out of his way to do everything else right (like taking his own shopping bag to grocery store, recycling as much as possible, keeping his house not too warm or cold to save energy etc), that overall he does less damage than most people. So he feels justified to have this "weakness" (his word) about the yellow monster (again, as he calls it)! I totally agree with him, and told him more power to you!!

<yawn>
Hmm... Theres a word for people like that.... H y p o c r i t e.... You wish...

Non sequitur. I report *accurately*, and you CAN'T refute.

Two points, my view. You... lose.
Notice that no one is deluded enough to believe that SUVs are supposed to be " special romantic " things... Oh, believe me, my neighbor disagrees with you!!

Then, have him publish a monthly million selling periodical
titled " SUVS For The Marriage Romantic Crowd "...

<laughs>

You just have NO idea of the difference between " anecdotes "
and TRENDS, verifyable by looking at *millions of consumers*...

You just failed math. Call your school board. They owe you a
refund...
Well, maybe not "romantic" in the sense of relationship between people, but he has a deep affection for his yellow monster! You should see how he treats the beast, much better than some people treat their spouse :-)

Well, at least his vehicle is *faithful* to him. Would that more
wives could be... See " Paternity Frauds "...

So guys, yeah, put more into your cars. They're simply worth more...

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

On 9 Dec 2003 16:11:26 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote in message > Exactly. But don't expect any coherent answers from Andre! How controlling of you to ASSume that you speak for me... Oh Andre, you should learn to use a dictionary more often.Free Clue: That you are such a narcissist that you ASSume that whatyou say about others *must* be right, does not render those other'sviews " faulty ".I dare say that I know my views far *better* than you do...

LOL this from the "man" who practices usenet ESP on a regular basis.
He frequently tells people what they think and believe in. Controlling?! Do you know what it means? All I did was an *observation*, based on the response that you already had written to that post. Read your own response again and judge for yourself - does it address the point that was raised in any way?!Yep. Your bad. Yet, most people keep their cars for more than... *a day*... Ah.. now I get it. Your beef with the wedding industry is not about the absolute wasteful and ridiculous images that they sell to the shallow-minded people, your problem is that their product is consumed in one day! Why didn't you say that from the beginning. You may be giving the industry an idea - a prolonged year long honeymoon, say, with every week starting with a new theme or something :-)Non sequitur. Blowing tens of thousands of bucks for a one dayconsumtive fest, demanded by *women*, is insane.Blowing that money on *useful, long term* things, suggests at leastan ability to plan for the long term.A skill that those demanding brides... lack. So, it seems that this latest attempt at comparing the uncomparable, also... fails. Only in your mind. They are totally comparable in that they are both industries that create fantasy images to sell things that people don't need, at an inflated price. And the care industry is MUCH bigger.Irrelevent. Thats like saying " Why deal with rape, theres still lots ofmurders ".The one has zero to do with the other.Just more of your MS-direction. > My neighbor has bought one of those monster Hummers that hardly fits in > his driveway. Its so *cute* that you feeul that its OK to complain about *what you don't like*, but its NOT OK for *other people to complain about what they don't like... Complain?! Who is complaining (other than you, that is)?YOU ! If you are not pleased by my points, you could... *not readthem*...Duh !But, thats beyond your obsessive abilities, so you *whine, *****, moan,and complain about my posting of my views. Again, learn to read what's written, will ya? I just reported what he did. We are friends and he jokes about his huge monster himself.<yawn> Who *cares* ?Free Clue: This ISN'T " alt.support.Ellie's.narcissism ". I have no complaints against him wasting his money, though I once reminded him that he is contributing more than his share to the environmental pollution, because he always comments on this issue himself. His response was that he knows that, but he goes out of his way to do everything else right (like taking his own shopping bag to grocery store, recycling as much as possible, keeping his house not too warm or cold to save energy etc), that overall he does less damage than most people. So he feels justified to have this "weakness" (his word) about the yellow monster (again, as he calls it)! I totally agree with him, and told him more power to you!!<yawn> Hmm... Theres a word for people like that.... H y p o c r i t e.... You wish...Non sequitur. I report *accurately*, and you CAN'T refute.Two points, my view. You... lose. Notice that no one is deluded enough to believe that SUVs are supposed to be " special romantic " things... Oh, believe me, my neighbor disagrees with you!!Then, have him publish a monthly million selling periodicaltitled " SUVS For The Marriage Romantic Crowd "...<laughs>You just have NO idea of the difference between " anecdotes "and TRENDS, verifyable by looking at *millions of consumers*...You just failed math. Call your school board. They owe you arefund... Well, maybe not "romantic" in the sense of relationship between people, but he has a deep affection for his yellow monster! You should see how he treats the beast, much better than some people treat their spouse :-)Well, at least his vehicle is *faithful* to him. Would that morewives could be... See " Paternity Frauds "...So guys, yeah, put more into your cars. They're simply worth more...Andre

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FD52BF8.B890A20E@hotmail.com... Nothing matches the car industry for creating fantasy images and sucking
people into spending way over what they can afford for something to take them from point A to point B -
and in the process waste a lot of natural resources and damage the environment much more than necessary.

Hmmm...I'd say the new housing industry runs a close second...
My neighbor has bought one of those monster Hummers that hardly fits in
his driveway. He has had it for over a year now, and according to himself the only *dirt* that his tires
have touched is a bit of his front yard when he misses the curb and runs over the corner of the grassed
area when he turns into the driveway!

We had our first snowfall of the year this past weekend. I had cause to be
out and about at 7:30 on a Saturday a.m., and I think the proportion of
ordinary sedans on the road vs. SUVs was actually higher than normal. My
guess is that people who actually have commitments to be someone at 8
o'clock on Saturday in the middle of a snowstorm are less likely to have
money to blow on an SUV.

Or observing (coveting, really) people who have kayaks. You'll see far more
kayaks strapped to the top of Honda Civics than you will to Lincoln
Navigators.

On 9 Dec 2003 16:11:26 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
Non sequitur. Blowing tens of thousands of bucks for a one dayconsumtive fest, demanded by *women*, is insane.

What I find amusing is Andre's complete ignorance of wedding customs.
Yes the wedding industry is more marketing than anything else these
days, but a lot of things done are done because of custom.

I suppose Andre thinks that this wedding industry is just a *western*
think. Maybe he should look up how expensive and elaborate the wedding
are in India.

Rauni (LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com) writes: On 9 Dec 2003 16:11:26 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:Non sequitur. Blowing tens of thousands of bucks for a one dayconsumtive fest, demanded by *women*, is insane. What I find amusing is Andre's complete ignorance of wedding customs.

Relevence to the North American wedding industrial complex, which
*was the point of my OP*... ?

I thought not. Its a cute, but inane and juvenile tactic of
Festering Femmeroids, that, when *losing* on the front in debate,
they try to MS-direct attention to *irrelevent distractionary
topics*...

<laughs>
Yes the wedding industry is more marketing than anything else these days, but a lot of things done are done because of custom.

Sure. But, thats *also different issues and topics*...

Thanks for showing that you CAN'T debate *the topic*...

<laughs>
I suppose Andre thinks that this wedding industry is just a *western* think. Maybe he should look up how expensive and elaborate the wedding are in India.

And, yet one more *irrelevancy*...

But, its *cute* to see *pampered western wimmins* whoring off of the backs
of Third World, whose problems are more along the lines of " Where shall
we get some clean water ", and " Are there any buried land mines in that
field "... Which *isn't* Marshall Fields....

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

On 9 Dec 2003 21:33:15 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
Rauni (LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com) writes: On 9 Dec 2003 16:11:26 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:Non sequitur. Blowing tens of thousands of bucks for a one dayconsumtive fest, demanded by *women*, is insane. What I find amusing is Andre's complete ignorance of wedding customs.Relevence to the North American wedding industrial complex, which*was the point of my OP*... ?I thought not. Its a cute, but inane and juvenile tactic ofFestering Femmeroids, that, when *losing* on the front in debate,they try to MS-direct attention to *irrelevent distractionarytopics*..

I guess the point went zooming head. The point was that big expensive
weddings are done all over the world. The North American wedding
industry is not anything exceptional. In fact in some countries the
weddings go on for *days*! Andre has yet to prove his points
<laughs> Yes the wedding industry is more marketing than anything else these days, but a lot of things done are done because of custom.Sure. But, thats *also different issues and topics*...Thanks for showing that you CAN'T debate *the topic*...

Say the man who has of yet *Failed* to prove his point that men are
being oppressed by the evil wedding industry.<laughs> I suppose Andre thinks that this wedding industry is just a *western* think. Maybe he should look up how expensive and elaborate the wedding are in India.And, yet one more *irrelevancy*...But, its *cute* to see *pampered western wimmins* whoring off of the backsof Third World, whose problems are more along the lines of " Where shallwe get some clean water ", and " Are there any buried land mines in thatfield "... Which *isn't* Marshall Fields....

Is this suppose to make any sense?<laughs>Andre
BTW Andre the is a web page devoted to grooms. I wouldn't expect you
to know that because you don't do any research other than watching the
TV.

http://www.groomsonline.com/

http://www.mindspring.com/~bdpr/mmperspective.html

http://www.thebestman.com/

On 9 Dec 2003 22:05:31 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote: Rauni (LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com) writes: Really that has to be the dumbest things you have ever posted and pretty much sums up the kind of arguments you make. All emotion and very little substance. <laughs> You are too pathetic to laugh at. I actually feel sorry for you.

Can you teach me how to feel that way too, Rauni? I haven't quite been able
to pull it off yet, and could use some help in that regard.

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:45:46 GMT, "Bill in Co."
<nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:
On 9 Dec 2003 22:05:31 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)wrote: Rauni (LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com) writes: Really that has to be the dumbest things you have ever posted and pretty much sums up the kind of arguments you make. All emotion and very little substance. <laughs> You are too pathetic to laugh at. I actually feel sorry for you.Can you teach me how to feel that way too, Rauni? I haven't quite been ableto pull it off yet, and could use some help in that regard.

Who would *want* Andre's life? Too poor to pay for an ISP. A failure
in relationships and spends all his free time watching TV and feeding
his anger.

"Rauni" <LadyWolfspamnot@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:jfoctvsrgo57q2oab4h0eb65rghk1l6svs@4ax.com... Who would *want* Andre's life? Too poor to pay for an ISP. A failure in relationships and spends all his free time watching TV and feeding his anger.

Ok, curiousity's got the better of me, so I must ask: whatever happened to
the teacher lady he was dating, quite seriously (planning on marrying,
perhaps? or maybe it was just moving in together--don't remember the
details) about 3 years ago?

In soc.men XOR <xor31@netscape.net> wrote:
Actually, this seems to be limited only to certain countries in the West. In Germany and Switzerland at least, it is not common to buy a diamond. There are likely others (most of my Spanish, Dutch and French friends do not have engagement rings, but I've never discussed the details with them)... the norm is to have a ring similar to a wedding band, that merely switches hands upon the marriage.

From left to right or from right to left? Does it depend on whether
they are protestant or catholic?Do both spouses have a ring?
I know it's common in the US, UK, and Ireland to have diamonds. Not sure about Eastern Europe or Scandanavia. Hrm, I shall have to begin a survey.

In Finland people usually have plain engagement rings, without any
stones, and both the man and the woman wear it on the left hand. When
they marry the woman gets another ring (with or without a stone) which
she wears together with the first one on the left hand.

In Russia people just have plain wedding rings, which they both wear
on the right hand.

Would be interesting to know which countries have the diamond tradition
like the US. Would be also interesting to know how many of those
diamond wearers can tell the difference between a diamond and a cubic
zirconia by sight. :)

--
Vera Izrailit

I answer Doug....and get the ladies ( Thank You for your
responses)..DOUG!!!!!! what, no answer???????...or is that a dog licking
it's asshole that I hear?
"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1g5nb0s.opiiutut417sN%mbjq@earthlink.net... John Royer <jroyer@istar.ca> wrote: Alright..since the obvious isn't enough....I'll spell it out. A wedding day is all about the bride......from the start to finish. Those people are doing it wrong. IMO, anyway. The wedding should be a time to celebrate the marriage, see people you love and don't see enough, and have a great party. Dresses and bridesmaids are side issues.

Sheila.apologies for the domicile...However your post further illustrates
how men and to a much smaller degree women ( especially those unfortunate
enough to marry attorneys) get screwed by unfounded allegations and the
courts. What would have happened if you had made those allegations against
your attorney husband?
The fact that Andre rails against an unjust system is not evidence of a
defective personality.If that were true then all who have rallied against
injustice would have to wear that mantle. " I'm reminded of a line in the
series Shogun where Blackthorn is told by Toranaga " There are no mitigating
circumstances when it comes to rebellion"
His reply? "Unless you win". Andre, myself, TR and many others are
legion....and we are gaining voice, it's only a matter of time......and then
those who, although, were not part of the oppression but also failed to
voice their opposition will sadly be caught up in the repercussions.

"WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031208180808.22922.00000319@mb-m27.aol.com...Even Sheila whom I believe is from Australia should know better. Her
countryclosely parallels her neighbors but is she informed? Unlikely, but so
thatshe can,if she wishes, become better informed......... I'm a US citizen. :-) I also married a man who went through an "ugly divorce" in the US court
system (complete with allegations of abuse, which she agreed she'd drop *if* he
gave her the property settlement she wanted). Actually, my own divorce was
pretty ugly itself for a while. My ex is one of a group that Andre probably
likes even less than women --- he's an attorney --- and he did his best to make
me miserable and penniless. I left my marriage with a tad less than 8% of the assets and 50% of the
debt. My earnings in the first couple of years were about 19% of what his was.
So, yes, I personally know what it is like to feel at a disadvantage in the
court system, *and* I've watched my DH be accused of all kinds of things I am
sure he didn't do, and watched his ex tried to extort money out of him in order to
drop the "charges". But... (if you are asking for my perspective, and it appears you are) life
goes on. You let it go, you set new goals, and you don't let the negativity paralyze you. You stop ranting and railing at the "injustice" of it all,
you pull yourself up by the bootstraps and create your own destiny, instead of sitting around moaning and groaning about what you *should* have what *shouldn't* have happened. And, you know what? After a while, if you
don't feed it and nurture it, the negativity fades. Good things happen in your
life. You meet your goals, and you feel really good about having overcome
obstacles in doing so. Even the negative feelings toward the person who "did this
to you" can dissipate. My ex and I have a really good relationship today. I
can do that because *I'm happy*. This is what I see to be the common thread amongst those who are
desperately angry and unhappy here (like Andre). They not only *refuse* to move on,
but they actively feed their anger and negativity. The really sad thing is
that, more than anything else, they are damaging their ability to have a happy
life FAR more than anyone else could ever have damaged it. Sheila

I Find myself in complete agreement with XOR..If you hook up with a female
or male for that matter and the primary motive appears to be material you
will reap what you sow.

"XOR" <xor31@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:a893915f.0312082022.4297c6d4@posting.google.c om... "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message For that matter, heres another thinking point. When a couple ( Of, in first world lands, of nominally equal people ) get engaged, the societal and cultural norm is that the *man* spends a pile of loot on a useless bauble for the *woman's* pleasure. Actually, this seems to be limited only to certain countries in the West. In Germany and Switzerland at least, it is not common to buy a diamond. There are likely others (most of my Spanish, Dutch and French friends do not have engagement rings, but I've never discussed the details with them)... the norm is to have a ring similar to a wedding band, that merely switches hands upon the marriage. I know it's common in the US, UK, and Ireland to have diamonds. Not sure about Eastern Europe or Scandanavia. Hrm, I shall have to begin a survey. And, yes, you CAN actually find women who do not WANT an engagement ring. They do exist. But if you're the sort to try to find a woman by throwing around your fancy car, electronic equipment, and income levels, chances are, yes, you will find a woman who wants a uselss bauble. I don't disagree that such women exist, but there's no reason a man needs to limit himself to such a group if it's not his inclination. If he *wants* to show off his wealth thusly, or simply, wants to give a gift to his beloved because he's a generous soul and his bride to be would like it, go for it. But he is not required to do so. Presumably his bride to be would love him no less. There is no law in western societies stating that a man must present an expensive diamond - or any diamond - to his bride to be. Newsflash dear Andre, one need not follow "The Norm." In fact, life is a lot more fun when one doesn't! :) Give it a try! And report back when you're done.

Vera Izrailit <izrailit@cc.helsinki.fi.invalid> wrote in message news:<br70hs$9ap$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>... In soc.men XOR <xor31@netscape.net> wrote: Actually, this seems to be limited only to certain countries in the West. In Germany and Switzerland at least, it is not common to buy a diamond. There are likely others (most of my Spanish, Dutch and French friends do not have engagement rings, but I've never discussed the details with them)... the norm is to have a ring similar to a wedding band, that merely switches hands upon the marriage. From left to right or from right to left? Does it depend on whether they are protestant or catholic?Do both spouses have a ring?

The Germans I know have all said it goes from left to right, but now
that you mention it it may depend upon Catholic v. Protestant... I
know I've heard that before, but I can't recall where. In most cases,
both spouses wear a ring, but I gather that's personal preference. I
understand it's the 'norm' to do so.

In Switzerland, I am not certain. Will have to remember to ask my
Swiss fiance -I'm from the US, but don't wear an engagement ring at
all, we will both wear wedding rings, tho not 100% of the time, but it
just occurred to me we didn't talk about which hand it goes on :)
In Finland people usually have plain engagement rings, without any stones, and both the man and the woman wear it on the left hand. When they marry the woman gets another ring (with or without a stone) which she wears together with the first one on the left hand.
In Russia people just have plain wedding rings, which they both wear on the right hand.

Hmm, interesting. I have some Russian friends whose hands I never
looked at, will have to check it out next time I see them :)

Would be interesting to know which countries have the diamond tradition like the US. Would be also interesting to know how many of those diamond wearers can tell the difference between a diamond and a cubic zirconia by sight. :)

Well, this isn't from a formal survey, but it seems the diamond
engagement ring custom is the norm in both the UK and Ireland.


In Asia, it's a whole 'nother story. Not necessarily big diamonds, in
fact, quite often not, but it seems, if money allows, loads of jewels
pass back and forth. And of course,it depends which country we're
talking about.

ellie_first@hotmail.com (Ellie) wrote in message news:<27f68249.0312080803.5342a2af@posting.google.com>... Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news: I also don't by the "money problems" as being an important cause of divorce. Not only that, but even if "money problem" is an important cause of divorce, it doesn't follow that wedding expense is the major (or even minor!) contributor to the said money problem. I think it's rare that

Outlandish, extravagant, WASTEFUL spending by women is the chief
contributor to said "money problems."

Of course, women turn this around to "MY husband isn't slaving hard
enough to support my outre' spending...waaaa Waaa WAAAAAAA!!"


a couple go into debt for a luxury wedding (they do, after the wedding, for buying house, car, electronic equipment, vacation, clothes, etc. which are way beyond their means). Most likely the big

Spending on tangible, durable goods VERY is different from blowing
TENS of thousands of dollars on a freakin' party.

Let's face it... the PRIMARY reason for women to insist on all of this
spending is SOLELY to wave it in the face of their female acquaintances,
to make a "see what *I* got, nyah-nyah-nyah-nyaaaaaaaaah-nyah" statement
in symbolic form.

It's no different than how so many women, upon getting engaged, suddenly
become left-handed.. (eating, drinking, reaching, etc. with their left
hand so that they can not-so-subtly push their damn ring in everyone's
face)

weddings are paid for by parents, and if they didn't pay for the wedding, they wouldn't necessarily give the cash to the couple! Most parents pay for the big party because THEY want to show off to their friends. A young couple with little money usually come out pretty good out of the big wedding, by the gifts and money that they receive!


You're telling us that the guests at the wedding first judge how much
the wedding cost pro-rated per guest, and THEN buy a gift according to
how high that pro-rated cost is???

Nobody said anything against BIG weddings. The point is needlessly
extravagant weddings (blowing thousands upon thousands of dollars, above
and beyond seating and feeding guests on stuff that will be promptly
carted off to a trash dumpster as soon as the guests depart).

Two-story sculputures, hiring half of the local philharmonic symphony, etc.
There's no point in any of that other than conspicous consumption.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:13:06 -0500, "John Royer" <jroyer@istar.ca>
wrote:
I Find myself in complete agreement with XOR..If you hook up with a femaleor male for that matter and the primary motive appears to be material youwill reap what you sow.

No ****. There was an article in May's 26 PEOPLE magazine about on
grooms who take over the planning of their weddings and fuss about
every little detail (contrary to Andre's assertions one only needs to
put Groomzilla in Google to come up with similar stories). The
Groomzilla was ordering the bride to dress a certain way,
unilaterally deciding where the ceremony will be held, and
inviting/disinviting who he wants. Damn,the Groomzilla who knew his
future dad-in-law