On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 19:38:24 -0400, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 06:30:49 +0700, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:28:59 -0400, "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq."
wrote:

trim

No, it's not that. It's more the thought of how
those rich, hoity-toity *******s seem to be glorified
because their wallets are fat. Most, if not all, are
total assholes who seem to think they are entitled
to waste resources, pollute the air and water and
generally act like selfish jerks whose **** doesn't
stink that gets my goat.

Hmmm... is that any different than these poor, hoity-toity *******s
glorifying because their wallets are thin?

Is it really any better to glorify oneself because he/she/it is a
total looser and lacks sufficient brain power or education (in a land
where education is essentially free) to earn a decent living? Or
alternately, is too lazy to work?

After all, the bulk of the U.S. "upper 10 percent" got there through
their own efforts, not through inheritance.

Attempting to point out OTHER dregs of humanity doesn't
make the dregs of humanity in the form of sports fishermen
rapists look more admirable, dude.

I can only assume that you one of those wild eyed vegetarians that
abhor eating fish, fowl and other "living things"?

I've always wondered abut y'all.Given all the evidence that Man is an
omnivores creature. Not only proved so by archeology but by witnessing
primitive societies which invariability eat everything that they can
get their hands on.

So what is the problem with a fisherman going to sea in a boat to
catch fish? After all, it has been going on as long as there have
been "man".

Or is it the luxury that you descry? The so obvious envy for someone
that can own a boat larger than a toy? And who actually uses it to go
somewhere and do something other than just squat there in their
floating trailer.

--
Cheers,

Bruce