Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Someone once said that the difference between rich and wealthy is that how rich you are depends on how much money you have to spend. how wealthy you are depends on how long you could sustain you lifestyle if your earnings stopped today.
Put that way there are very few truly wealthy individuals.
I’d say ultimately posh is about wealthy rather than rich. Not so much about the banker looking down on the lottery winner, but about the truly wealthy promoting social norms that maintain their status.
The assurance you get from knowing that your family own, say, Berkshire is a bit different from knowing that you rent out a few properties on buy-to-let. And the steps you might take to preserve your stake in Berkshire would be far more wide-ranging and long-term.
So ‘posh’ will include not only learnable things like, like accent, courtesy, manners and style, but also the assurance that most people cannot threaten your position unless they act in a united and well-organised manner. Hence the truly posh have a reputation for being personally lovely/gracious/friendly as well as for ruthlessness. And hence the suspicion about a government full of ‘posh boys’.
Thus traditional manners and educated accent arouse suspicion: the person who knows your name and opens the door to you could be the same one who takes away your livelihood or freedom in search of a fox or deer; the accent that you could learn has been developed for the benefit of a club you can never join without spare county in your pocket.
You don’t send your (non-scholarship) child to a top public school for a world-class education, you can get that free at any number of local comprehensives, grammars or fee paying schools with a bit of extra tuition. You send them there to learn the norms of a rarified social stratum and to develop social connnections amongst the equally powerful.
I think courtesy and grace are worth adding to consideration of others regardless.
Now, where did I leave Shropshire, I’m sure I was playing with it just 10 minutes ago . . . . . . .
@simplysu wrote:
Su, if your attention to detail is that consistent, you and me should definitely take on a project or something . . . . . 8) :lol: 8) :lol: 8) :lol: 8)
I just KNOW you meant to type “you and I” … ( :-# )[/quote]
Nah!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
@simplysu wrote:
@wordsworth60 wrote:
@terry wrote:
The thing I dislike about all of this is the little clique that you, wordsworth and panda are a part of. And your answers are always so smug and righteous. And then you pat each other on the back at your smugness. Neither one of you has a valid point to make, but that’s not my problem..it’s yours .
Terry!!!!! Shame on you!!! First of all don’t drag my name into your personal arguments when I’m not participating.
Secondly I have longed for righteousness ever since iniquity lost its sheen, thank you again.
Thirdly thank you for putting me in a clique, I had adopted a posture of splendid isolation in my late forties but it outlived its usefulness. Now I belong once more!!! And with Panda and jen_jen!! We’re like a left-wing Terry, Terry and Terry!!
Fourthly your critique of my back patting technique is most welcome, I was aiming for a grope. Must work on my reach-around.
Fifthly you mention three of us then say “neither”. I know precise use of English is your claimed forte, so perhaps you could identify which of two out of the three you meant.
Sixthly thank you for relieving me of the suspicion that I might have born down on you too hard, now I know my assertions are not your problem I can give myself some lattitude.
Gawd bless yer guvnor! Yer a diamond geezer!!!!
tsk
Su, if your attention to detail is that consistent, you and me should definitely take on a project or something . . . . . 8) :lol: 8) :lol: 8) :lol: 8)
Oh and arse-kicking is so artless. I prefer the use of an eight foot stock-whip, but modern housing usually only leaves room for a short yard-whip.
@terry wrote:
The thing I dislike about all of this is the little clique that you, wordsworth and panda are a part of. And your answers are always so smug and righteous. And then you pat each other on the back at your smugness. Neither one of you has a valid point to make, but that’s not my problem..it’s yours .
Terry!!!!! Shame on you!!! First of all don’t drag my name into your personal arguments when I’m not participating.
Secondly I have longed for righteousness ever since iniquity lost it’s sheen, thank you again.
Thirdly thank you for putting me in a clique, I had adopted a posture of splendid isolation in my late forties but it outlived its usefulness. Now I belong once more!!! And with Panda and jen_jen!! We’re like a left-wing Terry, Terry and Terry!!
Fourthly your critique of my back patting technique is most welcome, I was aiming for a grope. Must work on my reach-around.
Fifthly you mention three of us then say “neither”. I know precise use of English is your claimed forte, so perhaps you could identify which of two out of the three you meant.
Sixthly thank you for relieving me of the suspicion that I might have born down on you too hard, now I know my assertions are not your problem I can give myself some lattitude.
Gawd bless yer guvnor! Yer a diamond geezer!!!!
@terry wrote:
@kent f OBE wrote:
You havn’t really answered my question Terry…….
I don’t have the answer to your question. I’m just concerned about where we, as a nation, go from here.
I think wordsworth mentioned the vast empty spaces that we have in this country. Do we want to keep those spaces or do we want to build new cities on them to house the rest of the world?
There are hundreds of thousands of people who want to come to this country as it is and I (unlike panda, wordsworth and jen_jen..) am really concerned about the future if they’re all allowed in.
Terry. I am glad you are concerned about our direction as a nation; I wish more people expressed that concern constructively. Your original post mentioned linguistic divides not our future.
I mentioned huge amounts of empty space because we are mostly squeezed into about 20% of the available land. I have in posts elsewhere described access to land as being a pressing problem.
However in global terms we are not a vast country and do not have vast spaces compared to, say Africa or the Americas. So I would not use the word ‘vast’.
In global terms we are, however, a wealthy country. Relative to our total resources we are not overcrowded. However we are all made to feel as if we are the problem rather than the way we are led or the decisions that are made in our name. It is important we do not squander our national wealth in an attempt to appear rich.
I believe our future success lies in harnessing all our human capital, rather than in trying to reflect an illusion of our past.
I suspect that in the past as it was, neither you nor I would have anything like our current social status, such as it is.
If you were trying to imply that I am unconcerned about my country’s future, then you are incorrect and a tad cheeky. If however you are simply stating that your concern about the future is unlike mine then you are correct.
I won’t speak for jen_jen or panda, but I do not think “they” will “all” be allowed in any more than I believe “they” all want to come here rather than, say the US or Australia. I would rather our country was populated by people who want to be here and hope we can build a common vision that engages our whole population in shaping a healthy future.
But I think that our troubles will not be solved by restricting immigration alone or leaving the EU in itself.
My concerns are that the British people should develop a sound vision of the future based facts rather than illusion and panic. That our leaders should build a country which can cope with the real demands of the future and that our place on the world stage should be used to shape a peaceful global future, for without that no amount of insularity can protect us from disaster.
I have a secondary concern that it would be Cheryl Cole singing as the ship goes down, and I’d like to lobbyfor Dazed and Confused performed by either the best incarnation of Led Zeppelin that we can muster or one of our fine symphony orchestras and excellent operatic sopranos.)
But be assured Terry, I am very concerned.
@terry wrote:
@jen_jen wrote:
I once thought you were open minded and capable of debate…it seems I was sadly mistaken.
I am open-minded and capable of debate, but (unfortunately) there’s only so much of your nonsense that I can tolerate.
Every post you make just goes to prove how “sadly mistaken” you really are.
Capable, but apparently unwilling to demonstrate it.
I actually think that even if Jen, Jen is wrong in her conclusions, the majority of her posts would show her as being quite happily mistaken . . . . . :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
