Grave_n_idle wrote:Sibirsky wrote:Grave_n_idle wrote:Long rant about how the purchasing of expensive (and thus, symbolic of conspicuous consumption - another compensation mechanism), phallic accessories doesn't mean anything.
...in which, you mention that you just so happen to have purchased one of those accessories.
Does that automatically mean you are in denail? No, of course not.
On an unrelated not, perhaps Bill O'Reilly claims that 'the O'Reilly Factor' is the only program 'without spin' because it's an objective judgement.
Dude, his "conspicuous consumption" was a 17 year old $900 car.
Uh huh. That just happened to be a Porsche. Coincidentally.
He probably intended to buy a Kia, but somehow slipped and pointed at the wrong one.
Of course not. Are you saying it is impossible for one to genuinely care about the car itself, instead of how one looks in it to others if they buy some brand that you would classify as lavish?



I don't know here is what it looked like.


