|
Steve_Harris wrote: I think it's very sad that more than twice as many people have voted to have more money than a meaningful relationship with another human being.
I think the survey said "A cute Significant Other" - It mentions nothing about a meaningful relationship with said cute significant other.
|
|
|
|
|
 My mistake, I assumed that "significant" meant "significant" and not just "temporary bit of fluff"...
|
|
|
|
|
Those who already have a cute S.O. wouldn't vote for it now would they 
"For fifty bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow." - George Costanza ~ Web SQL Utility - asp.net app to query Access, SQL server, MySQL. Stores history, favourites.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly.
All the label says is that this stuff contains chemicals "... known to the State of California to cause cancer in rats and low-income test subjects."
Roger Wright
http://www.codeproject.com/lounge.asp?select=965687&exp=5&fr=1#xx965687xx
|
|
|
|
|
But typically the cute SO goes hand in hand w/ the need for more money. Or have the past 8-9 years lied to me
|
|
|
|
|
MadHatter ¢ wrote: Or have the past 8-9 years lied to me
Yes they have. You dont need the money to have a cute SO. It's all the personality, money is secondary.
|
|
|
|
|
Anton Afanasyev wrote: Yes they have
No they have not.
Having a cute significant other brings the pressing need for more money - if only to feed the lot of small cute significant others running around our (always too small) house.
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation."
-- Caius Petronius, Roman Consul, 66 A.D.
|
|
|
|
|
indeed! The cost of the smaller CSO's is an exponential magnitude of the chief CSO.
not complaining, wouldn't trade any amount of money for either (most days), just one of those things.
|
|
|
|
|
as i said, money is secondary. to get the SO, money is not _really_ needed. after that, yes.
|
|
|
|
|
sweet! here I was all this time thinking that department stores, car dealerships, beauty salons and other product and service providers required money for their stuff and services... now she can just pay them w/ a photo of herself.
|
|
|
|
|
now what i meant damnit. to get the SO, you dont _really_ need money. after that, yes. sorta. but then I guess that what you said in the firstplace. so just ignore me and my lack of sleep.
|
|
|
|
|
hehe
fantastic lovers and rich men win the fair maidens SO's. Since I was penniless when we first met, I'll just blindly assume I fell in the first category. :->
|
|
|
|
|
Already got one Another would be pushing my luck!
|
|
|
|
|
Ehh, Yes, I agree with you! But if we run out of money, we can't do things more significant and meaningful.Therefore,never upset and try your best to make your life and your friends's life better.This is more important.
|
|
|
|
|
But with more money you can rent a cute(er) significant other
only two letters away from being an asset
|
|
|
|
|
Having a bad day? Trying to forget some(one|thing)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Without Money I can do nothing~~;P
|
|
|
|
|
To love another human being costs nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, well, ahem, you never know where that guy works and what he gets paid for...
adMIn, WhAtS WRonG wITH tHe BoArd? WhY ARe thE LetTErS aLl JUMPeY?
|
|
|
|
|
Only a man would *ever* say that
|
|
|
|
|
What about those of us that already have cute significant others - is it sad that we voted for more money?
OK, sure, two or three more cute significant others would be nice in concept, but without more money it's not going to be a reality! One step at a time mate
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Badger | [badger,badger,badger,badger...]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/badger.gif)
