I didn't say that it wasn't grotesquely flagrant consumption, only that I can follow the reasoning behind it. And I have made no admission of which I am aware.
Hmm, could this whole side-thread be summarized as: a meta thing rich people can do is wield larger sums of money without hitting the same "qualitative boundary exceeded" circuit trips that regular people might hit?
It feels like a bit of a tautology, but I think has some reality to it as well. When you're steeped in a more frugal mindset, it can be hard to remain rational or detached when analyzing consumption patterns "just a few orders of magnitude" larger...
No, I don't believe so. That just reduces to "you learn to spend what's in your pocket" again. That sentence turns on the verb "learn" for a reason.
If I had to guess, I would say I've been braced by someone whose morning was complicated by treating "take with food" as a little too much more of a suggestion than an instruction. No judgment. Nothing I haven't run into before.
Now you've called me a liar. Would you like to try to substantiate that presumptive libel? Or do you simply mistake for virtue the inability you have cultivated to entertain a thought with which you don't agree?
I'd ask if you were new to the Internet, but no one would believe the answer of a liar.
Of the 261 words in your comment (archived at https://archive.is/Vfx9Z#selection-161.6-184.0), none of them mention that you see it as "grotesquely flagrant consumption", so reads like the meme about the temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
Why bother archiving a comment whose edit window has closed? What on Earth do you imagine to be going on here? Your account is twice the age of mine. Do you not know how this website works?
I will say, this no longer appears to me to qualify for the name I suggested a few minutes ago. Oh, the statement remains false, only I now no longer believe you competent to defame. Have you had a meal today?
