"Christine Dabney" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 15:49:10 -0400, "cybercat" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>What I notice is that you are defending a twit who has less money than
>>most
>>people who post here
>
> Uh, I don't think so. Squeaks is well paid, and she is married to a
> well paid lawyer. They have the money to afford whatever they want
> to buy....


Upon a moment's extra thought, I just have to say that your assumptions are
just amazing. Really funny. Oh my goodness, a LAWYER and a paralegal? And
both "well-paid?" Well my goodness that must be a BUNCH of money.

Meanwhile, what I have said over and over again is still true: my objection
to the original post has nothing to do with how much money the OP makes, has
to spend, etc. It is the nature of the post itself--like so many she makes,
it is all about LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME I AM SO CUTE HERE ARE THE NAME BRANDS
OF MY CLOTHES AND HOW MUCH I SPENT AT "FILL IN THE BLANK" average retail
sponge. "Stop me before I shop again," indeed.

Those of you who have encouraged this kind of display have done this
50-year-old adolescent a disservice. I surely will not repeat your mistake.

As for you ... I do appreciate your staunch defense of your dear friend.
Your dear friend. Really I do.

The post was still, like may of hers, bad form, stupid content, and
indicative of the kind of slimy personality that I find completely
repulsive.

This of course must mean that I am green with envy and that I cannot go and
drop $500 at an insipidly average retail store. I bet everyone who gags at
Terry Pulliam Byrd's "Aren't I just the cutest thing in a middle-aged skin
and a _______ suit you have ever seen" posts are just the same. Green with
envy, in a much lower economic bracket, and much less educated than a
*choke* paralegal.

You got me there.

Have a great day. Perhaps that might make up for some of your, uh, problems.

And thanks so much for sharing.