RE: movie ad

Subject: RE: movie ad
From: Janet Valade <janetv -at- systech -dot- com>
To: TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:41:35 -0700

<<I agree and I disagree. Yes, I think many people have gadgets
they don't
> need (PDAs, SUVs, cell phones) which are tied to conspicuous
> consumption.>>
What do you mean by conspicuous consumption? Do you mean buying
things to impress the Jones's? I don't think that is the only reason people
buy things they don't need. What about FUN? Do we need our TV's? Or VCR's?
Or tickets to the Laker games? C'mon now, be honest. Or do we buy them to
impress our neighbors? Nah. They are for FUN. I think electronic toys are
great FUN. So, I don't think I need to justify everything I buy in terms of
time saved or money saved. I think I am entitled to buy it just because I
want it. (If I was spending the rent money for it, that might be different.)
I would think that most tech writers are the kind of people who love
electronic toys.


Janet Valade
Technical Writer
Systech Corporation, San Diego, CA
mailto:janetv -at- systech -dot- com

Previous by Author: RE: STC Annual Conference trip reports?
Next by Author: RE: New TECHWR-L Poll Question
Previous by Thread: RE: movie ad
Next by Thread: RE: movie ad

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads