Cyclone Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Originally posted by foo_fighter Oh no, don't say that, without their parents status, and where they live, what will the "middle" class kids on here do to bolster their self worth. I could quit my job and be upper class by your definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foo_fighter Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Originally posted by Cyclone I could quit my job and be upper class by your definition. O M G ! Cyclone is "Prince Harry" ! Edit to add Oi, I thought you were busy at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t020 Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Originally posted by Cyclone I could quit my job and be upper class by your definition. Yes, just like all those benefit claimants on council estates, which are upper class by Foo_fighter's simplistic (and flawed) definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foo_fighter Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Originally posted by t020 Yes, just like all those benefit claimants on council estates, which are upper class by Foo_fighter's simplistic (and flawed) definition. Jeez, are you being particularly obtuse, or are you really that thick? Right, I'll try again, Originally posted by foo_fighter My father always used to say, "If you have to work for a living, your working class... ...if you own a business, and other people do the work for you, your middle class... ...and the upper class… …they do naff all." (or words to that effect) three points, 1) It was my fathers suggestion we were discussing, I do keep mentioning this. 2) "...and the upper class… …they do naff all", not as you seem to suggest that everyone who does naff all is automatically upper class. 3) Simplistic it may be, but as we've established, it's no more flawed than any other definition on offer (and probably better than some). My-my, "middle" class wannabes are difficult at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Cyclone is Prince Harry! I knew Cyclone was a rugged, manly type [Judo, Marine Reserves and all that], not some foppish theatrical type like his brother, Edward. No wonder the bugger is never off Sheffield Forum- he has all the time in the world as a Royal. His Royal Highness, Prince Cyclone...LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prioryx Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 If income dictates social status there is a lot of upper class premier division footballers. AS CLOTHES MAY MAKE THE MAN ONLY MANNERS MAKE THE GENTLEMAN and in theat respect income matters not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t020 Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Originally posted by foo_fighter Jeez, are you being particularly obtuse, or are you really that thick? Are you always that rude? Originally posted by foo_fighter Right, I'll try again, Go on then. Originally posted by foo_fighter three points, 1) It was my fathers suggestion we were discussing, I do keep mentioning this. 2) "...and the upper class… …they do naff all", not as you seem to suggest that everyone who does naff all is automatically upper class. 3) Simplistic it may be, but as we've established, it's no more flawed than any other definition on offer (and probably better than some). My-my, "middle" class wannabes are difficult at times. 1) I know it was, but you seem to have adopted it as your own definition too, and you're the one championing its cause on here, not your father. 2) So where would benefit recipients figure in your (father's) simplistic and pointless class model? 3) It's flawed - what purpose does it possibly serve to put 99+% of people into one classification? It defeats the object of making the classification to begin with. It also lumps together groups of people who are poles apart, as my previous examples have suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarSparkle Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Originally posted by prioryx If income dictates social status there is a lot of upper class premier division footballers. AS CLOTHES MAY MAKE THE MAN ONLY MANNERS MAKE THE GENTLEMAN and in theat respect income matters not I'd say you've nailed it there, Prioryx. Class equals good manners. Those without class don't understand it's something you can't buy. StarSparkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t020 Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Originally posted by StarSparkle I'd say you've nailed it there, Prioryx. Class equals good manners. Those without class don't understand it's something you can't buy. StarSparkle True, and it's *generally* those from wealthier backgrounds who have better manners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenback Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Originally posted by t020 True, and it's *generally* those from wealthier backgrounds who have better manners. Rubbish. If you mean knowing which wine glass to use for a glass of chardonnay, perhaps. But if you're talking ordinary, decent human kindness (which is what I take "manners" to mean), then you'll find that there is no division across social strata. Many an ignorant upper-class twit I have had the misfortune to meet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.