On 15-okt-2006, at 3:49, Ron Johnson wrote:
Now that you mention it, it _is_ strange that we tend to call only the class of people working with their hands 'working'. As if working by using your mind would be a sort of laziness.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/14/06 15:37, Peter Teunissen wrote:On 14-okt-2006, at 22:25, Ron Johnson wrote:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/14/06 15:01, Peter Teunissen wrote:On 14-okt-2006, at 17:49, DRCNet wrote:Dear friend:[snip]I never realized Dogberts Ruling Class was pushing drug legalization! Let the induhviduals have their drugs, as long as it turns them intoefficient working drones... :-)Alert, alert! There's an induhvidual lurking in our midst pretending to be a member of the D*N*RC. Quick, get the torches and pitchforks!!. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr.I stand corrected, bow my head in shame and will unsubscibe from theDNRC.... Although I doubt a true member of the DNRC would use a _working class_ item like a pitchfork to defend his position instead of his witand mind.... ;-)Working class? There's something *wrong* with needing to work for a living?
But to answer your question; yes, there's something wrong with having to work for a living. The man that invented 'work' should be shot, even if that means digging up the sucker. Personally I love money. I love it to be on my bankaccount so I can spent it and have others to do my bidding. Not having to work for money, means you can spent you life doing usefull stuff, things that make sense to you in stead of you boss. But you may freely prefer to have it any other way.
;-) Peter