25 years old and deep in debt

[Jacob]

I think it get applied more indiscriminately than that. Possibly because the people who like to use the phrase are poor at distinguishing between bohemians from well off backgrounds with money, and bohemians from well off backgrounds without money.

It's a term of the literati, not the gammas.  People very adept at ascertaining income.

Well, I stand corrected then

I didn't realize you were part of the literati set.

[garbon]

If I'd kept doing what I was doing, I'd be part of "the poor" all right by now. 

Absolutely.  Being a part of the poor means having no prospects.  You were young and doing crap jobs, but your accumulated social capital and potential hadn't yet withered away.  When you have no money and no opportunity to improve yourself, that's when you join the poor.

[Admiral Yi]

I didn't realize you were part of the literati set.

Two snippets of snippiness in a brief time span indicates a pattern Jake.

[Jacob]

I didn't realize you were part of the literati set.

Two snippets of snippiness in a brief time span indicates a pattern Jake.

In all honesty, I think the pattern is that you are being extra sensitive.

[Caliga]

In all honesty, I think the pattern is that you are being extra sensitive.

You can be a pretty mean dude, but unfortunately (fortunately?) for you I have an immensely thick skin... or maybe I'm just thick.

[The Brain]

I have an immensely thick foreskin.

[Jacob]

In all honesty, I think the pattern is that you are being extra sensitive.

You can be a pretty mean dude, but unfortunately (fortunately?) for you I have an immensely thick skin... or maybe I'm just thick.

I can totally be a pretty mean dude.

But how is "I didn't know you were part of the literati set" mean?

[Caliga]

I don't know.  I was just commenting generally.

[Malthus]

It is surprisingly difficult for even the experts to agree on what constitutes poverty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada

http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/licos.htm

According to the above, the cut-off in the 1990s was around $18K, though not an "official" measure. I can't remember how much I earned, but I'm pretty sure it was less than that.

Of course, if CC is right, income-based measures are pointless because one isn't "really" poor unless one takes into account what one's parents make. 

[Jacob]

I don't know.  I was just commenting generally.

Gotcha.

[Admiral Yi]

In all honesty, I think the pattern is that you are being extra sensitive.

I'm not weeping myself to sleep at the moment, just curious what's up with you.

Two instances of put-downs unprovoked by me, which did not appear to have the intention of amusing me with your good natured ribbing.  It's Garbonesque.

[crazy canuck]

It is surprisingly difficult for even the experts to agree on what constitutes poverty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada

http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/licos.htm

According to the above, the cut-off in the 1990s was around $18K, though not an "official" measure. I can't remember how much I earned, but I'm pretty sure it was less than that.

Of course, if CC is right, income-based measures are pointless because one isn't "really" poor unless one takes into account what one's parents make. 

lol, if you really think you had such a difficult time of it, actually living like most other people, during that brief period of your life when you had to fend for youself on minimal income, then I apologize for bruising your priviledged sensibilities.

Rich Kids.

[Malthus]

It is surprisingly difficult for even the experts to agree on what constitutes poverty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada

http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/licos.htm

According to the above, the cut-off in the 1990s was around $18K, though not an "official" measure. I can't remember how much I earned, but I'm pretty sure it was less than that.

Of course, if CC is right, income-based measures are pointless because one isn't "really" poor unless one takes into account what one's parents make. 

lol, if you really think you had such a difficult time of it, actually living like most other people, during that brief period of your life when you had to fend for youself on minimal income, then I apologize for bruising your priviledged sensibilities.

Rich Kids.

Heh, actually, I had a pretty good time of it - I just knew that what was a pretty good time in your 20s isn't so fun in your 30s and would really suck in your 40s. 

I'm just proving my point with, you know, facts and cites and stuff.

[Caliga]

I have an immensely thick foreskin.

Eurotrash

[Jacob]

I'm not weeping myself to sleep at the moment, just curious what's up with you.

Two instances of put-downs unprovoked by me, which did not appear to have the intention of amusing me with your good natured ribbing.  It's Garbonesque.

I say this with 100% sincerity and 0% snippiness: I do not consider insinuations that you are part of the literati set to be a put down in any shape or form.

Rather - having accepted your correction - it was a request (though admittedly oblique) for you to elaborate.