Just a question here.... I think I see most here saying that it isn't that "NPOA is worth" it's just a matter of what you can afford at a given time? If that's the case then most if not all if they had the money they would see whoever they wish to see at whatever rate.
Originally Posted by Eccie Addict
I think this issue gets confused because it involves several different levels:
NOPA is worth = offensive because vulgar, so change to
No escort is worth = offensive because it confuses the person with the service. But the difference surely is implied, and it's used in other contexts without significant offense. For example, "no quarterback is worth" or "no running back in his 30's is worth." Or "no lawyer is worthm"
I think reacting to that -- the person/service distinction -- is over-reacting. But let's change to
No hour-long appointment with an escort is worth = offensive if it implies universality, that is, an objective rather than subjective value. I suppose some people may actually mean that, but rational observers know everyone has different price limits. They may be envious or engaged in reverse snobbery, but we don't take them seriously. We interpret it as
I am not willing to pay more than X for an hour long appointment with an escort.
And there's not a damned thing wrong with that.
Neither is it a matter of what we are ABLE to pay. It's a matter of the value to us. I strongly prefer Coke to Pepsi, but if a restaurant charges $10 for the former and $3 for the latter, I may convert. I can easily afford to pay $10 for a Coke, but I am unwilling to do so.
I agree with your statement quoted above to the extent that I do not set an absolute cut-off (but I don't criticize those who do). I don't agree with the implication that the ONLY appropriate limit is financial resources (but I don't criticize you if that's really your position).