Page 1 of 1

Friday, June 12th, 2009

Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:59 pm
by Billy's Little Trip
Question of the day: Would you rather be rich or famous?

Re: Friday, June 12th, 2009

Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 8:46 pm
by Märk
qotd: yes

Re: Friday, June 12th, 2009

Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 9:21 pm
by Paco Del Stinko
Rich. I wouldn't care if anyone knew who I was/am. Wa-zaam!

Re: Friday, June 12th, 2009

Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:54 pm
by fluffy
Money can easily lead to fame, but fame doesn't necessarily lead to money. In the end I'd just rather be happy. (And not having to worry about a source of income is one way to be happy.)

Re: Friday, June 12th, 2009

Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:24 am
by JonPorobil
fluffy wrote:Money can easily lead to fame, but fame doesn't necessarily lead to money. In the end I'd just rather be happy. (And not having to worry about a source of income is one way to be happy.)
This.

Re: Friday, June 12th, 2009

Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:27 am
by rone rivendale
QotD: Money. Fame is good, but too much of it can ruin your life.

Re: Friday, June 12th, 2009

Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:23 am
by inevitableguy
QotD: Well, I hate 99% of the population, so I don't know how I'd deal with them pestering me all the time. So, yeah, I'd go with the money.

Re: Friday, June 12th, 2009

Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:31 pm
by Reist
qotd: rich. then I'd have enough money to become famous and rich at the same time.

Re: Friday, June 12th, 2009

Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 6:16 pm
by Eric Y.
I thought the question was an either/or situation. Why does everyone want to cheat and say both?
Well, admittedly and understandably a certain amount of fame and/or noteriety does seem to follow a particular degree of richness.
For this reason, I would answer -- rich, but only to the extent where I can live comfortably without ever feeling stress over money, but NOT to the extent of having any kind of fame. Money good, people mobbing me every time I walk into a 7-11 bad.

Re: Friday, June 12th, 2009

Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 6:41 pm
by fluffy
I think so many are choosing that because it's a ridiculous false dichotomy, and not that many are really taking fame from richness, just pointing out that they could be famous if they were rich and thus wanted to keep their options open for fame.

Re: Friday, June 12th, 2009

Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 11:44 pm
by JonPorobil
It's a very false dichotomy.

If you're famous, it's pretty easy to capitalize on that fame to earn some cash. For instance, it's a lot easier to pitch a book and earn an advance on it if people happen to already know who you are.

If you're rich, it's pretty easy to spend a lot of money on some kind of stunt to make yourself famous. Depending on your definitions of "rich" and "famous," you could buy a professional sports franchise, buy a restaurant, buy some studio time to record an album, buy some ad space in a newspaper to pontificate controversial viewpoints, buy a Superbowl ad, or commission the creation of the world's most superlative instance of something.

So yeah. In the incredibly unlikely situation where I'm offered fame or fortune, but only under the condition that they be treated as mutually exclusive, I'll most certainly choose fortune.

Re: Friday, June 12th, 2009

Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 12:47 am
by Caravan Ray
Yeah - it's a pretty crap question.

I'll fix it for you:
Billy's Little Trip wrote:Question of the day: Would you rather be rich or famous? Or hung like a donkey?*

(especially a particularly well hung donkey, you know, the one that other donkeys look enviously at)
Personally, I'd like to be hung like a zebra. Simply because everytime anybody used the expression - "...take a look for yourself....it's right there in black and white!" - you could be going - zzzzzzzzip......thlunk

Re: Friday, June 12th, 2009

Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:03 am
by Billy's Little Trip
Caravan Ray wrote:zzzzzzzzip......thlunk[/i]
So that's how you spell that sound.
....now if you'll please excuse me, I need to go talk to a man about a zebra.