The term can theoretically apply to millions of people. The term, however, only meaningfully applies when the amount inherited is (or is expected to be) the bulk of that person’s net worth during their life. So I’m not seeing why Hilton is an heiress and Ritchie is not.
No, I’m saying that if you contradict that, you have to provide the evidence, since I can’t prove a negative.
It’s the same as if I said you don’t have any man-eating plants in your garden, and you said “Prove it!” The only thing I can do, pointing out all the non-carnivorous plants in your garden, won’t actually prove things one way or the other, because I could just be skipping that man-eating plant of yours. The only way the issue can be settled is if you produce a photo or other evidence of your man-eating plant.
Here, I can quote and/or repost every single post you’ve ever made to the SMDB during your whole posting career, and say at the end of each one, “Look! No complaints about the use of “heiress” here!”
And all you have to do is say “You’re just not quoting the one where I did do that, thus you have not proven anything,” because I can’t cite a post that doesn’t exist.
You can, however, cite a post that you claim DOES exist. So, cite the post where you previously took issue with the use of “heiress” for people whose parents are not dead, and that will solve the matter.
Where have I contradicted it? I asked you how you came to acquire the knowledge. Your answer, essentially, is that I cannot provide proof of its negative. Not my job.
Isn’t Savage the guy who was once photographed swimming naked with Allen Ginsberg?
I have magic psychic powers that work on dumbasses, and they told me that you never once in your life made a post complaining about the use of the term “heiress” for someone whose parents were not dead except to whine about Nicole Ritchie. My proof is the complete and utter nonexistence of such a post.
Now admit I’m right (or stay silent, which is the same thing given your tantrum about logic and proof), or go on and show everyone that I’m wrong.
I think it depends on whether Lionel has a production company or other business endeavor that will live on after him, or if his earnings stop when he does. If ownership/management of a business, something that will continue to generate wealth, passes to Nicole, she’s an heiress. If she only gets money and property, she’s merely a rich kid.
Regarding the OP, this thread, the AIDS thread, his Koppel rants, his declaration of Michael Savage as his hero, and his feelings on masturbation, taken together paint a picture of an extraordinarily angry, and tightly wound young man. Angry and wound up to a degree I’d consider a danger to people around him. I certainly wouldn’t feel safe with him living next door, at any rate.
Hmm. It seems that Kokopilau actually qualified that statement quite a bit. She did say ‘apparently’ and “it seemed”. So, I don’t see why she has to prove that you never, ever in your long legged life protested the use of the word heiress when applied to Paris Hilton.
What do “posts” have to do with it? You keep moving the goalposts.
I am sad for you if the sum total of your worldview can be summed up in what you post on a message board. Mine, while perhaps arguably pedestrian, ranges a bit farther.
I’ve already shown you to be wrong. Here’s another way. You can make no assumptions based on lack of evidence to the contrary. There is nothing at all inconsistent with holding a belief and never asserting it. Your contention amounts to claiming that whatever I have not complained about, I must endorse. It’s blather, pure and simple.
I was trying to make it easier on you, since it’s much easier to prove me wrong by quoting a message board post than it is to provide recordings of your real-life whining.
But suit yourself. I will happily say, as Nzinga, Seated put it, that you never, ever in your long legged life protested the use of the word heiress when applied to Paris Hilton.
My special powers never lie.
Please pay attention. For all this claptrap about posts I have *not *made, folks sure do seem content to ignore the ones I have. I never asked her to prove anything, at least not with respect to that. I asked her how she knew. She responded, essentially, that since I couldn’t prove otherwise, it must be true. When that obvious fallacy was revealed, she resorted to name-calling and juvenile sarcasm.
No, I know because you never did complain about anything but the use of heiress to describe Nicole Ritchie. You could show me to be completely and utterly wrong at any time by simply revealing where and when you DID complain about the use of heiress elsewhere.
But you won’t do that, because you can’t. Ever.
Your whine of “How could you possibly know that?” wasn’t an astonished asking about the secret behind my amazing knowledge of your heiress habits, no matter how hard you try to pretend it was.
The OP isn’t a troll. The OP is mentally ill. GuyNBlueJeans, seriously, you need help. I hope you find it.
Can we please stop arguing over this “heiress” bullshit, and get back to the douchebaggery at hand here. Mainly, where the fuck did the OP go? His profile shows he was on the Board this morning, but, what, he just sets a shitpile on fire and walks away?
Stand up for yourself, guYnblueJeans! Take pride in your fiery shitpile!
I never complained about anything but that? Is that your position? Didn’t I question the term ‘black’ as well?
Wrong about what? Other than your misuse of logic, where have I expressed an interest in proving you wrong?
How can you possibly know that? For all your BS about secret powers, all you really have demonstrated is the ability to take a button and sew a vest on it.
Feel free to skip merrily through life on what appears to be an unlimited supply of unwarranted assumptions. Just don’t be surprised when you get called on them.
Yes, and we covered that. Unless you want to start up again.
You really do like your overly-anal semanticism, don’t you. If you never used those exact words, it never happened, right?
I’ll humbly nominate GuyNWhiteSheet.
Well, as far as The Straight Dope Message Board goes, you have yet to use the word heiress outside of this thread.
Because all too often you argue about pointless, boring shit that nobody cares about. Like the semantic stuff you’re going on about now.
Seriously, I’m detecting a pattern.
No doubt. And Kokopilau is proving to be an excellent Doper in his/her responses in this thread and others. I hope that after all the windmill tillting he/she’s been doing of late, he/she doesn’t decide to ditch the boards altogether.