Oh, I get it now. It annoys me when people use a misquote as though it were the real aphorism, because the meaning of the original tends to be so meaningful and it doesn’t take any more effort to say “the proof of the pudding is in the eating” instead of “the proof is in the pudding.” Every time someone say THAT, I get a mental image of Little Jack Horner off in his corner sticking his thumb into a big bowl of a viscous, banana-flavored substance and pulling out a paper scribbled with mathematical and scientific notations.

It’s also the trend, it seems, in our society to blame the object rather than the user for the results. The truth is that guns don’t kill people, neither does marijuana cause crime, nor do sugary drinks cause obesity… and so on, ad nauseum. There is not one single THING in the world that I can think of that is evil irrespective of its use (except okra, and possibly yams but the clergy is still undecided on that one).

Limo, when I read your initial comment I thought of guns as well – the link to what you wrote is the common aphorism “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. (You were saying money itself can’t be evil, but people can).

You lost me there about the guns. Money and guns do go hand in hand, I suppose, but I don’t see how the common misquoting of the Biblical verse — which fundamentally changes the meaning — relates to firearms?

My interpretation of the verse is literal, as I believe it was intended to be. An inanimate object cannot by nature be evil. It is the employment of that object that impugns or justifies its existence. I suppose by extension the argument COULD be made that tghe existence of money causes people to desire it, and people who by nature are greedy and lawless will then resort to immoral methods of acquisition, but then on the other side of that, there are those for whom money is the means by which they can accomplish the most good they can (Shriners, for example). So therefore, the assertion that is it the money itself that is the root of all evil fails even the most basic proof.

Much like people who say “I could care less” — yes, yes they could. Which means they DO care. So if someone says “I could care less” and means “I could NOT care less,” that person sounds like an idiot. And don’t even get me started on idioms like “the proof is the pudding”…

And of course it’s too early in the morning, I’m overthinking this, and when THAT happens I tend to wax pedantic…

Sigh

Very literal interpretation, but I suppose it’s kind of in the same basket as the concept of guns.

$100 a week! Wow! I didn’t know knob-twisting on the wiggly random box had become so lucrative.

Actually, no, the quote is “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” Money in and of itself cannot be evil, since it has no soul and therefore no intention. It’s people who place money above all else who are evil.

Auditors needed. Not any ole garden variety Class VIII or Class VI. No, it has to be a GAT II auditor.

We are down to a super-niche market here. Holy moly.

You would probably have better luck finding an electric vehicle technician in Juneau Alaska.

And the recruitment agent’s finders fee? $500?

Recruiters earn around 20% of annual of the person placed. For a GATII specialist it should be at least 30%. GAT II annual? $100 per week. $ 5200 per annum……..

30% of annual is $1560?

You see, the $ 500 fee is cheapskate man.