Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate to ressurect, but out of fairness, she responded and obviously looked at the thread.

Amy June 6, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Hi Meagan,

Frugality is a lifestyle and a way of living with lots of interpretations. To me being frugal means living simply, staying out of debt, and spending wisely, as I explain here http://www.frugal-mama.com/what-is-frugal-mama/ and in my weekly posts.

Sincerely,
Amy

Reply

Where is this response that you are quoting? A comment on the article?

Anonymous wrote:Hate to ressurect, but out of fairness, she responded and obviously looked at the thread.

Amy June 6, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Hi Meagan,

Frugality is a lifestyle and a way of living with lots of interpretations. To me being frugal means living simply, staying out of debt, and spending wisely, as I explain here http://www.frugal-mama.com/what-is-frugal-mama/ and in my weekly posts.

Sincerely,
Amy

Reply

oakland wrote:1. The lack of basic logic skills on display in this thread is breathtaking. Words have meanings. "Frugal" has a meaning. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "Practicing or marked by economy, as in the expenditure of money or the use of material resources." The word "economy" is defined as "careful, thrifty management of resources, such as money, materials, or labor." So, let's recap:

Does "frugal" mean "impoverished"? NO.

Does "frugal" mean "has a household income in the bottom 50% of a given society"? NO.

Does being affluent disqualify a person from being frugal? NO.

Does "frugal" mean "never, ever buys expensive, non-essential things"? NO.

The foregoing is not a matter of opinion; it is, if words have meaning, fact.

2. I wonder if the critics of Amy Suardi consider themselves liberal (as I do, and as I think most DC residents do), because one of the bedrock principles of liberalism is that before reaching conclusions or making judgments, we should ascertain the facts. We know NOTHING about the Suardi family's past financial situation, current household income, or future prospects. To make judgments, in spite of our total ignorance of her situation, about her personal choices and whether or not they should be deemed "frugal" is illiberal in the extreme.

3. The critics have totally ignored what is obviously one of Amy's most important and explicit points: that living frugally is something ASPIRATIONAL. It's something that we aim to do but don't always succeed in doing. So she bought a $1,000 table--is anyone seriously making the argument that that single purchase disqualifies her from presenting herself as frugal? That's like saying "You can't have a blog about nutrition because you ate french fries last week." Furthermore, you can always be *more* frugal. Not being as frugal as you could be doesn't mean you're not frugal.

oakland wrote:1. The lack of basic logic skills on display in this thread is breathtaking. Words have meanings. "Frugal" has a meaning. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "Practicing or marked by economy, as in the expenditure of money or the use of material resources." The word "economy" is defined as "careful, thrifty management of resources, such as money, materials, or labor." So, let's recap:

Does "frugal" mean "impoverished"? NO.

Does "frugal" mean "has a household income in the bottom 50% of a given society"? NO.

Does being affluent disqualify a person from being frugal? NO.

Does "frugal" mean "never, ever buys expensive, non-essential things"? NO.

The foregoing is not a matter of opinion; it is, if words have meaning, fact.

2. I wonder if the critics of Amy Suardi consider themselves liberal (as I do, and as I think most DC residents do), because one of the bedrock principles of liberalism is that before reaching conclusions or making judgments, we should ascertain the facts. We know NOTHING about the Suardi family's past financial situation, current household income, or future prospects. To make judgments, in spite of our total ignorance of her situation, about her personal choices and whether or not they should be deemed "frugal" is illiberal in the extreme.

3. The critics have totally ignored what is obviously one of Amy's most important and explicit points: that living frugally is something ASPIRATIONAL. It's something that we aim to do but don't always succeed in doing. So she bought a $1,000 table--is anyone seriously making the argument that that single purchase disqualifies her from presenting herself as frugal? That's like saying "You can't have a blog about nutrition because you ate french fries last week." Furthermore, you can always be *more* frugal. Not being as frugal as you could be doesn't mean you're not frugal.

oakland wrote:1. The lack of basic logic skills on display in this thread is breathtaking. Words have meanings. "Frugal" has a meaning. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "Practicing or marked by economy, as in the expenditure of money or the use of material resources." The word "economy" is defined as "careful, thrifty management of resources, such as money, materials, or labor." So, let's recap:

Does "frugal" mean "impoverished"? NO.

Does "frugal" mean "has a household income in the bottom 50% of a given society"? NO.

Does being affluent disqualify a person from being frugal? NO.

Does "frugal" mean "never, ever buys expensive, non-essential things"? NO.

The foregoing is not a matter of opinion; it is, if words have meaning, fact.

2. I wonder if the critics of Amy Suardi consider themselves liberal (as I do, and as I think most DC residents do), because one of the bedrock principles of liberalism is that before reaching conclusions or making judgments, we should ascertain the facts. We know NOTHING about the Suardi family's past financial situation, current household income, or future prospects. To make judgments, in spite of our total ignorance of her situation, about her personal choices and whether or not they should be deemed "frugal" is illiberal in the extreme.

3. The critics have totally ignored what is obviously one of Amy's most important and explicit points: that living frugally is something ASPIRATIONAL. It's something that we aim to do but don't always succeed in doing. So she bought a $1,000 table--is anyone seriously making the argument that that single purchase disqualifies her from presenting herself as frugal? That's like saying "You can't have a blog about nutrition because you ate french fries last week." Furthermore, you can always be *more* frugal. Not being as frugal as you could be doesn't mean you're not frugal.

Anonymous wrote:

PP maybe a few posters have said she should come and post here but most of us do not give a shit! SHE decieded to do a public article in the WAPO about herself and her family. Do you really think she did not suspect she owuld get mixed reviews? DCUM is a PUBLIC INTERNET FORUM of course people are going to comment on her blog. Are you her mother or something? You seem very wrapped up in defending her life and blog. If she did not want the attention and/ or feedback on her blog and lifestyle then guess what....SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN THE NEWS!!!!!!!!!!