Re: US Presidents; an outside view WAS: Any comments? (Evolution - was Answers to Pete)

In article <1146099700.397496.132270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Richard <riplin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Using the stick does not add value _to_the_stick_.

Repetition does not make for greater validity of argument, Mr Plinston.

Well, actually, it was not merely a repition, the underscores indicated
additional words to clarify the position.

My apologies, Mr Plinston... it seemed close enough to a repetition.


In that the stick, when used as a crutch for people who can then garner
more food for themselves and their tribe, has an increased utility or
importance than does a stick which has only the attributes of kindling,
then it has by definition more value (http://www.m-w.com/value, 3)

Which seems to be a mere repition in the hope of obtaining greater
validity.

My apologies, Mr Plinston; my attempt was to demonstrate that this
particular argument was based on a definition from a commonly-accepted
source.


It may well be that a particular size of stick that is strong enough
may be more valuable than one that is just a twig only useful for
kindling, but sticking a piece of kindling under your arm does not make
it strong enough.

No stick will be used as a crutch, Mr Plinston, until someone thinks of
doing so... unless you wish to posit some kind of universe where sticks
leap into this position of their own volition. Are you saying that the
value of stick-as-crutch exists in the stick before anyone knows it can be
used as such?


It may well be also that a person may be more valuable when mobile then
when crippled.

Already postulated, Mr Plinston.


Using a book does not add value _to_the_book_.

In that a book can serve to transmit entertainment, information or
education by its use (ie, by its being read) then it has greater utility
or importance than does a book which can only be used as tinder; given
that 'relative worth, utility or importance' is a definition of value (see
citing above) then the conclusion applies.

But reading a book does not make blank pages into entertainment.

Not blank, Mr Plinston, printed. Reading a book makes the configurations
of white and not-white spaces into something interpreted; if the book
cannot be read - for whatever reason, whether because of ignorance or
degraded page-quality - then its value, by the definition given above, is
less.

The
_printing_ of a book adds value to the paper, the reading of it makes
no difference to the book, except wear and tear.

I do not know what makes a difference to a book, Mr Plinston; the question
is one of 'value', which is, I believe, a condition generated by human
beings.


Mr Plinston, you seem to be equating price and value here; it might be
that we are using different definitions. I've cited the one that I feel
is applicable to the situation and its source; might you be so kind as to
cite the one you are using and where you found it?


You should take that up with Howard who was the one who put numbers of
dollars to his book.


from
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.cobol/msg/e3089017a9e87658?dmode=source>

--begin quoted text

Using a book does not add value _to_the_book_. In fact it *detracts value*
as can easily be seen by the fact that used books sold in garage sales, or
even on amazon, *fetch much reduced prices* compared to new unused books.

--end quoted text

(emphases added)

Your words, Mr Plinston, and they appear to equate price and value.
Second request, then: you seem to be equating price and value here; it
might be that we are using different definitions. I've cited the one that
I feel is applicable to the situation and its source; might you be so kind
as to cite the one you are using and where you found it?

DD

.