John Gresham (White Giant)
| Friday, April 22, 2005 - 10:12 pm |
GDH: when you want to prove that something is something else-- equivalency-- the burden of proof is not on the negative point of view. I have stated the definition of resource and how money doesn't qualify. You have been doing something else and raising issues that don't really affect the question of whether or not money is a resource. You seem to be saying that the necessity of something makes it a resource, but that is not so, as I have shown. You've called others socialists, which is simply inaccurate. Nothing in this thread, other than the opinion of linguists who deal in lay definitions rather than professional ones supports you.
You have two options: say "I believe the dictionary and disagree with economists" or "Here is how money *does* fit your definition." Until you do either of these I have nothing more to add than what I have already stated. I have made my explanation. Will you make yours?