On Wed, 4 May 2005 11:38:04 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

Nope, it certainly isn't. But the fact that you do not understand the
definition of "tangible" certainly is your problem.

You asked for it. Pay particular attention to

definition #3:


Why? Does it somehow discount #1 and #2?

No, but it does apply specifically to this situation.




tan·gi·ble * ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tnj-bl)
adj.

1 a. Discernible by the touch; palpable: a
tangible roughness of the skin.
********b. Possible to touch.

****c. Possible to be treated as fact; real or
concrete: tangible evidence.

2. Possible to understand or realize: the
tangible benefits of the plan.

**3. Law. That can be valued monetarily:
tangible property.



LAW? Bull****....THE definitive source accepted worldwide by the AP is
the AP Stylebook. Others may refer to the ONLY other acceptable
source,,Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged
Dictionary of the English Language. Neither of these contain the word
"law". In fact, I checked a few online definitions and none of those
contain the word "law".

Typical of you. When you are shown the error of your ways, your first
defense is to attack the sources. When you claim that I am wrong on a
particular usage of a word, and I provide the definition which
supports my usage, you attack my dictionary. When you claimed that the
last sunspot cycle was the strongest, and I provided, not one, but
several web sites which claimed the opposite, you then claimed that
those sources were all wrong and the only definitive source was a
place in Belgium, which (not so) coincidentally has no web site to
either confirm or deny your claim. When you made a claim that
littering was a felony in Florida, and I provided a link to the
Florida statute which showed that littering is a simple summary
offense, you made some obscure claim about "greenways", presumably as
allusion to a special environmental situation where an infraction
would be considered a felony. But that's not simple littering.

You are doing it again, with your attempt to weasel out of yet another
of your erroneous claims. My source, and you can read it yourself, is
easy:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tangible




Is not the RF spectrum given a monetary
value by virtue of the FCC auctioning it off to
.the highest commercial bidders?

Monetary value is not the same as tangible.

It certainly can be construed as such. The FCC seems to think so.



That makes it a tangible asset.

No,,you may not touch it,,you may not fell it, as a requirement by
virtue of the definition.

Being able to physically touch something is only ONE aspect of the
definition of tangible. It is not the ONLY one.


No different than a piece of property.


Very different, but you are apt to believe that the something "tangible"
can be something one can not grasp or feel.

No, that's only part of it. Tangible is also applicable to something
that can be realized and treated as fact. It does not have to have
physical properties.

You're wrong. The be-all
definition and final word of this definition you refer is as quoted:
-
" Of an asset having actual physical existence, as real estate or
chattels, and (note the wording. It says 'AND", not "or")
therefore being assigned a value in monetary terms". Something
tangible, a tangible asset."

Again, that's only ONE aspect of it.

-
Again, in order for something to be tangible, it needs physical
properties one can touch, discernible by material or substance.

No, it doesn't.

The
sepctrum does not meet those parameters and you merely added the term
"law" on your own to the definition.

Boy are you in for a plate of crow. Go to the site that I provided,
and see for your self.

Apology accepted.


Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj