Huna for Beat?

You still don't get it.

 

Let's get down to brass tacks here...How much for the monkey?

 

you're getting really mixed up here. if you're going to argue with me, please do me the courtesy of attempting to follow along in the conversation.

we were discussing whether there was a difference between dollar value and things like bottle count, in terms of how they can be used to objectively evaluate the fairness of a trade. while i, as ever, do not believe there even exists an objective value of any beer, i asserted that the difference between $ value and bottle count is that bottle count is just one of uncountably many attributes of a beer, not yet picked out as having to do with value. $ value is already talking about value; it is an objective measure of value that requires no opinion regarding "what's important".

you keep misusing the word 'literal'. i'm not going to explain to you what it means. this is a very simple disagreement. the bullshit you wrote about wooden hell (which you bizarrely called "literal") is obfuscation.

this is your last response. please, read over the previous ones and realize your error. i'm not interested in repeating myself again, nor in dumb forum face-saving "gotta get in the last word, here let's come up with A New Way Of Looking At It so people Finally Understand My Point" (i do understand your point; insofar as you're responding to what i wrote, you are wrong).

 

I really appreciate the personal attacks.

I do not claim to be a poet or a writer of any kind, so if my use of the word literal was wrong, then I apologize, all I meant to say was that if I posted the way I described in the ISO:FT forum I would have a factual example of how the availability of a beer correlates to demand which then correlates to perceived value, though admittedly, I probably do not need to explain the concept to you, as you do clearly appear to be better educated than I am (and you seem to really enjoy displaying that fact).

As for the differences between bottle count and initial purchase price, I understand that initial purchase price is a direct objective monetary value where as bottle count is not. But trying to use the initial purchase price and ignoring the supply of said beer to valuate the beer after the fact isn't going to give you the whole picture, now you can certainly CHOOSE to ignore that information, but that is a subjective and not an objective approach to the data.

You are still arguing semantics with me. I was never trying to call bottle count an objective value in the way that you think I am. Here is where your argument started:

I'm going to try and be as clear as I can. If we were talking in terms of scripting a certain beer would be an object. That object would have many attributes or members or whatever you would like to call them.

So lets say I create a Beatification Object, it's members are:

Bottle Count
Purchase Price
Allocation
Days in Stock

The values for these members would be:

Member Value
-------------- ----------------
Bottle Count 12,000
Purchase Price 15
Allocation 6
Days in Stock 7

The values (as in NUMERIC VALUE) are objective as they are facts, I suppose I should have just said Objective Facts from the start. None of these values directly correlate to a trade value of a Beer, but all of them CAN be used to subjectively valuate one.

You keep saying I'm not understanding what you are arguing, but you are arguing something that I never said. I will gladly admit that it is my fault because I worded my original statement very poorly

Attribute does not mean value, but attributes contain values.

Once again, you are arguing monetary/trade/whatever value where as I am simply referring to Numeric value.

As to your statement about bottle count being a random fact where as cost is uniform. Every bottle was 1/12,000 just like every bottle cost $15 from the brewery. There is no arguing around that.

You keep saying that purchase price is more relevant that bottle count to determining trade value, but that implies using a subjective set of rules with an objective set of data. If someone wanted to they could value beer SOLELY using bottle count.

If you wanted to, and it would be utterly pointless, you could create a mathematical formula to index and compare the "values" of beers using all of the available information. It would be an objective comparison of beers. It would just be irrelevant as when you are personally determining the value of a beer, you are subjectively weighing the different data in terms of what you personally view to be important.

One trader may not care about taste or price, he just wants beers with low bottle counts, another could want cheap beers that taste great, another trader could only care about how a beer tastes, and so on and so forth. Regardless though, the underlying set of data they are basing their opinions on is Objective and static.

The root of this whole argument has been that I poorly communicated what I wanted to say which lead to you arguing my point. I agree with almost everything that you have said, what I'm trying to say just isn't coming across correctly, so I apologize.

Also, if anyone was interested in trying Freetail Ananke, I'm giving away a bottle, feel free to toss your name in the hat in my thread:

http://beeradvocate.com/community/t...kie-o_o-free-bottle-of-freetail-ananke.10940/

 

shaking my head. the argument started a few posts before that, where i explained what some poster might have meant in singling out dollar value vs other options. if you are this bad at staying on point in actual conversation, you must be insufferable.

obviously (obviously!), i never (not "repeatedly", but never) said, nor even implied / hinted / etc that purchase price is more important than bottle count in determining trade value. in fact, i (repeatedly!) stated that nothing determines objective trade value, because there is no such thing, and that subjective trade value is determined by whatever trading partners happen to find important.

you are obviously not reading my posts, nor do you have any intention of coming to any sort of agreement or understanding. therefore, i have no interest at all in talking to you. best of luck with the generous trade thing.

 

yes, all of those things serve to illustrate that price is an objective value measure, while other considerations are subjective.

in none of those sentences do i assert that this means anything to what people ought to consider for trade value. rather, i point out why price is a value divorced from subjective opinion (as opposed to bottle count, etc).

try hard to understand this. try as hard as you can.

 

I'll take it nate.