"Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" wrote in
message ...
The funding of attempts to win the prize show that funding has been
allocated.

How can you *know* that funding has been allocated to win a prize *without*
also knowing the name of the organization receiving the funding?

Being able to answer that question means that you can also *name* the
organizations actually spending non-prize money- if you cannot name
names,
then you're *assuming* that money is being spent.

No, that's not true. If there's someone putting up a prize, I can
name that person knowing that person is spending non-prize money.

But *that person* is not *expending* current funds on the process of winning
the prize, so that still doesn't answer the question.

If
there's someone trying to win the prize I can name them with certainty
knowing that they're spending non-prize money.

Which *still doesn't answer the question*, which I'll rephrase- how does the
act of putting up prize money *itself* prove that *other people* are
expending funds in order to win the prize?

It *doesn't*- putting up a prize does not in any way prove that anyone is
spending money in order to win that prize. Rand was trying to say that it
does. The only way to prove that money is being spent to *win* the prize is
to have a representative of an organization that is actually spending money
in order to win the prize publically state it is doing so.


Raymond Orteig and Henry Kremer spent money to foster aviation
improvements by putting up their respective prizes.

By putting up that money, those specific funds, what improvements were
created *with that specific money*? None- other people had to spend other
money to make those improvements.

If there is a prize, that is prima
facie evidence that money is being spent to foster improvement.

Unless, of course, nobody is interested in the prize.

The following points are true: people spend money to put up prizes to
foster improvements

But the money put up for the prize is not itself spent on the improvements
themselves.

You have said that these points aren't true and I have refuted your
erroneous statements.

You've tried to, but haven't yet succeeded. You and Rand both missed
something, which is surprising for you: *putting up prize money itself does
not produce any improvements*, since no improvements are made unless someone
is interested in the prize. In short, a prize *in and of itself* does not
lead to improvements, contrary to what Rand may say.