Hi Dan and all,
JONATHAN
> > ****
> > The definition of a "signature" is both the act of signing and the
> > product. If you duplicate the product without the act, this is
indeed a
> > copy (or a forgery!).
DAN
> I recall when I worked for a large corporation my check was never
signed
> by the president himself but his signature was always stamped on it.
So
> the value (if I may be so bold as to substitute value for definition)
of
> a signature doesn't necessarily lie in the act as the copy is treated
as
> real within certain contexts. By authorizing his signature to be
stamped
> on the checks, the act of signing has been duplicated yet the value of
> the product remains identical as if the president signed each check by
> hand. Henry Ford may have been the first to put this principle to work
> with his assembly line production of cars early in the 20th century.
>
I think this reinforces my point that it is all a question of
definition. Your corporation REDEFINED what was considered to be the
president's legitimate signature (presumably with the consent of the
president himself). If someone copied MY signature and made a stamp of
it, this would NOT be my legitimate signature.
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:50 BST