Oh, I think that (building a key to define $ through $$$) is likely to be
hopeless at a top-down level. There are too many diverse contexts on this list.
Maybe the best would be to define only three levels, using the $ sign only as a
signifier of value, and standing for 'very costly', 'valuable' and 'not
expensive', and let everybody decide for herself/himself which activity is
rated what.
bonobashi
--- On Sun, 16/11/08, Srini Ramakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Srini Ramakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [silk] When I Have The Time
> To: silklist@lists.hserus.net
> Date: Sunday, 16 November, 2008, 4:14 PM
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Venkat Mangudi
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Srini Ramakrishnan wrote:
> >> 6. Volunteer with a charity or foundation that
> helps children to read
> >> - time: 6 months-1 year; cost: $$$
> >>
> > Akshara Foundation (www.aksharafoundation.org) might
> be interested in
> > your help. Wot Sez, Gautam?
>
> This is unfortunately not a plan for immediate pursuit.
> There's other
> things ahead of it in the queue, but perhaps in a few
> years.
>
> > Cost need not be $$$.
>
> Opportunity cost can be.
>
> > PS: Want to add a legend to define $ through $$$$$?
>
> It's a relative cost, and it's not perfect either -
> some items could
> have an extra $. I don't have the definition you are
> looking for, but
> it's easy to work out if there's sufficient
> interest I think.
>
> Cheeni
Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to
http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/
