[Groop] Intense debate - NOT political, I promise

[Tone]

	So, this is not exactly on-topic, but I really need to resolve a
very important debate question. I could not really think of a proper
forum where I could pose this question to though, so logically the Groop
came to mind as the most appropriate group. So here goes...

	Is the correct saying...
1) "How much wood WOULD a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck COULD chuck
wood?"
	...OR...
2) "How much wood COULD a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck WOULD chuck
wood?"

	My wife and I got into an OBVIOULSY very heated debate over this
mental dilemma. There are CLEARLY different meanings by the slightly
variant wordings in each of the two phrases.
	To clarify, the wording in the first phrase should naturally be
interpreted as asking how much wood a woodchuck is hypothetically
WILLING to chuck IF any woodchuck is even ABLE to chuck wood in the
first place.
	Meanwhile, the wording of the second phrase carries with it the
implied quandary of what maximum quantity of wood a woodchuck is
physically capable of chucking IF the woodchuck in question is even
willing to chuck any wood around in the first place.

	Over the hundreds or even thousands of years since man had first
discovered woodchucks, there has always been an assumption a woodchuck
is capable of chucking wood. That assumption has developed simply
because the small woodland creature in question happens to be cursed
with a title, which implies "woodchucks" throw wood around. I personally
have never witnessed this activity, so I think man must re-evaluate
whether or not it is fair to woodchucks to name them as such.

	If the result of such an investigation into woodchucks discovers
evidence, which concludes woodchucks do NOT in fact throw wood around,
then humanity would be capable of determining without question the true
validity of the wording in the first proposed phrase. However, if this
is the case, then the wording of the first phrase would clearly be
logical ONLY in a THEORETICAL inquiry for the ages. This is because
humanity would never actually be able to witness ANY quantities of wood
being strewn about by woodchucks. Instead, man would be cursed to only
being able to endlessly hypothesize the im-possible quantities of wood a
woodchuck flings about in a conceptual universe where woodchucks chuck
wood. The first question would therefore be much like one of those
introspective Zen questions similar to the one which asks whether a tree
makes a sound if no one is around to hear it fall to the ground.
	For more clarification of this two-tongued phrase dilemma we
should direct our inspection toward the wording of the second phrase,
which before even asking its question, seemingly presumes a wood chuck
can in fact propel wood in varying directions. With this presumption
placed in advance, I think it is clear exactly what the wording in the
second question is inquiring about. Thus no further investigation into
the secondary question is needed. Only THEE ultimate answer is in
question, and humanity should therefore fund scientific studies to
finally determine the amount of wood the most physically-fit woodchuck
is capable of hurling around before his (OR HER) tiny little heart gives
out. That is of course without question only to be determined if or when
that same woodchuck is actually even in the mood to chuck wood to the
max.

	Unfortunately determining the validity of the first or second
phrase over the other may not conclude this debate. The reason is
because there may be the validity of other wording variations at stake.
For instance one can also pose the third inquiry of:

3) "How much wood COULD a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck COULD chuck
wood?"

	In the third variable instance of the question, one wonders the
THEORETICAL amount of wood the most physically-fit conceptual woodchuck
is capable of chucking before his (OR HER) tiny little heart gives out.
This form of the question does not presume woodchucks can chuck wood,
but rather it accepts the possibility woodchucks might not throw wood
around and poses its inquiry in a hypothetical manner. However, it does
not suggest any willingness or objection on the part of the conceptual
woodchuck. In the imaginary universe of the third question it may be
implied there is willingness granted by the hypothetical woodchuck to
subject itself to a possibly fatal experiment. Simultaneously, the
implication of FORCED testing upon the conceptual woodchuck, who is
subject to the scientific virtual experiment, can also be interpreted by
the wording in the third question. This therefore leaves not only the
question of the theoretical amount of wood the most physically-fit
conceptual woodchuck is capable of chucking before his (OR HER) tiny
little heart gives out, but also the moral dilemma in wondering whether
the theoretical scientists, who performed the hypothetical experiment,
did so with the conceptual woodchuck's consent or if they violated
animal cruelty laws.

	This all does not end here either because yet another form of
the question is possible to pose in this fourth variation...

4) "How much wood WOULD a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck WOULD chuck
wood?"

	Unfortunately this form of the inquiry is somewhat redundant
because it not only asks what the quantity of wood a woodchuck is
willing to heave, but also involves the quantity of wood a woodchuck is
willing to heave AFTER that woodchuck has DECIDED to chuck wood in the
first place. Thus the answer may never be known by anyone else other
than the woodchuck, who is willing to enter into the testing AND whose
determination might vary depending on his (OR HER) mood and energy level
at the time following the point at which the wood chuck has voluntarily
decided to start tossing wood around. Such a question should therefore
be more properly worded in a manner consistent with the phrasing, "Hey,
Me! Am I willing to chuck wood right now, and if so, then how much wood
do I THINK I would FEEL like chucking?" This form of the question should
be repeatedly asked internally by the minds of all woodchucks at
numerous moments in their lives when both mood and energy levels might
vary. Having the results of such a question asked at multiple points in
time by every woodchuck (or at least a vast majority of them) externally
recorded in a single database would bring us all closer to determining a
statistical minimum, average, and maximum amount of wood to be cast
about by most woodchucks.
	Please keep something else in mind though. This fourth form of
the question still takes for granted woodchucks possess the ability to
fling wood around. Therefore, if the results of the investigation into
woodchucks suggested much earlier discovers evidence, which concludes
woodchucks do NOT in fact throw wood around, we can at least determine
the fourth question is null and void.

	And before anyone challenges my mental capacity, do not think I
am small of mind simply because I am in the Groop. Those of you who
might do so can be comforted by the fact I have also considered many of
the implications of rephrasing the varying forms of the question by
replacing the words "could" and "would" with the word "should." I can
put your minds at ease by informing you the results of such rephrasing
would simply put undue pressure upon the woodchuck population. This is
because no person should impose expectations upon any woodchuck for how
much wood said woodchuck might be capable of or willing to chuck if said
woodchuck is either willing and/or even capable of chucking wood in the
first place. I strongly believe only nature should be the deciding
factor on what amount of wood a woodchuck should be expected to chuck if
a woodchuck is both willing and able to chuck wood in the first place.
Clearly, evolution has repeatedly proven woodchucks can or can not chuck
wood depending on whether chucking wood is a necessary activity to
woodchuck survival or woodchucks are simply incapable of chucking wood.
Either woodchucks are able to chuck wood or they are not because
woodchucks are still living among us today. We should therefore not
impose further wood chucking expectations upon them beyond what amount
of wood chucking is or is not required by their survival.

	...so you can all clearly see the psychological challenge my
wife and I are faced with. This may very well overtake the ultimate
calculation and analysis of the mathematical Pi (which by the way is 22
divided by 7) among intellectual scientific circles. Perhaps Sergio and
Mark will take it upon themselves to somehow investigate the solution to
the woodchuck dilemma by incorporating the problem solving within the
storyline of a new Groo story in order to find this very important
solution.
	Ok, so I admit this whole woodchuck dilemma is probably
ridiculous and a complete waste of time, but I bet you never thought I
would somehow link it back to the on-topic subject of Groo. :) Yet, one
can still carry on the debate. It is not like we have any current new
Groo stories to distract our intellectual capacities.

Best wishes,
_TONE_