Subject:
|
Re: What is a set, philosophically
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Dec 1999 08:42:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
679 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Remy Evard writes:
> And on basically the same note - to be space complete in the eyes of the
> community, do I need to have all the pieces, or all the instructions and
> the pieces, or (augh!) all the boxes too?
>
> I'm certain this comes down to however I feel like defining my sets, but
> I'm interested in everyone's opinion on this...
>
>
> Remy Evard -- evard@mcs.anl.gov -- www.mcs.anl.gov/~evard -- 630.252.5963
> Manager of Advanced Computing and Networking, MCS, Argonne National Lab
In my, personal, opinion I own a set if I have the pieces for it, without the
same pieces being used for other sets. If I have bought, say set number 1 and
set number 2, and with ttheir combined pieces, then either I own set 1 and set
2 OR I own set 3 (mabe with some pieces left), but I don't own set 1, 2 AND 3.
Instructions aren't necessary to own the set in my opinion, neither is the box.
Sybrand Bonsma
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What is a set, philosophically
|
| (...) Obviously, if legos ever become as valuable as collector's pieces as say Barbie and GI Joe from the 50's and 60's, it would help if they were still in an unopened box, with everything complete. Other than that, I agree with Sybrand, that as (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | What is a set, philosophically
|
| I'm in the middle of a massive set rebuilding effort, something I might post more about later as I finish it up. One of my goals is to figure out what sets I have. This is not quite as easy as it sounds, because I have a few tons of lego that I (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
