 | | Re: What is a set, philosophically
|
|
(...) In terms of collectability, I agree with you completely; I should have been more specific. Here's that aforementioned DejaNews link: (URL) Not to be taken too seriously! Dave! (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What is a set, philosophically
|
|
I would say that the status of your having a set or not depends on the purpose of making the claim. For the ultimate in collectibility, every set must be in the condition it arrived at the retailers when first released. For the purposes of having (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) It comes from lawyers and politicians and owners of corporations. If they don't make a statement a subject, then they've neither blessed it or cursed it, and they have an open field to react to later developments. Steve (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) In lugnet.technic, Michael Edwards writes: (...) Looks like someone got the first slap! regards lawrence (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What is a set, philosophically
|
|
(...) About a year or so ago I wrote a pseudo-serious, long-winded post on RTL on this very subject (for the terminally curious, I'll try and find it on DejaNews). In essence, the "setness" of a set is contained in its unique pieces, such as the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
"Tom Stangl, VFAQman" <talonts@vfaq.com> wrote in message news:384F3A51.4FCDDF...faq.com... (...) scans" (...) TLC (...) not for (...) SHOW us (...) Tom, I mean absolutely no offense here (and I've already brought this up in response to another (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) Only if you make it an issue. Huw never even mentioned having that info. (...) I'm disturbed that you are disturbed about such a silly marketing slogan. Did you ever think TLC was NOT a for-profit company? (...) Sorry, I guess I should have (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
(...) Agreed, so we're still waiting for the first slap? It probably isn't a perfect analogy, it wasn't meant to be - the original point was that silence isn't always evidence. (...) Agreed, I don't think what Huw did was more wrong than that. What (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
|
(...) By the same token, I could ask you to prove that they aren't secret. But with the limited information that we have that would be fruitless. We are in .debate, so I see nothing wrong with trying to discuss this intelligently. My view is that (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?
|
|
Richard Franks <spontificus@__nospa...yahoo.com> wrote in message news:FMG645.9Ct@lugnet.com... (...) in (...) Oh, Please...No more stretches OK? It's not that sort of evidence, even there is not just a bit of similarity. If your brother would have (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
|
