Subject:
|
Re: Misnomer: we are all Lego collectors!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 11 Jun 2001 22:23:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
724 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> Sooooo, what are you saying...we should all remain ignorant and let somebody
> else define things for us? I was merely trying to correct the method that
> was being used to define a collector. To say that a collector is simply a
> person who collects things...well, that definition assumes that you already
> know what it means to collect. Obviously some folks in this thread didn't
> really know the differnce.
>
> Also, Mark has attempted to point out that there is popular definition
> of "collect" that does not fit the official one and that he prefers not to
> be confused with this new popular definition of "collect". Fortunately one
> of the cited definitions helped him to clarify his case further.
Right. Obviously 'collector' will mean different things to different
folks...SO WHAT? We are all entitled to our own opinion of who we are, and
how we view ourselves in the 'collector' world. Me, a builder-I build by the
instructions once, then I toss all new parts into a bin for general
consumption. Others, collectors-one of everything for completeness. Still
others, scalpers-One for them, 10 more to sell at 2X retail on E-Bay. And
many more in-between.
> Don't be surprised if a future publication defines "collect" as
> "gathering up to achieve completeness", or something to that effect. This
> happens all the time, just look at a dictionary of about thirty years ago
> and you will find that sexuality has nothing to do with the definition of
> "faggot".
God's honest truth..it'll happen just like Kirby says.
In lugnet.castle, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> I think there is a difference between someone who collects something and
> something that is a "collectable" (please no semantic-driven dictionary
> "proofs"). I might be a collector of Lego, but Lego is not a particularly
> good "collectable", even if Lego wishes to inspire collector mentality.
> There's a subtle difference in practice, and a huge difference in effect.
Don't like the cites, huh? Oh well...'semantic-driven'? Not hardly...maybe
you didn't notice the actual relevance of showing them, but you seem to have
gotten the point one way or another...yes, there IS a difference...that was
the point. But, are you automatically a collector when you buy something a
manufacturer labels 'collectable'? If you want to be...go ahead. If not, rip
open the package and play to your heart's content...that's what toys are
for, after all!
Matt
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Misnomer: we are all Lego collectors!
|
| (...) Note where my message is on the tree - I hadn't read the "cites" I anticipated someone would use at that point. The dictionary terms don't really apply to the "collectable toy" market, which is what is really being debated (anything else is a (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Misnomer: we are all Lego collectors!
|
| (...) <snip> (...) <snip> Sooooo, what are you saying...we should all remain ignorant and let somebody else define things for us? I was merely trying to correct the method that was being used to define a collector. To say that a collector is simply (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
65 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
|
|
|
|
