 | | Re: What is a set, philosophically —Dave Schuler
| | | | (...) 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: What is a set, philosophically —Frank Filz
| | | | | | 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: What is a set, philosophically —Dave Schuler
| | | | | | | (...) 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 —Aaron West
| | | | | | | (...) Hellooo LEGOnauts, I have to say that a set does consist of unique pieces and the common pieces that make up a model. These can come from any source, such as *the storage box* or the original package. The original box is not necessary for this (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What is a set, philosophically —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | | (...) For the newbies, and those who don't recall trivia well, this was in response to my posing a thought question. Dave's answer was well written, I agreed with it then, and still do. Very worth rereading if you're interested in the zen of sets. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | |
