Subject:
|
Re: What is a set, philosophically
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Dec 1999 17:11:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
505 times
|
| |
|
|
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 the satisfaction of being able to
display a particular model, all you need is the bricks to build that
model, even if you have to cannibalize another model. For the purposes
of inventorying your collection, and getting a quick estimate of how
many bricks you own, you should only count sets that are complete or
almost so, and not count sets you could possibly build from the
components.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
