New around here? When you sign up for a new account, please indicate why you want to join on the registration form so we can determine which applications are genuine and which are from spammers.
You must be 16 or over to participate in the Brickset forum. Please read the announcements and rules before you join.

Does piecing together a set from PAB and Bricklink count as "owning" a set?

edited May 2011 in Collecting
If this has already been discussed, my apologies for the repeat.

So I took the bricklist from Peeron for set 6085 and purchased what I could from PAB and then filled in the rest of the pieces from Bricklink. Does this count as "owning" the set? I was just wondering how everyone feels about this and I kinda feel like a cheater but on the other hand, I couldn't afford this hobby otherwise. I have loads of fun going through peoples stores on Bricklink and picking out what I need; and then a few days later this package of joy shows up in the mail and I can put a little more of the set together.

I will happily uncheck 6085 from "my sets" if the community deems it to be so...
«1345

Comments

  • I say yes. Why would it not count. I'd do the same if i had to. I have recently ordered some parts from Bricklink to complet a set and don't think this is wrong i still own the set and no one else will know.
  • edited May 2011
    It counts, and now you can even use the ACM (Advanced Collection Manager) to indicate whether you own just the parts, the box, the minifigs or the instructions.
    http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/comment/4671/#Comment_4671
  • First of all I think you own it if you think you own it. Said that, I agree with Hob and when using the ACM, you can specify that you own the bricks (and minifigs?), but not the box for example.
    dougtsOldfanmargot
  • IMO, recognition of the set is in the eye of the beholder. With that said, if the set were ever to change ownership, particularly if sold, I would expect that you would truthfully disclose that the pieces are not original as it may be important to the buyer. For example, if I buy 375/6075 Yellow Castle and am not told anything to the contrary, I would expect the elements to be original (1x1 mold was different than they are today).
    Pitfall69
  • I usually write in the notes/comments that it was built from parts.
    @rocao - couldn't agree more, I don't really care all that much about the "original" parts, but I always feel just a bit cheated when I buy a "set" on ebay which has modern stand-ins for the old parts (like the wrong type of clip, etc)
  • I have done this ALOT to get a set I only had a few pieces for, and no instructions.. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have the original instructions for a set; BUT I would say if you have the all parts for that set, and you can build the pile of parts into the set, it is owning a set.. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.....
  • edited May 2011
    I usually write in the notes/comments that it was built from parts.
    @rocao - couldn't agree more, I don't really care all that much about the "original" parts, but I always feel just a bit cheated when I buy a "set" on ebay which has modern stand-ins for the old parts (like the wrong type of clip, etc)
    Right there with you.. My friend builds sets and occasionally uses the wrong 'type'(type 1 clips instead of type 2, etc), which bothers me.. it would not bother me if he used the same type of clips (like all type 1) but he mixes them up.. I have gotten a few sets in trade like this.. which is why I always stock up on Type 1 and two clips from BL( as I am usually rebuilding 80's and 90's sets anyway)
    Same with Sets I put up on eBay.. I always try to use the correct type of part or note if I do not... Because I know that collectors value that, although the tough sets are ones that were made during a transition from a type to a type.. and usually Peeron's parts likes confuse the clips.
    I believe the Big Rig Truck Stop is like this, where I think clips went from a type 1 to a type 2 so I have seen sets with type one clips (as show in the instruction pics) but they appear to have type 2 in the parts (Although I never had an brand new Big Rig Truck Stop-nor would I open a MISB one now if I had one-) so I dunno if someone can confirm my statement above..

    It is a shame though that most type 1 clips from the Classic Gray always seemed a shade darker than other bricks.. does anyone know why this is?
  • My view is that it's entirely up to you. If you have all the parts, independent of any other set, then why not ... if you have to 'raid' a different set in order to build the set in question, then, for me, I wouldn't 'own' the set I was trying to build. I only include sets I've bought as sets in my Brickset list; most have been bought new or second hand 'in box', but a few have been bought in a zip-lock bag with copied instructions ... they still count as far as I'm concerned.
  • I too feel that if you buy all the pieces to build a set, rather than taking from your current sets, you do "own" that set. I say this as i just finished receiving all the pieces to build 10190 Market Street and will happily click the check box under the own column.
  • Okay! If my sets get sold (out of my cold dead hands), I will make sure to notify that they are not the original parts.

    Thanks!

    /that ACM looks really cool
  • edited May 2011
    only if you own the original instructions.
    :)
  • This is just a variant on the Ship of Theseus:

    The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.

    Which reminds me of this XKCD cartoon appropriately titled Lego.
  • If you buy the pieces you own the set. Period. I do agree that if you sell you should be honest, but that aside you own it plain and simple. Check that box that says own and enjoy your set. If you do sell, I have no problem buying pieced together sets so send a message my way. :-)
  • @brickmatic - yes, but Plutarch never goes on to debate if the Ship of Theseus could be sold as "original" on eBay, or if the seller should disclose what % of the ship had been refurbished.

    Take that Plutarch!
    khmellymel
  • If it's not OEM.......than NO!!!!....you don't own the set.

    Just my opinion....cheers!!
  • I buy bulk lots on ebay a lot and this is how I build a lot of sets. I wait till I have tons of pieces and see what main parts I have and go from there. Just now I am going thru all pieces and have come up with bout 27 bigger sets to assemble. For instructions, I print thm out and keep a binder for them.

    I sure hope after all of this I own them.
  • edited May 2011
    only if you own the original instructions.
    :)
    Ah, but I have sets that I've since lost the original instructions for due to being young and lack of taking care of them. Or I've only had scraps of part of an instruction so I've gone and down loaded "new" so I can have a complete set of instructions.

    If I know I bought or recieved a set, I own it. If I've got instructions to piece a set together independant of any other sets and don't have to cannibalize another set, then I own it.

    But if you're going to sell, then yes, do disclose the fact it's pieced together. I've found it annoying to have not had that fact disclosed to me on a couple sets bought over the 'net.
  • ^-- depends what you mean 'piece together'.. Most sets that are 'used' on the 'net are most likely 'pieced together' as the were most likely disassembled at some point.. and, if they were like I was as a kid, thrown into one big box...
    So I guess it is all in the eyes of an owner.. I have sold many a set that technically were pieced together, but I still deem them originals as I use original colors, try to weed out the badly sun worn or discolored parts, and try to match shades of the parts, but that can be difficult to do as brand new sets usually have different shades to part.. especially now.

    Everyone has their own interpretation of having a 'set', but I include a few that only have printed instructions and none of the rare stickers (the 1818 set) While I consider it a set in my mind it is more of an incomplete set as it missing pieces that if I get a chance to get I will in order to 'complete' the set.
  • edited May 2011
    Nice to see so many opinions on what is or what is not a set. Obviously, the answer depends on how you define things and there are several potentially mutually exclusive yet perfectly valid definitions out there.

    Now, for those of you talking about piecing things together from other sets who believe that piecing together counts, but not if you cannibalize:

    If I buy set A and set B original from LEGO, then proceed to use the pieces to build and display set C, and that would comprise my entire LEGO collection, which set(s) do I own?
  • ^ I couldnt agree more, I believe in order to own a set you must own enough pieces to be able to build and display all sets you own at the same time. If you cannot build set A because building set B takes some of its parts then you dont really own it. My understanding of the original question is buying the pieces separately say on brinklink or such for a set. At the end of the day, as has been said several times, I think you can say what you want until it is time for you to sell. If it makes you feel better to say you own every set made even though you dont well that doesnt hurt anyone but yourself.
    Pitfall69
  • We're seriously risking slipping into a philosophical debate here (philosophy can be seen to be a happy bedfellow with 'politics' & 'religion', and we're not keen on allowing discussion of them here either ... ;-) )

    To my mind, there is no hard & fast answer. What if you buy a MISB set, then open it & lose a minifig. Do you still 'own' that set, since you cannot now build it? What if you lose more parts, but still have the box & instructions? What if you buy the set 2nd hand, without the minifig? Do you 'own' the set then? How many parts can you lose before the set is no longer 'owned'?

    I'm not sure this is a particularly productive discussion ... :-)
    margot
  • If you buy lego pieces from Bricklink you own them. However if the word "set" means you need the box and instructions then no you do not own the set if all you have are pieces. If "set" means just all of the correct pieces in the correct color and quantities then then answer would be yes.

    In the end all of the pieces are made by Lego and whether you get them prepackaged together or separately makes no difference in my mind. Even Lego sells same pieces of differing color and quality within a prepackaged set. Does the fact that the pieces were picked out by a robot and packaged within a few hours make them different from ones packaged / sourced at a later date? In the modular sets Lego sells like pieces obviously made at different periods of time because the colors are off....so if Lego sources them at different periods of time and mashes them all together to make a set then why can't we do the same?

    I think the only debate is do you need the box and instructions. I'd say Lego is more about the plastic than the paper but ridiculous prices for empty boxes and instructions that are freely available to download may prove me wrong.
  • edited May 2011
    I believe in order to own a set you must own enough pieces to be able to build and display all sets you own at the same time.
    Yes, but under that rule I still wouldn't know which sets I sets I own. If I have a tub of loose bricks from which I can build either ( Set A and Set B ) OR ( Set C ), which sets do I own? Do I own Set A and Set B? Or do I own Set C? I have enough pieces to build A+B. I have enough pieces to build C. I do not have enough pieces to build A+B+C.

    Now I'm guessing people would look to other indicators to answer the question which sets are owned. In that case I'll add the information that the pieces were bought as boxed sets A+B, however, I decided to construct and display set C instead using some of the pieces from A and some from B. Now there is a bit of paradox involved. Based on the sensibility of purchasing sets I own A+B and based on sensibility of building sets from parts I own C, but based on the rule of owning enough pieces I can't own A+B and C.

    You might say, hey if it's just broken down in a tub you own A+B, but once you dedicate the parts to a physical construction you own C. But of course I can always just break things down and build them up. Which opens up the possibility of changing the sets I own without changing the pieces I own at all, which is very counter intuitive. Not sure how comfortable people feel about that idea.
  • edited May 2011
    @bluemoose It is a philosophical question. Does this count as "owning" the set? The answer to that depends on your philosophical stance on what constitutes a set.

    Philosophical discussion is unlike politics and religion. It is not about opinion but about logical consistency.
  • ^ In my experience, for on-line forums, it's more about pointless bickering, but each to their own.
  • edited May 2011
    Nice to see so many opinions on what is or what is not a set. Obviously, the answer depends on how you define things and there are several potentially mutually exclusive yet perfectly valid definitions out there.

    Now, for those of you talking about piecing things together from other sets who believe that piecing together counts, but not if you cannibalize:

    If I buy set A and set B original from LEGO, then proceed to use the pieces to build and display set C, and that would comprise my entire LEGO collection, which set(s) do I own?
    A good example of this would be the 1593 Level Bros space set that combined 6929 and 6880. While I have printed out the instructions I have not had the time to piece together the set.. I do have a 6929 and 6880 but I have decided not to dismantle those to build that one.. so it looks like I need get a inventory list and do some 'part diving'
  • edited May 2011
    We're seriously risking slipping into a philosophical debate here (philosophy can be seen to be a happy bedfellow with 'politics' & 'religion', and we're not keen on allowing discussion of them here either ... ;-) )

    To my mind, there is no hard & fast answer. What if you buy a MISB set, then open it & lose a minifig. Do you still 'own' that set, since you cannot now build it? What if you lose more parts, but still have the box & instructions? What if you buy the set 2nd hand, without the minifig? Do you 'own' the set then? How many parts can you lose before the set is no longer 'owned'?

    I'm not sure this is a particularly productive discussion ... :-)
    ...then you own an incomplete set... lol.. I think, in order to have a complete set, all parts at least must be correct and in the set in my mind.... So at least all the correct parts , including printed bricks, stickers can be missing, as technically they are not a actually plastic piece in the set. Instructions are not plastic either, so a copy is fine.

    I guess to end this debate is if you sell it, explain what is missing and let the chips (or bricks) fall where they may.
  • Now, to those that say owning the set includes the box, what if you throw the box out? Does that mean you don't own the set anymore? I used to save boxes but I just ran out of space so I had to get rid of them. Does that mean I don't own any of my sets anymore?

    I've pieced together quite a few sets that I missed when I was in my dark ages. I've made sure I used the exact piece needed (example: type 1 clip vs type 2 clip) and I've gotten the correct minifigs for the set. If you put my set right next to a set that was purchased from Lego there would be no difference so I feel that I do in fact own the set.
  • I think that you own the sets you can build, regardless of where they came from, or what parts from different sets are included.

    Unless you are going to somebody's house and building all their sets to confirm that they own them all, does it matter? I could say that I have hundreds of sets and nobody would know differently. (I don't).
  • Interestingly enough... reassembling older sets has other problems besides just getting the parts... it involves getting the "right" parts.... such as the location of the "moulding pip" on the part... and other factors.

    I just came across a group of parts that I had stored away for many years in a drawer... it was 20 mint 1x6x3 trans-clear wind screens from 10 6390 Main Street sets I bought back about 1983 on clearance. These older 1980s windscreens have a "milky" trans-clear appearance, compared to the crisp clear windscreens that have been in production since 1999 (the remake of the Main Street set used the newer clear windscreens).

    This type of information is NOT currently recorded in either the Bricklink or Peeron parts database. So anyone who wants to reconstruct and then sell old sets... they need to be forthcoming in honestly telling the buyer that the set is a reconstruct... because they may get bitten in the butt by a savvy buyer who is expecting genuine parts, and knows that there are sub-variations that are not even mentioned in online parts databases.
  • @madforlegos Wow! Great example with the 1593 Super Model! Thanks for sharing, I never knew they did something like this.

    So here is an interesting thing about this database entry. Should one consider 1593 to be a set? If so, what is the inventory of this set? If the plastic bricks are to be acquired by acquiring two other sets, does ownership of the two other sets automatically imply ownership of this set?

    Personally I feel that 1593 is a set. Which is why I also object that the title is "1593-1: Super Model Building Instructions" when it should be just "1593-1: Super Model." It is the set, not just the building instructions for it.
  • edited May 2011
    ^-- Ohhh it is a set, it has instructions and all parts when it came out (I believe, as I am in the US and I believe this set was only available overseas) . I believe it just so happened that two sets could be combined to make it.. I believe Peeron also has an inventory list (as that is where I got mine)

    I also consider it its own entity, meaning you need to have parts specific for that set to really consider it a set...
  • edited May 2011
    Interestingly enough... reassembling older sets has other problems besides just getting the parts... it involves getting the "right" parts.... such as the location of the "moulding pip" on the part... and other factors.

    I just came across a group of parts that I had stored away for many years in a drawer... it was 20 mint 1x6x3 trans-clear wind screens from 10 6390 Main Street sets I bought back about 1983 on clearance. These older 1980s windscreens have a "milky" trans-clear appearance, compared to the crisp clear windscreens that have been in production since 1999 (the remake of the Main Street set used the newer clear windscreens).

    This type of information is NOT currently recorded in either the Bricklink or Peeron parts database. So anyone who wants to reconstruct and then sell old sets... they need to be forthcoming in honestly telling the buyer that the set is a reconstruct... because they may get bitten in the butt by a savvy buyer who is expecting genuine parts, and knows that there are sub-variations that are not even mentioned in online parts databases.
    Yeah I hear what you are saying, but my authenticity goes to the part types and that is it.. I do try to ensure that the proper parts are in the sets (most notably recently anyway is Market streets use the White train windows but apparently their inventory shows the new windows are used, which is incorrect), just like I tend to try to find only bricks with those solid round inserts instead of the ones that have a hole in them (if you know what I am referring too.. underneath a 1x2,3,4,6, etc... Where there are not 'solid' post. I know that is really getting involved but I try to keep the sets as authenticate as I can... I mean I built my DACTA hospital using parts from a lot and missing a ton that had to go through BL to get.. that was kind of fun in a weird way... like a treasure hunt I guess..
  • @madforlegos Interesting. It seems you're not sure about the inclusion of plastic bricks with this set, but you think they were included. It seems to me they were not. I tried looking up and came across this Wikipedia article which mentions 6862 Secret Space Voyager, another set that combines two sets together. Based on the article and Brickset, 6862 did not include actual plastic parts. You had to use the parts from the other sets to build it.
    I also consider it its own entity, meaning you need to have parts specific for that set to really consider it a set...
    What do you mean by this? Especially if you needed to buy the other two sets to make this one, doesn't owning the other two sets mean you have the specific parts for the set?
  • edited May 2011
    @madforlegos Interesting. It seems you're not sure about the inclusion of plastic bricks with this set, but you think they were included. It seems to me they were not. I tried looking up and came across this Wikipedia article which mentions 6862 Secret Space Voyager, another set that combines two sets together. Based on the article and Brickset, 6862 did not include actual plastic parts. You had to use the parts from the other sets to build it.
    I also consider it its own entity, meaning you need to have parts specific for that set to really consider it a set...
    What do you mean by this? Especially if you needed to buy the other two sets to make this one, doesn't owning the other two sets mean you have the specific parts for the set?
    I did not realize that the 1593 did not come with its owns parts, so I apologize to that. What I was saying is what others have said, which is you need parts dedicated to build that set.. now if there are sets that have no parts, but just instructions then yes, it would seem you would need those sets...
  • What about sets that have parts but no instructions? Like a tub of bricks. If I use the parts in the tub of bricks to build a different model, do I stop owning the tub of bricks?
  • edited May 2011
    ^----Yes and no.. I mean you no longer have the tub of bricks as a tub of bricks, but you have used them to account for another set....

    At this point I am just going to say "Whatever..." It is up to each of you. I gave my opinion and obviously people are disagreeing. So... whatever.. to each their own... I really do have better things to do than to get into this any longer of what constitutes as a 'set'
  • If you have a part with the word Lego stamped on it and you put it with other parts with Lego stamped on them to make a set, you then own a set of bricks that make a set. In my opinion you then own a set. No matter if its from an original box or not it is still a set of brick that make a known item.
  • ^ So you have to build a set in order to own it? Or you mean you need to set aside a little pile of all the bricks that belong to a set and keep them separate from other bricks? What if you mix the bricks up with bricks from another set, do you stop owning either set?
  • Interestingly enough... reassembling older sets has other problems besides just getting the parts... it involves getting the "right" parts.... such as the location of the "moulding pip" on the part... and other factors.
    I discovered this a two and a half years ago. I bought a mixed lot of loose, incomplete sets and was going to complete them with some of my own spares when I discovered the PAT PEND mark for the first time. A few hours worth of research later I found a whole microcosm of LEGO collecting I had never heard of before. I've heard there something like 17 or 18 versions of the 2x4 brick (I've only be about to come up with 14 myself).

    As for assembling a set from spare parts, I've done it a number of times. But do I own that set? Personally I'd feel better about saying I own it if I had the packaging or at least the instructions. I think it comes down to how you feel about. I do say I own this sets, but I know in my mind that they were assembled set rather than original and I'm ok with that.
  • I'll put my 2 cents in. You don't own the legitimate set if you don't atleast have the instructions. Look at the Ebay selling prices for sets without instructions versus with instructions. Now about the M-tron 6862 and Blacktron 6861 Super Models. If I remember correctly, the instructions were available world-wide to Lego club members as a mail-in offer. But, the Blacktron 6861 was available as a kit consisting of 6851, 6878 and 6887 that came with the extra instructions included from the USA SAH 1992 Spring catalog which listed the set order number as 4741. The M:tron 6862 was available as a kit consisting of 6877, 6896 and 6923 that came with the extra instructions included from the USA SAH Summer 1992 catalog which listed the set order number as 6861. Both of the front covers for these catalogs can be seen at BL in their catalog section. I have both of them from 1992 from which I bought my 2 6862's. I do not include the 6 kits in my collection, only the 2 6862's that I built from them.
  • edited June 2011
    @brickmatic If you have all the parts that make up a set you still own the set in some capacity. The word set means a group of parts that make up a whole. If all your parts are in a bag of bits with other sets you don't stop owning the set. As I said, set means a collection of parts, If it's the right colour size and shape and has Lego stamped on it, it is a collective lot of parts no matter if you bought them separately or in a box.
  • edited June 2011
    I'll put my 2 cents in. You don't own the legitimate set if you don't atleast have the instructions. Look at the Ebay selling prices for sets without instructions versus with instructions. Now about the M-tron 6862 and Blacktron 6861 Super Models. If I remember correctly, the instructions were available world-wide to Lego club members as a mail-in offer. But, the Blacktron 6861 was available as a kit consisting of 6851, 6878 and 6887 that came with the extra instructions included from the USA SAH 1992 Spring catalog which listed the set order number as 4741. The M:tron 6862 was available as a kit consisting of 6877, 6896 and 6923 that came with the extra instructions included from the USA SAH Summer 1992 catalog which listed the set order number as 6861. Both of the front covers for these catalogs can be seen at BL in their catalog section. I have both of them from 1992 from which I bought my 2 6862's. I do not include the 6 kits in my collection, only the 2 6862's that I built from them.
    ^ The problem with your idea is that if you are good at searching online you can get almost any instructions. It sounds legit for the most part except I own quite a few sets and about half of them I got the instructions online. I still own the instructions they are just not in paper format.
  • OH I GET IT! Owning LEGO sets is like quantum mechanics! Specifically, it is like quantum superposition: "The principle of superposition states that if the world can be in any configuration, any possible arrangement of particles or fields, and if the world could also be in another configuration, then the world can also be in a state which is a superposition of the two, where the amount of each configuration that is in the superposition is specified by a complex number."

    So, LEGO elements can be put together in any configuration. Some of these specific configurations are known as sets. But LEGO elements can also be put into other specific configurations. Therefore the world of LEGO can also be in a state that is a superposition of the two!

    This is exciting because then we can consider LEGO sets in terms of quantum entanglement: "Quantum systems can become entangled through various types of interactions. If entangled, one object cannot be fully described without considering the other(s). They remain in a quantum superposition and share a single quantum state until a measurement is made."

    So if you have a bunch of pieces you own a quantum superposition of sets. But once you measure your sets by building them up, you make the superposition go away!

    "An example of entanglement occurs when subatomic particles decay into other particles. These decay events obey the various conservation laws, and as a result, pairs of particles can be generated that are required to be in some specific quantum states."

    Just like LEGO bricks! You take your set apart into pieces, you have to obey laws of conservation. Only certain sets would be valid for the resultant bunch of pieces. Yet until you build, all you have is a superposition.

    Now, I know the idea of superposition can be confusing. I mean, how is it a pile of pieces can be either one set or another at the same time? But maybe it is just because you're more familiar with Newtonian physics as opposed to quantum mechanics. "In 1935, Erwin Schrödinger devised a well-known thought experiment, now known as Schrödinger's cat, which highlighted the dissonance between quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics, where only one configuration occurs." Ah yes, poor Schrödinger's cat. What a paradox!

    Ah this is interesting: "Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum. The thought experiment serves to illustrate the bizarreness of quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states. Intended as a critique of just the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the Schrödinger cat thought experiment remains a typical touchstone for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. How each interpretation deals with Schrödinger's cat is often used as a way of illustrating and comparing each interpretation's particular features, strengths, and weaknesses."

    Wait, there are various interpretations of quantum mechanics? "Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and thorough experimental testing, many of these experiments are open to different interpretations. There exist a number of contending schools of thought, differing over whether quantum mechanics can be understood to be deterministic, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered 'real', and other matters."

    I guess there isn't a right answer then, is there? ;)
  • edited June 2011
    ^ What he said!
  • edited June 2011
    i dont see why its hard

    if you have the right parts to make a structure that they sell in a shop then you have the ability to make that set.

    having a box is irrelevant. it is just packaging. The instructions in paper form are irrelevant. it is a medium that you are given to put a set together. if you use a digital copy then it is no different than the paper version.

    being able to make a set without compromising your collection of lego pieces needed to make other sets is irrelevant. because it is no different to say owning a 3 in 1 set and building them one at a time. or building certain sets and not building others. you do not have to have them built at the same time to own them. You will always have the ability to make those sets because you have the right lego bricks.
  • ^ You're conflating set with model. You build a model, which is often times included in a set (but not always, like a tub of bricks). Instructions are usually part of the set, but not of the model. You might consider the box part of the set or you might just think of it as packaging. You can have the parts to build a model that's sold as a set, but that does not mean you have the set, now does it?
  • edited June 2011
    I think it can be said that this discussion is a matter of opinion and there will be 100 different answers at least.
  • ^ I hope you're not referring to me. I'm actually perfectly calm and find it very amusing that people have such a seemingly hard time to understand my point of view.

    I'm really like Schrödinger. I'm not advancing a particular viewpoint with my examples and questions. I'm really trying to illustrate the logical problems with different ways of looking at set ownership. My ultimate point of view is use whatever works for you, there are many valid ways of looking at it that each have their issues.
  • edited June 2011
    "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
    "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
    "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

    So beware....

    :-)
    scrumperdannyrww
Sign In or Register to comment.
Recent discussions Categories