But by the inherent "logic in your system", I suspect it is impossible for you to refute any argument to the contrary (that was your challenge?) since everything related to the theoretical construct is based on man-made concepts that you've defined as arbitrary.
I can't even follow the above paragraph that I just wrote. Can we get back on topic and talk about chainring bolts or something?
Mike Kone in Boulder CO
> Collectibility is an idea-a concept created by men. No bike, part, or groups of
\r?\n> parts are intrinsically more or less collectible than any other. I challenge any
\r?\n> member to make out a rational argument that refutes this.
\r?\n> In fact I feel that some bikes and parts were made to be collected and others
\r?\n> were designed as disposable. The idea could be made that it's more rational to
\r?\n> collect those things designed for permanence than for purely temporary use. Most
\r?\n> racers had no interest in collecting their bikes-they wanted newer models to
\r?\n> facilitate winning races. With the passage of time some of these bikes, meant as
\r?\n> disposable racing tools, are now regarded as collectible-and various rationales
\r?\n> are created for collecting them.
\r?\n> In any event, most of the well known makers made bikes and parts for racing and
\r?\n> for collecting.
\r?\n> The beauty of this hobby is that one can collect bikes or parts originally meant
\r?\n> for racing or for collecting, or both. No bike collector, or collection, has an
\r?\n> inherent right of superiority over any other.
\r?\n> George
\r?\n>
\r?\n> George Hollenberg MD
\r?\n> CT, USA