Ray,
Of course you are quite correct about the fake bit if you take that part of
the explanation of the word fake in isolation.
However, unless you actually wrote the Oxford Dictionary, I would take you
to task. Just because you don't like a part of the definition of FAKE, does
not make such a car a REPLICA.
That cannot be unless it was done by the original "artist". I hope you take
my point.
Further, if someone represents a car as a K3 replica, it then becomes, by
definition, a FAKE as it is claiming by deception to be something that it is
not originally made to be, and can now (in modern times) never be! Even if
one was to form a Company called MG Car Company, I don't think they could
claim (without deception) to be the original manufacturer (the original
artist) and so get away from the definition that really is appropriate -
FAKE
Good argument, anyway.
Thanks
Pip
AUSTRALIA----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray" <spook01@home.com>
To: "Pip Bucknell" <mgwizard@caloundra.net>; <pthelander@earthlink.net>
Cc: "MMM List UK" <mg-mmm@autox.team.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: another disput looming
> It is a "fake" only if the guys trys to pawn it off as an original car.
> If he says it is a replica, that is what it is..........
>
> Ray
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/wilma/mg-mmm
/// Send list postings to mg-mmm@autox.team.net
|