22 Oct
2010
22 Oct
'10
2:22 p.m.
On 22 October 2010 21:17, Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I do find this difficult to understand (no, not your
comments, but such a
policy).
[...]
But what i don't 'get' is why a stock
machine is somehow 'special'
becuase it was used for a particular task, when any other machine off the
same production line would have done just as well.
If I was visiting a museum, I would be much more interested to see a
working example of the sysem (prefereablly running the rogiianl software)
than to see the machine that was actually used, not operational.
I think it's fairly safe to say, then, that yours is not a typical
response. My guess would be that most people would be far more
interested in a particular artefact that had had some famous role than
in another, identical one that was never involved in anything
interesting but was in full working order.
E.g. - just as a hypothetical:
"This is Lord Montgomery's personal tank from the North African
campaign" (cool and interesting) versus "here is a perfectly working
model FYQZ37-B-142/Z type C tank that has never been to war and was
never deployed on active service".
TBH, I'd not be /particularly/ interested to see either - I'm not much
into tanks - but one that was used by someone I've heard of in a
campaign I've read about would be far more interesting than a mint one
that never did anything.
--
Liam Proven ? Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508