[Archive]

Posted By: Glenn

Gil,

Your reasoning re. Hal's deifintion of a baseball card is flawed on a couple of key points.


" Tobin Lithographs showing clowns playing baseball - NO, not 'true baseball cards'


Again, I agree. However, I note that Tobin lithographs which identify the player, by this definition, are baseball cards. "

************************************************** ************************

So by your logic (correct me if I'm wrong) if one made the claim "It isn't a book unless it is made of paper," and placed a roll of toilet paper in your hand, you would conclude that "by this definition" the toilet paper is a book?


continuing...

" Cards with drawings of REAL big league baseball players that have the players' names on the cards - YES, true cards (even if the drawings barely resemble the player)


By specifying "big league", it appears to me that early cards are eliminated from consideration, since at the potential time of issuance a traditional big league did not exist. Perhaps the "big league" specification should be removed. "

************************************************** ***********************

Can we assume as well that if one claimed that anyone who had played for the New York Yankees had played in the major leagues that you would determine that anyone who had played for the Brooklyn Dodgers (or had driven a car, or had bought a dozen eggs, or owned a dog) had therefore not played in the major leagues?