Re: FOR SALE: Radio Shack Astronaut 8

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
CW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>"Stinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Well, I've got to hand it to you, CW -- you stick to it like a pit bull on
>a
>> pot roast.  ;^)
>>
>> However, unless somebody logs on from US Customs, I don't think anybody
>else
>> on this forum is going to support your position
>
>I'm right. That's all that matters. If no one else is willing to pull their
>head  out, that is their problem. The law is a legal definition of antique.
>Has nothing to do with customs other than it was defined at the urging of
>them. Until they had a legal definition, there was no way to classify  "an
>old thing". They didn't care if it called antique anything more than 20
>minutes old,  they just needed a definition. There time frame was set by
>antique dealers associations.  The law says nothing about customs. It is a
>definition, period.
>
>-- the chief reason being
>> that (as you acknowledge) insisting on a 100-year vintage is absurd when
>> dealing with radios.
>
>That's true. That is why no radio should be called antique. None are old
>enough.
>>
>> Yet, if any of us saw a big 1940's-vintage tube powered "family radio," we
>> would call it an antique.
>
>I wouldn't. I know better. I would simply call it old.
>
>It has just become an acceptable catch-all name
>> for old stuff, much like the word "Coke" substitutes for "soft drink" down
>> south where I live.
>
>People are wrong all the time. So what?

Can *YOU* provide any -proof- to back _your_ assertation that an 'antique'
must be 100+ years old?

There is *NOTHING* in the statutes (Title 19 UNITED STATES CODE) regarding
"Customs" to support such a contention.  As *anybody* can verify by
using the search function at <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/19/>


"Put up or *SHUT*UP*" applies.