''Óriginal parts'', ''identity '' and ''retip'' conundrum

I have not investigated all Cartridge Producers Small Print, when it relates to a Service by the Manufacturer, where the offer has an option as follows:

To receive a Exchange Model following a the old model being Traded In.                  This is mainly aimed at a Cartridge that is deemed ready to undergo a refurbishment as a result of many hours of usage.

The Manufacturer offers a 'Retip' , 'Refurbishment' or 'Rebuild' Service on Cart's from their Models Only, or extend this service to a Variety of Brands they are not involved with, which will indirectly become a Bespoke Work and hence a Bespoke Model will be produced.

In any of the the above scenario's the likelihood is that the offer from the Manufacturer will be to supply a Cart' that when returned to the user, has Parts used during the work undertaken that are 'equivalent' to the part that has been exchanged.

My understanding is that the 'equivalent' will be more of a reference to, and limited to the term 'function' and not filter into any other area of what the term 'equivalent' can refer to.

There is also the suggestion that when the Cart' is returned to the user, It will be received under the pretence. that as a result of the 'equivalent' parts being used to restore the supplied model, the least on offer is that the 'function' on offer is the same as the Supplied Cart' and the pretence will also put forward the suggestion that extends to inferring the returned Cart' may be an improved Cart'.

I take it there are Phono Cartridge Technicians who feel if their chosen parts are used to replace parts used by other Technicians from different organisations, they are quite within their rights to infer the Cart' is now at least on parity with the non Bespoke Version, and that the use of chosen parts for the Bespoke Version has potentially produced an Improved working model.     

Pinda, nice ''reproduction'' of what manufacturer will or are supposed

to do. But my arguments are  pointed out in 4 kinds. Each about

specific ''interpretation problem''. A correct discussion should address

all or some of my arguments denying their truth. Mulveling deed not

address a single one. But he expressed his opinion about his, say,

opponent . He also stated to understand Raul ''exactly''. But

without mentioning when and if  Raul ever addressed MY arguments.

You should also address  my argument about ''original parts'',

their identity so we can know which  are available  as styli and

 cantilevers to manufacturers as well retipers. This does

not apply for what individual retipers may have in their stock.

They don't supply other with their styli. So what they own is not

relevant for  availability in general. We were not able to discover

where Replicant  is produced while we assume that this stylus

is not available to everyone. So my general statement that all

manufacturer as well retipers get their styli and cantilevers from

either Namiki or Ogura is still actual. The point then about ''retip''

is why an manufacturer should do this job (aka gluing cantilever/stylus

combo in the joint pipe)  better than an retipper? 

' Equivalent ' is the Key Word.

The 'Retip' Service with Adept Technicians to support the work undertaken, has full confidence in their capability of offering a service, as to whether their supply of a Styli and then attaching it to a Cantilever is carried out and completed in a manner that is equivalent to any other Service be it competitor 'retip' service or a Phono Cartridge Manufacturer.   

With this confidence in abundance from certain third party 'retip' services, the Manufacturer is not required to the task, the choices made for who does the 'retip' belongs to the Cart' owner, and them only.

Obviously there will be those that are willing to express their firmly held opinions on such practices, and challenge the choices made by others when their choice is not aligned. 

pinda, Equivalent= equal but not identical. Like Siames twins (grin).

You don't mean that retipers can deliver equal work as the manufacturer,

because this is question about belief , like religion . 

I was stupid not ask mulveling who  is able to understand Raul

perfectly to explain to us what ''refreshing of cartridge '' may mean.

''refurbishing'' will also do . More in particular which parts of an

cart are refreshed and what will happen to those which are not

refreshed?  Then we  will be also in position or state to understand

dover' s ''rebuild''. But this ''term'' may have some deeper meaning.

More religious than religious.

'' Í think that...'' or ''I believe that'' is not an valid argument.

Valid argument is : ''the assertion or argument of my opponent

is not true''. The formula is ''If P then p&q''. That is if the premise

or assertion is true than derivation (deduction) p& q are also

true. But  ''If P is not true than neither are p&q''. 

We don't need to refer to someone psychology . We can simply

refer to statements made by our opponent. 

Those are ''logical rules'' valid for all languages . So the question of

''native language'' is irrelevant. Science is universal which means 

independent from the language of individual scientist. BTW translation

of scientific works is much more easy than literature not to mention

lyrics.

''Straw man'' qualifications are known as ''testimonium paupertatis''.