XPost: rec.photo.digital 
 From: nop@alt.net 
  
 Kibo informs me that edward ohare 
  stated that: 
  
 >On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 14:13:30 -0000, andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid 
 >wrote: 
 > 
 >>This is doubly strange when you consider that the final paragraph in 
 >>this snippet can also be applied to digital rangefinders.  That's what 
 >>I'm trying to get at: the sheer lack of logic in this proposal. 
 > 
 >Certainly.  First of all, Thad has done a wonderful job of dealing 
 >with criticism and has been responsive to that criticism voiced by 
 >enough people that it should be considered.  However, it is my 
 >conclusion that what the proposal is about is a group for what Thad 
 >considers to be **real** digital cameras.  The problem is defining 
 >what is a **real** digital camera. 
  
 Yep. IMO, the solution is not to try to do that. Firstly; it's not 
 possible, secondly; attempting to do so just pisses people off. 
 Make the group purely about DSLRs & you solve both problems. 
  The only real problem I see with this RFD is that it keeps on coming 
 across as an attempt to create some sort of 'elite' newsgroup for 
 'serious photographers'. If anything will sink this proposal, that 
 perception is what will do it. IMO, the problem is trivially soluble by 
 dropping the stuff about rangefinders & interchangable lenses. 
  
 -- 
    W 
  . | ,. w ,   "Some people are alive only because 
   \\|/  \\|/     it is illegal to kill them."    Perna condita delenda est 
 ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)