XPost: rec.photo.digital 
 From: jeremy@exit109.com 
  
   wrote: 
  
 > The challenge made to critics of the current proposal has been "You 
 > think of a better name that matches these rules.  If you can't, the 
 > name stays."  But the problem is that the rules are so complicated 
 > that there is no simple name that can describe them.  If you make the 
 > rules simple an appropriate name can also be simple. 
  
 Does it make sense to draft the rules around the availability of a simple 
 name?  Wouldn't it be better to draft the rules around the viability of 
 discussion?  Especially given that the rules cannot be enforced anyway, 
 they're much more likely to be observed if they actually make sense, 
 rather than being based on an arbitrary technical division no one really 
 cares all that much about. 
  
 -- 
 Jeremy  |  jeremy@exit109.com 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)