XPost: rec.photo.digital 
 From: jeremy@exit109.com 
  
 Lionel   wrote: 
  
 > Because if the group is named rec.photo.digital.slr, then it should be 
 > be inclusive of any kind of digital SLR. I don't have a problem with the 
 > *inclusion* of digital rangefinders, but *excluding* one tiny 
 > subcategory of genuine digital SLRs is politically stupid, & I believe 
 > that it'll result in lots of recurring flamage. 
  
 Do you think dividing the discussion like that is a good idea, or that it 
 should be divided like that because of the name? 
  
 > Given that nobody has shown any reason to believe that including cameras 
 > like the E20 would in any way harm the group, I think that that exclusion 
 > is strong evidence in favour of the claims that the group is intended to 
 > be elitist. 
  
 Well, I was one of the first to put forth that claim; but I'm now satisfied 
 with the proposal. 
  
 I don't think including cameras like the E20 would "harm" the group; it 
 doesn't "harm" rec.photo.digital that it's in there along with the SLRs, 
 either.  I just don't think it fits in with the topic from the standpoint 
 of the discussion, and I think "bundling" the discussion like that will 
 cause the kind of friction that we currently see in rec.photo.digital, 
 the kind of friction that this proposal is (partly) intended to address. 
  
 -- 
 Jeremy  |  jeremy@exit109.com 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)