Thad  wrote: 
 >ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote: 
  
 >> Thad  wrote: 
 >> >ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote: 
 >> 
 >> >> >Digital rangefinder camera systems are technically not SLR systems, 
 but 
 >> >> >they are on-topic if they offer lens interchangeability. Inclusion of 
 >> >> >digital rangefinders with mounts for detachable lenses is provisional; 
 >> >> >should a separate Big-8 newsgroup for digital rangefinders ever come 
 >> >> 
 >> >> Change that to "should a separate Big-8 newsgroup more appropriate for 
 >> >> digital rangefinders".  This way it can't be argued that folks can 
 >> >> crosspost rangefinder topics between rpds and rpd because 
 >> >> rpds requires a separate (and unique) rangefinder group to exist to 
 >> >> exclude rangefinder discussions. 
 >> 
 >> >It says that digital rangefinder discussion would become OFF-TOPIC in 
 >> >RPDSLR if a rangefinder group is created - it does not say they will 
 >> >become prohibited to discuss. There is a significant difference. 
 >> 
 >> You totally missed my point.  You specify a group about rangefinders 
 >> must exist and it can be argued that to mean rpd.rangefinders only. 
  
 >That was the intention. 
  
 >> I suggested you broaden that to a group "more appropriate" for 
 >> rangefinders so that rpd. that includes 
 >> rangefinders better than rpds can start taking rangefinder discussions. 
  
 >They are already approriate in rec.photo.digital 
  
 But are they more appropriate in RPD or in RPD.slr? 
  
 >- your idea would make 
 >the inclusion of digital rangefinderin RPDSLR instantly off-topic. The 
 >term "more appropriate" is vague and too open to interpretation. 
  
 If that's the case, then the inclusion of that class of rangefinders 
 is already a bad idea.  If most folks don't think rangefinders are 
 SLR-ish enough that "more appropriate" means RPD, there's no point 
 allowing them in the proposed group in the first place.  If more 
 folks think RPD.slr is more appropriate for rangefinders, the suggested 
 wording poses no problem, and those folks have sufficient discrimination 
 to move to a future rangefinder-inclusive group if it gets created. 
  
 Further, it is highly possible for the next proponent to write a 
 CHARTER for a non-SLR group that explicitly includes ALL rangefinders 
 and yet not be a group only for rangefinders. 
  
 >There 
 >has already been too much attention on this subject. They will never be 
 >a significant part of the discussion, so I am leaving it exactly the way 
 >it is. 
  
 Arguing the portion of the discussion is looking at the problem the 
 wrong way.  How much trouble are you going to create for people 
 interested in the subject of rangefinders.  Will you be setting up a 
 situation that will lead to their confusion as to what group is 
 appropriate?  Under the current conditions, they will be left with a 
 situation where two groups allow their discussions, be it RPD.slr vs 
 RPD, or RPD.slr vs RPD.. 
  
 ru 
  
 -- 
 My standard proposals rant: 
 Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic 
 is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup. 
 Usenet popularity is the primary consideration. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)