From: black_boxer_briefs@yahoo.com 
  
 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 - your idea would make 
 the inclusion of digital rangefinderin RPDSLR instantly off-topic. The 
 term "more appropriate" is vague and too open to interpretation. 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. 
  
 -- 
  
 Thaddeus Lipshitz 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)