From: nop@alt.net 
  
 Kibo informs me that Jeremy Nixon  stated that: 
  
 >  wrote: 
 > 
 >> 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. 
 > 
 >That's not at all a bad point.  I really think rangefinders belong with 
 >SLRs in a discussion context, but why not let the people wanting to talk 
 >about them decide which group is best?  There's not likely to ever be a 
 >group just for rangefinders, after all. 
  
 Yes, that's a good summary of my view as well. Simply change the charter 
 to state that the group is for DSLRs, but that discussion of other 
 digitals with interchangeable lenses, such as rangefinders, are 
 acceptable as well. Problem solved. No need for fighting over 
 topicality, & if anyone with an insufficiently 'real' camera actually 
 feels that the discussion in RPDS is 'above' them (as has been predicted 
 here), then they have RPD. 
  
 -- 
    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)