XPost: rec.photo.digital 
 From: edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid 
  
 On 6 Sep 2004 19:13:45 GMT, Woodchuck Bill  wrote: 
  
 >edward ohare  wrote in 
 >news:3fcpj01dnql6m4esgb49c5ctasqir2fr0s@4ax.com: 
 > 
 >> I'm not trying to be fair or unfair to anyone.  I'm just observing 
 >> that some people believe this is fact. 
 > 
 >The fact is that there are different types of "real cameras". My Coolpix is 
 >a real camera, and so is your Camedia. But they are not dSLRs. I would 
 >rather see a group for my camera than see it in a group where it clearly 
 >doesn't belong. 
  
  
 Why, I think you've missed an indication of whether a product is real 
 or not, the one provided by the manufacturer.  "Cute" names mean the 
 manufacturer doesn't consider the product real. 
  
 For example, Chevy Chevette.  A cute name, and it was always referred 
 to as "Chevy" not the formal "Chevrolet" in the advertising.  But, no, 
 the Chevette was not a real car, and Chevrolet saw it that way.  Kraft 
 Miracle Whip.  Its not real mayonaise, so they came up with a cute 
 name that implied supernatural intervention.  Less cute but entirely 
 practical is Big K Cola.  No doubt its not The Real Thing (tm). 
  
 Then there's the deal about overstating the situation, which means the 
 product isn't even average.  An example here is the Estate line by 
 Whirlpool.  No one with an estate is going to buy an Estate.  They're 
 relatively cheap.  Or Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme.  The best?  Nope, 
 not even in the size class.  You had to buy a Supreme Brougham or 
 Supreme International, depending on the year. 
  
 So, obviously, the manufacturers don't consider our cameras real. 
 Yours could easily have followed the Kraft example and been called the 
 MiraclePix.  My could been called the Supreme Zoom.  It makes no 
 difference, as long as the coding is there for the perceptive:  This 
 Is Not A Real Camera. 
  
 So I think what Thad needs to do here is forget the futile attempts to 
 dodge the issue that he wants a group for real cameras by trying to 
 define the technical aspects of a real camera while denying that's 
 what he's trying to do.  Discussion of techical features is 
 irrelevant.  Hey, Thad, just do it this way.  "This group is for real 
 cameras.  If your camera has a cute name, then its not a real camera." 
  
 Now, Thad, see how simple that would be? 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)