XPost: rec.photo.digital 
 From: edward_ohare@nospam.yahoo.com.invalid 
  
 On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:00:31 -0000, Jeremy Nixon  
 wrote: 
  
  
  
 >Actually, I quite like the recent suggestion to go back to the .slr name, 
 >define the group to be about SLRs, and leave it up to interpretation as to 
 >what "SLR" means.  The group participants can sort it out just fine. 
  
  
 Yes, they can.  If someone thinks he has an slr, he'll post to the 
 group based on its name.  If others think he has an slr, there will be 
 discussion. 
  
  
 >That 
 >would neatly sidestep the objections of the folks who, for some bizarre 
 >reason I still can't understand, think that the technical definition of 
 >"SLR" has anything at all to do with anything. 
  
  
 Uh... the prompt for that was Thad, who wanted to redefine it.  When 
 that was challenged, he instead decided to change the group name. 
 Took the wrong turn at the fork. 
  
 My objection was the attempt to define the topic in a way that didn't 
 match the group name.  I realize defining topics in Charters is mostly 
 futile, but consider a Charter as a test of the proponent's thinking 
 ability.  It is my view a proponent is not creating a group for 
 himself.  He is creating a group for those who will use it, and use is 
 mostly based on its name.  But, it seemed to me, that the early 
 Charters revealed Thad had an attitude that he was creating a group 
 for himself.  Or, put another way, he was considering his own desires 
 rather than predicting the preferences of "customers" and addressing 
 them. 
  
  
 >"Absurd" was my reaction to the 4th RFD as well.  This entire thing is 
 >getting way out of hand. 
  
  
 Yea.  Can't get one group proposal right, so the "solution" is to 
 propose four groups.  Yea, sure. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)