should be henceforth >"Praha"; just as the German cities should be written in German. Two points were made >against you: or Cristobal >is used; either one is infinitely more correct that Christopher since Colombo, himself, used >both the Spanish and Italian versions BUT NEVER the English version which is wholly >fallacious. Well, I tend to agree. It does however bring into mind the possibility that asserting such "policy" as i suggested (aside from contradicting my long standing dislike for propriety) would not be really practical. Maybe this would be a far better argument against. The argument for really relies on a change of convention, like I said - namely something that would be somewhat revolutionary. The question then is implementation - would it be too confusing? Could it be a way to enhance cross-lingual communication? I finally realized that this really was about attempting to break down the language barriers - allowing some easier cross-operability that ignores the established language barriers, allowing for some compromises in our much-hailed "standards" -- but also allowing for increased multi-lingual participation. This is no doubt the future of wikipedia, but it would require some heavy assistance from language tools -- technologies that are barely in their fruition. It could be after all, that the solution is simply for all these miserable foreigners to just learn English gooder. should revert to >the Native American name. Such a reversion would not be in accordance with your more >reasonable suggestion since Los Angeles was essentially built on top of the older city, in a >like manner, Mexico DF should not be renamed Tenochtitlan. All such arguments were red herring attacks, summat. But GTBOTD* they attempt to illustrate the fuzzy boundaries inherent to drawing lines to differentiate changes to how things are done. In essence I agree with them - 'dont mess with it if it aint broke.' To a large degree I threw it out there to see what the climate was, and what the real idea was that I was trying to materialize. I had it saved as a draft and decided to send it - to see if it would stir some braincells. Not that I intent to fight a one man war for something so stupid and trivial as policy. In short - they were abolutely correct, though their arguments were a bit convoluted. The funny thing in that case, is that it actually illustrates my point. "Los Angeles" isnt changed in American speech to "The Angels" -- nor to Americans call most other Latin based names by anything different, simply due to some language similarities. In fact, in most cases the Anglicization is rather loyal - thus its the minority that are modified, and then usually only slightly. To change the minority to their proper local names, would be to actually enforce the existing *standard. (something again I dont advocate). "Roma" instead of "Rome" -- 'would be too confusing?' I dont think so. These are the same arguments against the deprication of the term "Indians" to refer to American Natives. Tie that in with the Christoforo Colombo factor, and youll get the joke. informed that you >are now classed as a "true troll" and are walking on "very thin ice". Good luck, viva la >resistance! As it should be. I wonder if theyre using Danny's once-stated definition of a troll - here on the list. "Very thin ice?" I was on "very thin ice" from the day I started contributing. This later became "good job on this" and "good job on that." People get pissy, and I dont give out blowjobs - thats what that means. All of humanity is on thin ice, so its like the pot calling the kettle... "nigga!" BTW, IMHO, "Troll" is almost like the internet equivalent of calling someone a "terrorist" - 'I saw you marching at a peace rally, you terrorist...' It's a very slippery slope, and some here have gotten quite quick to use the T word, (at least in private :]) it seems they never understood the late, great, Robert Zimmerman when he said... "don't speak too soon for the wheel's still in spin." -Wove and trolling, Steven *GTBOTD Given the benefit of the doubt.