Thank you for your reply. I specifically like that it clearly targets the issue being discussed and puts forward your opinions and purposes for those opinions, which indeed were not immediately apparent in the beginning.
I will accept on face value your proposition that you are acting in good faith, though I suspect in both the case of you and I we are reading further into what the other is writing than what is intended. I get particularly offended when I feel someone is intentionally spinning my phrasing to be more than what it is, whether it was intentional or not.
The quality of the discourse has declined significantly since the beginning, no neutral observer would disagree.
The suggestion was that more detail is required in any argumentation or it is indeed disrespectful. I would like the quality of discourse specifically on this topic to remain at a high-standard. Single-sentence replies devolve into further snipes and then devolve into this reply. Let’s see together (not just me and @tserong but all contributors!) that this does not happen again in this thread.
Fair enough. I will consider it a misreading of intent and refer to my remarks above.
I am purposely trying to avoid the subjective aspects of what is, of course, almost an entirely subjective issue. However, as we know, there are objective aspects to branding, which is what my argumentation goes to the most. I am happy to exist under any brand as long as it meets the objectives of the Party that I subscribe to.
Yes, it may well be. But we can do market testing on the name if we spend a small amount of money on it, which is the usual approach for a rebrand. These are the reasons for having this discussion: work out what we might need to research further, whether better names become apparent (for which there is now another thread), answering lingering questions, and whether there are any strong arguments for retaining the current name.
It was my pleasure. I am quite happy to attempt to answer any questions that are put to me on this issue, I just need to unambiguously read those questions. Took a while for me to notice that there was a fundamental deficiency in my original post and for that I apologise.