OK, despite the fact that I'm primarily a lurker on this list, I
figure I may as well submit my idea.

(Just to note: I'm not a visual artist. If my proposal ever got voted
up, it'd be great if someone else could create a nicer looking, larger

Symbolism blurb:

Against a purple sky, signifying creativity, an orange sun rises,
orange signifying energy, imagination, and communication. It sheds its
light over a dark, not-yet-seen world. Silhouetted against the sun is
the Tower of Babel, proclaiming the noble nature of the linguistic


On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 13:32:00 +0930, Adrian Morgan (aka Flesh-eating
Dragon) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I tried to post this yesterday, but had run out of posts.
> As for site updates, I'm making a note of new flags, but I don't
> intend to upload changes until this evening. Until then, you can
> consider me to be having the day off :-)
> * *** ***** ******* ***** *** *
> takatunu wrote:
> > I had an idea a while ago and oddly, the colours were the same!
> > It was kinda related to a "pearl".
> >
> [takatunu also emailed this to me, so I uploaded it.]
> Thanks ... but I wish people wouldn't use bl8dy JPEGs! :-) :-)
> It's a case of "right tool for the job". JPEG is a great format for
> photographs (which is what it's intended for), but it's useless for
> flags and diagrams. With a nice clean PNG, if it turns out later that
> there's a demand for (e.g.) changing one of the colours, then a quick
> click of a floodfill tool will set you right. If you use a lossy
> format such as JPEG, however, with those annoying fuzzy edges, you've
> got quite a lot of work to make even a straightforward modification to
> a design. GIF is also infinitely more suitable than JPEG, though not
> as good as PNG (I believe that the final version of the flag should be
> saved in GIF format: the one and only problem with PNG is that some
> older browsers can't view it).
> Also, I don't know what graphics package you're using, but those red
> and blue "splotches" in the purple are not a good look. Gives the
> appearance that the cloth has been out in the rain too much and the
> ink's run. :-)
> David Peterson wrote:
> > Looks like there are advocates of both.   Personally, I'm on the fence
> > with the rays.   Should they be entered as two separate flags, or would
> > that produce a Woodrow Wilson effect?
> I intensely dislike the rays, so I believe there should be a no-rays
> version available no matter what. The ray-less version is more like a
> real sun, and practically transports me into the conworld. The version
> with rays transports me into a paper cut-out, which is not as nice.
> If we use Paul's voting method (which I'm happy with), then there's no
> moral reason not to have two or three versions of the same flag.
> However, that's no excuse to be excessive. There should be at most a
> small number of variations on a design.
> > [Note: We haven't discussed it yet,
> > but what if we changed the black color?
> I kicked myself when I forgot to reply to this bit earlier: my answer
> is a resounding "no" - if it wasn't black, it wouldn't look like a
> silhouette, and besides, I like the idea of conlanging's rise from the
> blackness of obscurity. :-)
> Ben Poplawski wrote:
> > I'd also like to add that I dislike the purple, especially that
> > prevalent pale purple. I prefer more simple, primary colors.
> The red-versus-purple debate was several days ago: sorry you missed it
> :-) However, in response to your message, earlier today I darkened the
> purple just a little bit.
> Adrian.