David Peterson wrote: > (1) For my flags, I think the "colour variation" version has to go, and I > still prefer > both of mine to Adrian's new variation. My variation is primarily an attempt to promote discussion about whether the problem of the black band can be overcome. The idea behind it is that even if that /particular/ solution doesn't work, it might help someone to visualise a solution that /would/ work. I've tried to make that clear in the latest update. For my part, I'll advocate any of the versions that don't have rays (I can't stand those rays), with your new version at #1, although 25:43 is a mean aspect ratio. :-) Does anyone prefer the versions with rays over all of the versions without rays? > (4) I prefer Christian's original flag. It *might* be interesting to see > the tongue > glyph in the middle, but I don't like any of the other changes that've been > proposed. I think the tongue glyph would spoil it - just doesn't go with the design, which is all geometric. I'm surprised that my modification has been received unfavourably - I expected that most people would be neutral to the change and that a few might favour it. The white and purple bands on the edge of Christian's flag don't actually mean anything, so I thought that if I bent them, I could make them into a symbol of how a conlang evolves into hitherto unexplored territory as the inventor develops it. Then again, I'm a sucker for symbols and the sort of person who finds "because it looks cool" a tad on the lame side. :-) Adrian.