🚀 go-pugleaf

      If 'iPod' is breaking the rules as opposed to bending them for artistic
      license then I can't think what actual bending of the rules would be in
      this case.




I don't think you can "bend" the rule of capitalisation for proper nouns (and I haven't claimed that you can), because it is a very simple, black-and-white rule (which is why I think the pregnancy analogy is appropriate). Either you observe the rule or you break it. Talk of "bending" just appears to me to be an attempt to have your cake and eat it too (ie, claim the rule as authority when you dislike designs that break it, but ignore the rule when you like designs that break it).

      as I've stated many times, there is a limitation to bending the rules
      for art's sake, and *that* is what this thread is supposed to be about.




Perhaps you could tell us what those limits are and who set them? Or is it really just a case of what Richard Archer-Jones likes is acceptable and what he doesn't is exceeding the limits? Apart from Heather, the others who have posted in this thread don't seem to share your view of what's acceptable, so if that's all you wanted to discuss, you have your answer - the majority of people who bothered to post disagree with you.

      Well, I haven't meant to actually state or imply it is more one than the
      other. It's both.




And that's where I find your stance inconsistent to say the least. If observance of grammatical rules is part of your concern, then I would expect you to condemn "iPod".

      I'm confused here (so, what's new?). Are you inferring that I should consider
      these postings finished works of art?




Perhaps you should have tried rereading my post, because my meaning was explained quite clearly there: "If you are able to make sure your spelling is correct when you want to, then presumably you didn't want to when writing these posts." But I'll try to state it even more simply for you: 1. You have said that you can ensure correct spelling when you want to (eg, for finished pieces of art). 2. Your posts here contain numerous spelling mistakes. 3. Thus, I inferred that you didn't want to ensure that the spelling was correct in these posts, and I would have thought that that was a deliberate decision.

      With no capital whatsoever it just looks like an ordinary word (which
      of course it is), no matter what colour the first letter.




I asked that because you said that you were happy with "iPod" and "InDesign" at least in part because "there is still some indication that those words are special". Treating the first letter in a distinct way would also indicate that the words are special.

      Other than that you just have to fall back on context.




Which is precisely why I (and others here) have no problems with the use of lowercase under discussion. Context is always relevant.

      But one thing I do know though, lower case would definitely not work for
      the first letter then ...... and I think even you would agree with that
      eh?




No, I wouldn't agree with that. I could imagine someone coming up with a very striking design in which the first letter of the brand is lowercase but the rest is in caps. In fact, I'd be very surprised if someone hasn't already done it.

      I can't see how the spoken word is relevant here.




As before, the answer was in my post, if you'd cared to reread it: "just as they can understand it in a sentence written all in caps or in spoken text (where there are obviously no capitals to emphasise a word)." In other words, context enables people to distinguish between "Ford" and "ford" in spoken text, and context enables people to understand the Olympics and Halfords logos.

PS. Re irony, the comment "Americans don't understand irony" is commonly heard down here too. Mind you, as has been noted, the word itself is commonly misused these days. One of the worst offenders was Alanis Morrisette's song "Ironic", which described numerous incidents, none of which (as I recall) was ironic.