>And frankly, I just don't see the negative connotations that you and others associate with
I am confused by your confusion, given your quote from the article:
> "One of the problems is that we insist on using terms like 'digital rights,' the usage of
which basically leaves out a large percentage of the population. Most people don't know what
that means, and they assume that digital doesn't include them, because they don't work in the
tech industry and have little contact with people who do."
I don't think people have such a negative opinion of geeks that they'll hear the name and
think "geeks, huh, if they're for it then I'm against it". But I would worry that they'll
think "geeks, huh, dunno what that has to do with me but it's probably too complicated, I'm
just an (artist/movie buff/media reform activist/investigative journalist/someone with an
iPod...)". I know these memes sink down deep inside us where they're hard to uproot, but
isn't the whole *point* of what you're doing that this *isn't* about geeks?
Plus, as Don points out, never mind the word "geek" in particular, "GeekPAC" is the kind of
name that says "we are here to represent the interests of one sub-group of people against
competing sub-groups", just like the "Dairy Farmers Council" or "AARP" or something. But you
want to come across as the other sort of political organization, the sort that is organized
not around a group of people, but a group of principles -- those have names like "Americans
for Social Justice" or "Club for Growth", that involve abstract goods and claims to represent
all people. (Sometimes they're lying, but that's a separate issue.) So your name seems to
misrepresent your organization in that way too.