Oh that was what I thought about you, too!. And yes I can show the inconsistencies in your references. It is however probably pointless. Frankly I do not think you would acknowledge the points, but you are the one that going down the road of insults and condescension the fastest. The bottom line is simple. The "International Organization for Standardization" owns this, legally, hook, line, and sinker. Their explanation takes precedence over any other, which actually does put you in the wrong camp. Not that that matters. But, if you wish to keep spinning in the wind please do so!

By the way, it is you that is inferring what I may or may not think (certainly not demand), that would be the prerogative of the "International Organization for Standardization" not me.

Some say we live in a LITIGIOUS society! I guess so! Looks like some folks, around here, love to fight, argue and sling insults at each other at every opportunity- not always in a courtroom. It's especially distasteful when the subject at hand is of no importance to the basic theme of this forum. At least in a courtroom, there is a judge who can pound his or her gavel on the bench and bring some order to the goings on when they get out of hand. I certainly don't mind a bit of levity or friendly jostling and some off topic banter- that's all fun but all of the insults are not at all funny.

I certainly thought the subject of ASA and ISO specifications in photographic materials are interesting and I am probably the only member that posted a bit of practical history and usage of those specifications and how photographer had approached them in the past and how the may apply in the present.

As far as the actual nature of the ISO logo and pedigree, the posting of the image of the original patent and trademark document should tell the story- all the rest is semantics and conjecture.

I must say, however, that there are some very skillful writers here and perhaps they should apply their literary savvy and prowess to writing about the art, history, business, and science of photography.

Again, if you Google "ISO," you will find authoritative support for all the different opinions expressed herein, including mine.

For example, as for ISO being an acronym, here's what Nikon (http://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/photography-glossary/index.page) says about the term "ISO": "Acronym for International Organization for Standardization. Refers to the international standard for representing the sensitivity to light of an imaging sensor or film by a numerical value." Urban Dictionary (www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ISO) concurs: "Acronym for International Standards Organization[,]" as does Your Dictionary (www.yourdictionary.com/iso#americanheritage): "ISO is defined as the acronym for the International Organization for Standardization, headquartered in Switzerland." Or as Quora (www.quora.com/What-is-the-full-form-of-ISO-in-DSLR-cameras) explains: "For the sake of a universally identifiable acronym, the organisation adopted the short name ISO, based on the Greek word isos which means equal."

On the other hand, other dictionaries and photography websites agree with those of you who say it is not an acronym but an abbreviation. For example ATP (www.all-things-photography.com/iso/) says: "ISO (I.S.O.) is the abbreviation for the International Organization of Standardization, a governing body based in Europe that provides the standards for a wide variety of subjects."

And then there are still other dictionaries and photo websites that say it is neither an abbreviation nor an acronym but a name or noun in its own right. For example, Photography Tips (www.photographytips.com/page.cfm/2029) says: "Note that many sources will tell you that the initials I.S.O. when referring to photography stand for "International Standards Organization," but they do not. ISO [note, no periods] is derived from the Greek word 'Isos,' which means equal." And, How Stuff Works (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/what-is-iso-speed.htm) says, "It's the short-form name (not an acronym, interestingly) for the International Organization for Standardization." Dictonary.com (www.dictionary.com/browse/iso?s=t) concurs: "[ISO is] often wrongly thought to be an abbreviation for International Standards Organization").

As for the term's pronunciation, Your Dictionary (www.yourdictionary.com/iso-speed#computer) says: "The international standard measurement of a camera's sensitivity to light, often simply called the "eye-so." And, Dictionary.com (www.dictionary.com/browse/iso?s=t) says it is pronounced: "ahy-soh."

So, enough of this drivel, including my own, because it really boils down to a matter of personal preference, and whether "ISO" is an abbreviation, an acronym or just simply a word, is irrelevant, as is how you pronounce it. All that really matters in regard to photography is that, as the term is defined at www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/glossary/terms_g_j.htm, it is "The international standard for representing film sensitivity. The emulsion speed (sensitivity) of the film as determined by the standards of the International Standards Organization. In these standards, both arithmetic (ASA) and logarithmic (DIN) speed values are expressed in a single ISO term. For example, a film with a speed of ISO 100/21° would have a speed of ASA 100 or 21 DIN. The higher the number, the greater the sensitivity, and vice versa. A film speed of ISO 200 is twice as sensitive as ISO 100, and half that of ISO 400 film." So, the good thing about digital cameras is that instead of being stuck with an entire roll of a specific type of film depending on its ASA, you can change the ISO from shot to shot to whatever gives you the best exposure with the least amount of grain.

Now, that having been said, one thing we can all agree on is that we certainly have all beat this dead horse to death. All that really matters is that we understand how ISO is important when taking photos relative to exposure and quality of images, and not how the term is pronounced or how ISO is calculated by some international organization or independently by camera manufacturers.