[Raak] Terminates here? NO

Just a thought.

[Dujon] Filthy Prancing Shirtlifters? NO

[Phil] No apology required - my comment read as more critical than I intended. I was trying to agree with Rosie's general point rather than criticising your choice of subject, which may well have met my criteria for reasonableness. Casting my mind back, some of my subjects were probably not justifiable by those criteria anyway.

[Software] Linguistic trope? NO
[INJ] Artful? NO (only very tangentially and unhelpfully)

I know we keep having the same discussions over and over again in the morniverse. It may be one of its defining features. Still, this one is a more than a bit tiresome, because the discussion really is identical each time. Someone (usually Rosie, to be honest) complains that the chosen subject was unsuitable because they hadn't heard of it, and they conjecture that most others have not heard of it either. Someone else (often me, to be honest :-) ) observes that there is no requirement for this game to follow the "spirit of the original game", because this game is on the internets, where we have search engines. Can we just agree to disagree on this one, and accept that people have different standards for what makes a reasonable/good subject?

I'd add two points. First, I think Rosie may have actually misjudged Dahmer's notoriety. I certainly knew of him, and I suspect the majority here have heard of him as well (which probably says something good about Rosie and bad about the rest of us, come to think of it). Second, this is an international community, so I don't think the trivia of "this country" should be privileged: in the global scheme of things, I expect that Dahmer is much better known than Sutcliffe, Shipman or Hindley.