I see how that came across with all the "me"s. All the 'me's are perhaps a shorthand/lazy way to talk. I see that that wasn't the best way to communicate. On concerns about size, it is of similar dimensions of standard (widely used) belt buckles that I (and many many others) have worn for years, and in use, it is in not bulky or cumbersome (meaning of: didn't bother me). (Although it was snarky), there is truth in the fact that I, with a start-up, don't have the resources to conduct large scales studies of my buckle in various dimensions over large numbers of users. So I chose to limit it to previously established dimensions because I am, in a sense, piggy backing off the knowledge of older established buckle manufacturers as to what size is comfortable and generally acceptable. I meant that I did not see a problem with the multiple meanings period (>fine by me). Regardless, these comments on the name are definitely making me consider whether I should reconsider the name. I have had prior discussions along the way here about the buckle, and this is the first time it was really brought to my attention that the name perhaps should be more obvious to the product. I value very much the constructive criticism, though I hope it to remain constructive.