I hold the position that the longest SHA256 chain should be defined as Bitcoin. Whether that will be the network you favor or not will remain to be seen. However the most likely scenario is that we will split of as a minority to begin with which means we will take a new name, to avoid confusion, I can agree with you on that Lauda.
The first part is wrong: "longest SHA256 chain as Bitcoin". Bitcoin could be replaced (hypothetical scenario) with a SHA256 chain that has nothing to do with the previous Bitcoin blockchain (e.g. no balances). You won't define this as Bitcoin, will you now? Just pointing out that the position is missing a characterization that describes a longest SHA256 chain relevant to Bitcoin (at least up to some point).
Though there is a chance that in the future you might regret not being more compromising on this issue.
There is zero reason for someone rational and open-minded to regret having a wrong position, especially if they learn and adapt. If the proponents of the 'split' chain end up being right about the whole 'debate', finds a way to scale Bitcoin 'the right way',and that chain becomes the main chain, then there's no reason for me not to shift my position towards it. I'd expect an irrational person to act differently.
Hint: Do not make consecutive posts, but rather try to group them up as 1 post whenever possible (forum rules).