Jay, I second your call. I've felt a little bad having given Achilles as hard a time as *I* did. The kid's got a noobish (to be expected!) but fairly positive attitude, IMO. Let's not overly discourage new members.
Achilles, re "why people would want to make a unaccuate model" - this is anyone's guess. Possibly to save money since the kit parts are quite expensive to collect. Very expensive, in some cases. Possibly because they have CNC gear and have never come up through the traditional modelling mindset, so it's all one to them - maybe they think "if you can make it with CNC, why is a kit part important?" But to us, it is. Anyway, the short answer is that in fact the Poseidon Young X-wing is technically studio scale but a lot of us feel weird about it, and some of us don't think it qualifies even technically because its creator did in fact set out to create an inaccurate model.
Rob, the Wong TIE is not in studio scale. It is about 1/32 scale according to the widely (here) accepted understanding of TIE scaling (i.e. studio models are 1/24). Alfred disagrees with this scaling and feels TIES are smaller than that. Hence his Interceptor is significantly smaller than a studio-scale model, yet he maintains the 1/24 description. I have suspected that this would at some point cause customer confusion, and potentially 'not as described' claims.
Your second question is a tough one. We have examples to consider right here but neither exactly match your criteria. The Poseidon Young kit is 1/24 but doesn't use donor parts, while the Mensaboy is 1/24 and does use some but not all parts, IIRC. The PY isn't accurate in appearance while the Mensaboy was decent-ish.
Allan says 'no', I say 'yes'...but I don't really like it. I think we need to move on from the SS terminology as that has become increasingly muddied. "Studio-Accurate" isn't bad but would potentially admit other scales provided the detail and proportions were dead-on.
