I would like to see some talk about a good language for
describing cube manipulations. I know Bernie has one that
he swears by, but I would rather not see the discussion
START with everybody giving their favorite cubespraak...
this can get confusing, dogmatic, counterproductive, nobody
listens, etc. So let's keep the "My language is better than
your language" to a minimum at first, and see what desiderata
people consider as basic.

My first contribution is: I think that turning the cube over,
rotating it, etc., without performing any twists -- that is,
all the things that you could do just as well to a solid block of
wood -- SHOULD be considered manipulations in their own right.
This includes performing a mirror reversal. Why? So that
manipulations that only differ in starting orientation will not
have representations that look completely different.

---Wechsler