Can I (neither de-, nor re-, so just...) rail the conversation here for a moment? I think everyone in this conversation needs to answer the following:

We can't talk about these things without agreeing on a definition (or at least being aware a of what we each are talking about). I'm speaking of an observational definition, not what you think they physically are. Please give me a set of criterion for separating quasars from not quasars. If you want to cite a paper, that's fine, but also describe the definition, briefly.

rtomes: If it is the working definition you are using, can you paraphrase the what SDSS defines as a QSO?

Ari Jokimaki: Could you please tell me what you and/or Arp et al. define as a quasar, observationally? I haven't seen it defined in the few of their papers that I've read.

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report