I love it when people get offended at low appraisals of their names.
I was embarassed when I woke up today and read again this thread, and I'd like to apologise if I got upset and manifested it in an offensive way to any member of this forum.
Anyway, the name may or may not be worthless, but I agree with BritishBulldog that there's a lot of subjectivity in many evaluations.
The "objective" criteria that I didn't agree with was the formulaic thinking that "e" + 2 words=bad domain. Especially because this actually seems more like a subjective criteria disguised as as an objective one.
Adequate marketing and a winning product can do wonders for stupid names, like
google, for instance. Ok, it's a .com, single word and generic, but "google"??? In my opinion yahoo.com is the cool one and google would be mediocre, at best...
I totally agree that not all, but a lot, is the eyes of the beholder, his vision, and the professional implementation of an idea.
That can make domain appraisals an extremelly interesting and complex business.