  Already in the 1970s there where attempts to present a set of ground rules,
sometimes referred to as a theory of gravitation theories, which theories of
gravity should satisfy in order to be considered viable in principle and,
therefore, interesting enough to deserve further investigation. From this
perspective, an alternative title of the present paper could be ``why are we
still unable to write a guide on how to propose viable alternatives to general
relativity?''. Attempting to answer this question, it is argued here that
earlier efforts to turn qualitative statements, such as the Einstein
Equivalence Principle, into quantitative ones, such as the metric postulates,
stand on rather shaky grounds -- probably contrary to popular belief -- as they
appear to depend strongly on particular representations of the theory. This
includes ambiguities in the identification of matter and gravitational fields,
dependence of frequently used definitions, such as those of the stress-energy
tensor or classical vacuum, on the choice of variables, etc. Various examples
are discussed and possible approaches to this problem are pointed out. In the
course of this study, several common misconceptions related to the various
forms of the Equivalence Principle, the use of conformal frames and equivalence
between theories are clarified.
