Xref: utzoo news.groups:14831 rec.arts.movies:26418 rec.video:8833
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!purdue!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!kanefsky
From: kanefsky@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Steve Kanefsky)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies,rec.video
Subject: Re: ***Call for discussion:  Rec.video.software***
Message-ID: <17200@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU>
Date: 20 Nov 89 20:32:58 GMT
References: <17100@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> <48512@bbn.COM>
Reply-To: kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Steve Kanefsky)
Organization: CSci Dept., University of Minnesota, Mpls.
Lines: 38

In article <48512@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes:
>In article <17100@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Steve Kanefsky) writes:
>>This is a formal call for discussion on the formation of a new newsgroup
>>to be called rec.video.software (the name is also up for discussion, for
>>those who may be opposed to the use of "software" in this context).
>>
>>This unmoderated group would be for the discussion of video software in any 
>>currently available format, including VHS, S-VHS, Beta, ED-Beta, 8mm, and 
>>Laserdisc, as well as past and future video formats.
>
>
>                                              I would say, though,
>that the charter should explicitly exclude discussions about the
>artistic and/or entertainment merits of a movie or video. These belong
>on r.a.m.

Yes, I failed to state explicitly that I believe that rec.video.software
should be devoid of any discussion which doesn't pertain directly to
the video transfer.  

Here's one thing I haven't worked out yet, though:  Should spoilers be
ok with no warning in this group, should there be a complete ban on
spoilers, or should the same rules apply as in Rec.arts.movies?  I 
would much rather have either free-for-all spoilers or no spoilers at
all. I don't think putting "(spoilers)" in the subject line would be
feasable in this group.


>I'm not crazy about the name, but it is self-explanatory and I can't
>come up with anything better. I would support the proposal under this
>name. 

Bob Niland suggested Rec.video.titles, but I still favor Rec.video.software 
at this point.

-- 
Steve Kanefsky
kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu