Xref: utzoo news.groups:14870 rec.arts.movies:26432 rec.video:8846
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!bbn!bbn.com!rshapiro
From: rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies,rec.video
Subject: Re: ***Call for discussion:  Rec.video.software***
Message-ID: <48597@bbn.COM>
Date: 21 Nov 89 16:30:47 GMT
References: <17100@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> <48512@bbn.COM> <17200@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 20

In article <17200@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Steve Kanefsky) writes:
>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? 


If a transfer screwup happens to take place during a spoiler scene, we
need to know. I agree that spoiler warnings are tedious in this
situation, so I'd say we should simply ignore the whole "spoiler"
issue altogether. People can just skip over articles about movies they
haven't seen (which might suggest that the subject line should always
contain the title of the video in question).

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


Given this choice, I'd go with "software". The naming issue doesn't
seem to be all that serious in this case -- no hierarchy confusions or
bizarre acronyms to deal with. Let's just stick with "rec.video.software".