Xref: utzoo news.groups:16392 rec.arts.movies:28467
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!bbn!bbn.com!rshapiro
From: rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: REC.ARTS.CINEMA -- drawing the discussion to a close?
Message-ID: <50901@bbn.COM>
Date: 15 Jan 90 02:11:07 GMT
References: <50608@bbn.COM> <1990Jan9.175821.19661@athena.mit.edu> <1990Jan11.033402.23405@sq.sq.com> <50756@bbn.COM> <1990Jan14.081527.2367@sq.sq.com>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 35

In article <1990Jan14.081527.2367@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
>This is my last posting on this topic, and I'll try to keep it fairly brief.

Ditto (unless another posting demands a response). Time to stop
arguing and start voting.

>Exactly.  Two aspects of one topic.  (Hmm, well, maybe this counting
>business isn't as easy as it's cracked up to be.  "Stupid misnaming"
>was an insufficiently considered opinion.  Make it "a misnaming showing
>insufficient consideration", okay?)


Hardly. The *initial*, poorly considered choice was to make it a
subgroup of r.a.m. The parallel group idea took time and exchanges on
news.groups to develop. Two aspects of one topic should mean two
parallel groups, not one group with a subgroup. But short of renaming
r.a.m, the best we can do is r.a.cinema (at least, the best I've
heard).

>If r.a.m "works" in a manner different from the way that you or I like,
>it may be cause for moderating it or for splitting it.  But it isn't
>necessarily cause for refusing to create subgroups of it, especially if
>they are to be moderated.


Subgroups of r.a.m are fine -- r.a.m.reviews for instance. Or
r.a.m.lists. It's just that this particular group (ie r.a.c) isn't
logically a subgroup.

>Could I interest you in rec.arts.movies.academic?

This has the same kind of problem that "serious" had -- does it mean
academic talk or academic movies? It sounds like the latter, as if we
would be discussing film schools (not an unreasonable topic, just not
the one this proposal is addressing).