Xref: utzoo news.groups:16522 rec.arts.movies:28582
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!mintaka!mit-eddie!thakur
From: thakur@eddie.mit.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: REC.ARTS.CINEMA -- observations and revisions
Message-ID: <1990Jan17.221614.3664@eddie.mit.edu>
Date: 17 Jan 90 22:16:14 GMT
References: <50326@bbn.COM> <1990Jan5.055309.5776@eddie.mit.edu> <1990Jan9.010634.7610@everexn.uucp>
Reply-To: thakur@eddie.MIT.EDU (Manavendra K. Thakur)
Organization: MIT EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 78

In article <1990Jan9.010634.7610@everexn.uucp> karen@everexn.uucp
(Karen Valentino) writes:

>There's room for disagreement about what is correct or proper
>even when it comes to simple items of grammar--I know, because
>I've even debated with someone over whether "awhile" is as valid
>as "a while."


Nope, nope, nope, nope.  As moderator, I don't intend to spend my time
splitting hairs on whether "a while" is more correct than "awhile."  I
don't care about that.  I'm simply asking that the writer proofread
their article once or twice before submiting it.  My position is that
I will ask for revisions in so far as I feel such revisions would
improve the readability and substantive content of the article.

I don't see how debating "a while" vs "awhile" is going to improve
either the readability or  substantive content of the article, so I'm
not going to waste my time on it.

>the point that I've tried to make is that no writer's stuff should 
>be changed and then posted unless the author first has a chance to
>look the article over and say, "OK.  I accept this.  Post it."  

Well of course!  As I've stated already, I *know* what how annoying it
is to have someone else replace my words with their own.  I fully
expect that I will be rejecting very few articles.  Most of the time,
I would ask for revisions instead.  In addition, I don't have the time
to be a full-fledged editor and rewrite the article for the author.

>In other words, the author has the final say over what appears under 
>his/her name, not the editor.

That is basically how I intend to moderate the newsgroup.  So many
people (and you're not one of them, Karen) seem be getting all bent
out of shape over this, and I don't see what the fuss is all about.
I'm not a fascist monster who demands uniformity.  I prize creativity
and diversity -- hell that's why I like to watch films from around the
world in the first place.

Now, the only thing I have to add is that just as the author has the
right to ok what gets posted under his/her name, so too should the
moderator have final say over what actually gets posted to the
newsgroup.  Is this fascist?  No way.  Look at just about any other
moderated newsgroup, and you'll find ample precedent for this
viewpoint.  The moderator's final say will help do two things: 1)
preserve the viability of the newsgroup so that people continue to
read it and contribute to it and 2) maintain the moderator's personal
reputation and credibility with the readers of the newsgroup.  If the
moderator loses the confidence of the readers, the whole newsgroup may
as well just pack it all in (at least until a new moderator is
installed).

>I agree that the nature of what is edited is important; but I 
>still am unclear from what you write what you consider to be
>within the scope of the editor.

Basically, the point of view is this: will this suggested change
(suggested to the author that is!) help improve the readability and/or
substantive content of the article?  If so, then I would consider the
basis for the suggested revision to be a valid one.  It's as simple as
that.  No ironclad rules.  No fascist intentions.  No mickey-mousing
over insignificant grammatical points.  Simply a focus on 1)
readability and 2) substantive content.

>Other than that, I think everything in the proposed charter is
>as clear as glass, and like its clarity.  I think that you lay to
>rest some of the issues that have been talked over here, including
>whether r.a.c. should be a subgroup of r.a.m.  To me, the charter
>makes it clear that r.a.c is not a subgroup, but a whole different
>ball game.

Thank you.

				Manavendra K. Thakur
				thakur@eddie.mit.edu
				thakur@cfa.harvard.edu
				...!harvard!zerkalo.harvard.edu!thakur