Xref: utzoo news.groups:16569 rec.arts.movies:28656
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!oliveb!amdahl!key!jsp
From: jsp@key.COM (James Preston)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: REC.ARTS.CINEMA -- observations and revisions
Message-ID: <1392@key.COM>
Date: 18 Jan 90 22:12:20 GMT
References: <50608@bbn.COM> <1990Jan17.190304.23309@eddie.mit.edu>
Reply-To: jsp@penguin.key.COM (James Preston)
Organization: Key Computer Laboratories, Fremont
Lines: 63

In article <1990Jan17.190304.23309@eddie.mit.edu> thakur@eddie.MIT.EDU (Manavendra K. Thakur) writes:
}First, the name.  I don't see any great benefit to making the new
}group a subgroup of rec.arts.movies.  Making it a subgroup would be a
}cosmetic change at best.  Rec.arts.cinema captures perfectly what this
}group would be about, and I strongly support rec.arts.cinema as an
}informative and substantive name over the cosmetic and dubious virtues
}of calling it rec.arts.movies.film (or whatever).
}
}Really, people, all this hand-wringing over the name of the newsgroup
}is just plain silly.  Let's go with rec.arts.cinema.

I agree completely; it is _very_ silly.  Let's go with rec.arts.movies.cinema
and be done with it.  What's the purpose of names on newsgroups anyway?
Isn't the purpose to make some attempt at a logical grouping of topics?
"Movies" is a general term; about as general as I think you could get for
"those things they show in movie theaters, and those long shows on TV".
That most current discussions in the newsgroup "rec.arts.movies" tend to
focus on <insert your favorite overworked topic here> does not change the
fact that _any_ topic that in any way relates to whatever the poster thinks
of as "movies" is appropriate for the group.  And clearly the intent of
the advocates of this new group is to create a group for the discussion
of _movies_ only with a narrower focus of appropriate topics than the
current group.  That sure sounds to me like a subgroup.  rec.arts.movies
is for anything related to _movies_; rec.arts.movies.cinema is for "serious"
discussions about _movies_.

}Much more important (to my mind, anyway) is whether the moderator
}should expect a good writing style or not.
} . . .
}What I do expect to see is some sign that the author has *proofread*
}his/her article at least once.
} . . .
}And in this day of spelling checkers, there's simply no excuse for a
}plethora of spelling errors.
}
}Look at it this way: One of the important jobs of the moderator is to
>keep the noise level down.  Articles that are too poorly written to be
}comprehensible contribute to that noise.
} . . .
}So please, let's lay this issue to rest.  The point I'm trying to make
}is that there exists a definite link between the style of writing and
}the content of what is being said
} . . .
}Believe me, folks, I've had many of my article chopped up, hacked up,
}and spit out by hasty editors.  I *know* what it feels like to have an
}article of mine butchered by editors who don't take the time carefully
}my articles.

I don't know about anyone else, but what you said does the opposite of 
putting my fears to rest.  I didn't _have_ any fears until I read your
reassurance.  You go on and on about what good writing is, and how
important it is, and relate your bad experiences with editors.  But the
job of a moderator is _not to be an editor_.  Not in any way, shape or
form.  The job of a moderator is _only_ to ensure that the _content_
is appropriate to the group.  Period.  I don't think that this particular
group warrants moderation.  But if you want to reassure me about your
qualifications for that job, then tell us _unequivocally_ that you will
_never_ reject an article for reasons of grammar or spelling.  Don't get
longwinded about how easy proofreading and spelling checkers are, just 
tell us that if someone happens to be lazy their article will still see
acceptance.

--James Preston