Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!iuvax!cogsci!dave From: dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: preliminary call for disussion: rec.arts.movies subgroups Message-ID: <32021@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> Date: 22 Dec 89 22:21:24 GMT References: <49987@bbn.COM> Sender: root@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu Reply-To: dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington Lines: 29 In article <49987@bbn.COM> Richard Shapiro writes: >As a movie lover who's found it necessary to unsubscribe to >rec.arts.movies, I'd like to gauge Net opinion about spinning off one >(or more) subgroups. The problem with rec.arts.movies is well known, >I think: a *very* high count of articles, the great majority of which >are about a handful of movies which happen to be popular that week or >month. >As one concrete proposal (but only one), let me suggest r.a.m.classic >which would be exclusively for the (serious) discussion of older >Hollywood movies (not necessarily "great" movies). This group would >have to be moderated, I think. One trouble with this name might be endless flames over what is "classic" and what isn't. Also, do you really want to exclude more recent movies from the broad discussions of cinema in general? Another idea might be to create rec.arts.movies.current, which would be for the discussions of Batman, Back to the Future, etc. With that huge volume out of the way, rec.arts.movies might again become a reasonable place. (Other possible names: r.a.m.new, r.a.m.recent, ...) Though I guess there'd still be "all the movies that ..." discussions to worry about. (Rec.arts.movies.lists, anyone?) -- Dave Chalmers (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu) Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University. "It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable"