Xref: utzoo news.groups:15943 rec.arts.movies:27910
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!aplcen!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!aqdata!sullivan
From: sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: preliminary call for disussion: rec.arts.movies subgroups
Message-ID: <1989Dec27.211218.18630@aqdata.uucp>
Date: 27 Dec 89 21:12:18 GMT
References: <50113@bbn.COM>
Organization: aQdata, Inc.  Western Region -- San Dimas, CA
Lines: 21

From article <50113@bbn.COM>, by rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro):
> 
> Yes, "classic" does have this problem. How about "classical", as in
> "classical Hollywood style"? This denotes only a specific way of
> making movies and says nothing about relative merits. One kind of
> argument I do *not* want to have is "what is a 'classic'?" -- I agree
> ...
> "classical Hollywood style" -- broadly speaking, feature films from
> the Hollywood studio system, 1920 through the early 1960's (see the

If this is your definition then why not call it r.a.m.pre60?  If not,
then the definition of "classical" will INEVITABLY change to include
the early '70s in 10 years or so ("_The Godfather_, what a classic!"--
someone in 1996).

If you want to reduce traffic, I think the only chance you have is
to split things up by genre (r.a.m.foreign-lang, r.a.m.horror, etc.).
-- 
Michael Sullivan          uunet!jarthur.uucp!aqdata!sullivan
aQdata, Inc.
San Dimas, CA