Xref: utzoo news.groups:15972 rec.arts.movies:27924
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!fluke!moriarty
From: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: preliminary call for disussion: rec.arts.movies subgroups
Message-ID: <13522@fluke.COM>
Date: 28 Dec 89 20:51:34 GMT
References: <50113@bbn.COM> <1989Dec27.211218.18630@aqdata.uucp>
Sender: news@tc.fluke.COM
Reply-To: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer)
Organization: The John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 23

I think the number of genres would make division along these lines
prohibitive.  (Also, I have a horror of finding a
rec.arts.movies.buddy-films one fine day.)  I think Richard's original idea
is sound, but agree on the problem of defining classic.  How about a
rec.arts.movies.current, for movies in current release?  I know, because of
second-run theaters, this is fuzzy, too, but it confine things more sharply
than .classic.  Besides, I think there might be people out there who only
are interested in discussion of newly-released films, and not too much about
older film discussions.

Speaking for myself, I'm not pushing for rec.arts.movies to be divided (my
major grievences were solved by the moderated rec.arts.movies.reviews
group), but I can see the reasoning behind it and certainly wouldn't stand
in the way.

                           "Well, I wouldn't exactly call it 'working'...more
                            like 'groveling for dollars.'"
---
                                        Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
INTERNET:     moriarty@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP:  {uw-beaver, sun, microsoft, hplsla, uiucuxc}!fluke!moriarty
CREDO:        You gotta be Cruel to be Kind...
<*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>