Xref: utzoo news.groups:16060 rec.arts.movies:27989
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!utpsych!daniel
From: daniel@psych.toronto.edu (Daniel Read)
Subject: Re: preliminary call for disussion: rec.arts.movies subgroups
Message-ID: <1990Jan2.183828.11233@psych.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: daniel@psych.toronto.edu (Daniel Read)
Organization: Psychology, U. of Toronto
References: <49987@bbn.COM> <10213@zodiac.ADS.COM> <50208@bbn.COM>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 18:38:28 GMT

In article <50208@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes:
>
>OK, it looks to me as if a clear consensus is forming around the idea
>of a "serious" discussion group which would cover all movies. I hereby
>drop the rec.arts.movies.classic(al) idea. 
>
>As usual, there's some contention about the name. I think we should
>bite the bullet and go for something long and inelegant, but clear
>and, from the net hierrarchy point of view, conherent and consistent.
>It really should be under rec.arts.movies, so how about:
>
>  rec.arts.movies.serious
>
... we should never
>exclude articles solely because of the movies they discuss: if someone
>has something serious to say about Mothra movies, fine.


I just want to add my support for this proposal.  I have only recently 
had access to this news network.  Since starting to read r.a.m I have become
increasingly disappointed with the kind of discussion that is its
stock and trade.  A moderated group discussing films as works of art 
would be a delight.