Xref: utzoo news.groups:16146 rec.arts.movies:28092
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!att!cbnewsj!ecl
From: ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: REVISED CHARTER for rec.arts.cinema
Message-ID: <3183@cbnewsj.ATT.COM>
Date: 5 Jan 90 14:13:20 GMT
References: <1990Jan5.055309.5776@eddie.mit.edu>
Reply-To: ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 17

In article <1990Jan5.055309.5776@eddie.mit.edu> thakur@eddie.MIT.EDU (Manavendra K. Thakur) writes:
> 	   [long discussion of charter]

One issue not covered is whether made-for-television (including made-for-cable)
films are included.  Mark has on occasion gotten complaints that a "film" he
was reviewing was actually made for television, so his article should have gone
to rec.arts.tv.  I do not consider this a valid complaint, and would argue that
made-for-television films (including documentaries--see the review of
"Forbidden City, U.S.A" just posted to r.a.m.r) belong in rec.arts.cinema and
r.a.m(.r).

What do other people (including the moderator apparent) think?

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 201-957-2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
If I am not for myself, who is for me?  If I am only for myself what am I?
And if not now, when?  --Hillel