Xref: utzoo news.groups:16155 rec.arts.movies:28099 alt.flame:13766
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!lll-winken!bu.edu!bu-cs!buengc!bph
From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies,alt.flame
Subject: Re: renewed Call for Discussion: rec.arts.cinema
Message-ID: <5193@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 5 Jan 90 18:46:05 GMT
References: <50326@bbn.COM> <1990Jan5.062111.29517@sq.sq.com>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 39

In article <1990Jan5.062111.29517@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
>> Several people have expressed approval for "rec.arts.cinema" as the
>> name of the proposed "serious movie talk" group, and no one has
>> expressed serious disapproval. Unless there are strong objections to
>> this name, I suggest we go with it. 
>
>I didn't think it was necessary to post before, because there were also
>several articles mentioning what I thought was an obviously superior name:
>rec.arts.movies.serious.  The reason I think it's superior is not that
>.movies.serious is better than .cinema, but that I think this *clearly*
>belongs as a subgroup of rec.arts.movies.  Anything else would be massively
>confusing to anyone coming onto the net after the group is created.

Well, then, how about

    rec.arts.movies.pretentious
    rec.arts.movies.funny
    rec.arts.movies.scary
    rec.arts.movies.scenery
    rec.arts.movies.spielberg
    rec.arts.movies.unreleased
    rec.arts.movies.genres
    rec.arts.movies.fonda
    rec.arts.movies.mpaa.numbers.evenly.divisible.by.powers.of.ten
    rec.arts.movies.drugs
    rec.arts.movies.corporate.commercials
    rec.arts.movies.cult-bait
    rec.arts.movies.misinterpretation
    rec.arts.movies.recut
    rec.arts.movies.mob.backing
    rec.arts.movies.computers
    rec.arts.movies.I.saw.recently

and

    rec.arts.movies.moderated

				--Blair
				  "CALL for VOTES:  cahiers.cinema"