Xref: utzoo news.groups:16179 rec.arts.movies:28118
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!ames!attctc!vector!egsner!ntpal!amy
From: amy@ntpal.UUCP (Dana Amy)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: renewed Call for Discussion: rec.arts.cinema
Summary: I'm for rec.arts.cinema
Keywords: cinema, serious
Message-ID: <454@ntpal.UUCP>
Date: 5 Jan 90 20:21:10 GMT
References: <50326@bbn.COM> <1990Jan5.062111.29517@sq.sq.com>
Reply-To: amy@ntpal.UUCP (Dana Amy)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Northern Telecom, Richardson, TX
Lines: 51

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.
 
I disagree.  Our machine has been connected to the net for all of two
weeks now, and I wouldn't find the existance of both rec.arts.movies and 
rec.arts.cinema confusing (nor do I think I would have if I had not 
been following this discussion).

On the contrary, rec.arts.movies.serious is more confusing to me because
of the ambiguity of the word "serious" - serious movies or serious
discussion?  A group about the discussion of cinema as an art form would
not be the first thing that came to mind.  The word "cinema" is too
good to pass up.

Further, I do not see the proposed cinema group as a subgroup of 
rec.arts.movies.  It seems to me that rec.arts.movies is more a forum
for movie trivia, and opinion polls of what's good to see/what isn't
types of postings.  This is NOT a "parent" of serious discussion on
cinema and the role(s) cinema plays in our society.  They are two
different sibling-type concepts to me.

> [argument for rec.arts.movies.serious followed]                   
 
>Frankly, I'd prefer to see rec.arts.movies converted to being moderated,
>or to see the the low-value postings split out to rec.arts.movies.trivia
>and the current-movie arguments to rec.arts.movies.current; but in practice
>people wouldn't respect that, so that's a pipe dream.  As a next best thing,
>then, let's leave the dross where it is and put the good stuff in a subgroup.

This would be o.k., but as you conclude, will not happen.  I think the
next best thing would be to create rec.arts.cinema.

> [Closing and .sig deleted]                                           

I do not feel that the names rec.arts.cinema and rec.arts.movies.serious
conflict any more than the subject matter they (would) contain conflicts.

My vote is for rec.arts.cinema; it best implies the charter of the group.

Dana Amy        (amy%ntpal@egsner.cirr.com, ntpal!amy@egsner.cirr.com)
                 I speak for my own self.