Xref: utzoo news.groups:16251 rec.arts.movies:28236
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!oliver
From: oliver@athena.mit.edu (James D. Oliver III)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: REC.ARTS.CINEMA -- drawing the discussion to a close?
Message-ID: <1990Jan9.175821.19661@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 9 Jan 90 17:58:21 GMT
References: <50608@bbn.COM>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Reply-To: oliver@athena.mit.edu (James D. Oliver III)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 25

In article <50608@bbn.COM>, rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) writes:

> 1. What's the name? REC.ARTS.CINEMA. I feel slightly guilty about not
> putting this group under r.a.m, but considering that r.a.m is not in
> fact as general as its name suggest, and considering the support for
> r.a.c, I think I'll have to go with the latter. Not a perfect
> solution, but the best one given the circumstances.

The name has always bothered me, but I hadn't said anything before
because I couldn't come up with anything better until now.

How about rec.arts.movies.m (for moderated)?

It's a very clean name, and keeps the name syntax consistent (also,
r.a.m.m would be listed alphabetically next to r.a.m in all lists). This
would be parallel to the "*.d" groups presently in existence.  In a
strict sense, it's not an exclusive designation, since
rec.arts.movies.reviews is moderated, but incorporating the moderation
into the name implicitly imparts the more serious nature of the discussions.

Sorry to suggest this so late, but it just now occured to me.
____________________________
	Jim Oliver   
	oliver@athena.mit.edu
	oliver%mitwccf.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU