Xref: utzoo news.groups:16278 rec.arts.movies:28276
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!amdahl!key!jsp
From: jsp@key.COM (James Preston)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: REC.ARTS.CINEMA -- drawing the discussion to a close?
Message-ID: <1364@key.COM>
Date: 10 Jan 90 17:15:16 GMT
References: <50608@bbn.COM> <1990Jan9.175821.19661@athena.mit.edu>
Reply-To: jsp@penguin.key.COM (James Preston)
Organization: Key Computer Laboratories, Fremont
Lines: 19

In article <1990Jan9.175821.19661@athena.mit.edu> oliver@athena.mit.edu (James D. Oliver III) writes:
}In article <50608@bbn.COM>, rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) writes:
}
}> 1. What's the name? REC.ARTS.CINEMA.
}
}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)?
}
}Sorry to suggest this so late, but it just now occured to me.

I like that.  But on the same note as that last line, how about:
rec.arts.movies.cinema?
Yes, it's redundant, but doesn't it have the potential to please both camps?
It keeps the "highbrow" name cinema while also putting the group under the
rec.arts.movies hierarchy.  (Well, I thought it was worth a shot...)

--James Preston