Xref: utzoo news.groups:16306 rec.arts.movies:28361
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!bu.edu!bu-cs!buengc!bph
From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: REC.ARTS.CINEMA -- drawing the discussion to a close?
Message-ID: <5242@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 11 Jan 90 21:11:34 GMT
References: <32836@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 39

In article <32836@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> jo@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Jo Ellen McCoy) writes:
>>  How about rec.arts.movies.m (for moderated)?
>
>I'd second that vote.

Kibosh.  No.  Deeez-gustaing!

The purpose of the new group is not only to elevate and
narrow the discussion from the general hubbub that one
finds in r.a.m, but also to direct it toward the artistic
topics.  Simply making it a moderated version of the
current group implies that nothing is gained but an
avoidance of anarchy.

The name rec.arts.cinema is in fact better even than
rec.arts.film.  Rec.arts.cinema can include other aspects
of the cinematic arts; we are not psychologically
constrained (and remember that psychological constraints on
usenet often turn into de facto "rules" to be used to
batter those with whom one disagrees) by the title merely
to the visual effects; yet, it still excludes the mundanity
of such things as lists, box-office accounting, litigation-
voyeurism, and fantasy casting.

The arguments of "maintaining the heirarchy" are, as well,
not to the point.  If anything, the proper heirarchy would
have to be rec.arts.cinema.movies, since the cinema includes
a number of things (e.g., cartoons, slides) that are not
themselves movies.

rec.arts.movies.m would be a techocratic but unproductive
solution.

Worrying about the fact that there's another group with
the initials "r.a.c" is outright diversionary.

				--Blair
				  "I still say it should
				   be 'cahiers.cinema'"