jcg@cbosgd.UUCP (06/27/83)
Just an observation: Lauren Weinstein is a competent professional with a concern for the image of computer professionals. Ben Walls is a kid with access to USENET via his father's terminal at home. Conclusion: I'll avoid "Wargames" thank you. Jim Grams cbosgd!jcg BTL Columbus
kline@uiucuxc.UUCP (06/30/83)
#R:cbosgd:-6800:uiucuxc:4000048:000:625 uiucuxc!kline Jun 29 23:16:00 1983 flame++; Now hang on a second! Since when does a "concern for one's image as a professional" affect how one reviews a movie? I agree with a previous article; for decades now movies have been misrepresenting policemen, firemen, airplane pilots, and lawyers. This is called "artistic license." Since when are we programmers exempt from all this? If we are all going to scream and complain about the unfairness of our misrepresentation, maybe we aren't any better than the overacted, vain, and defensive computer hackers in the movie! --flame; proud to be what I am despite misrepresentations, Charley Kline, U of I CSO.
pauls@tekecs.UUCP (07/02/83)
Apparently Jim Grams considers youth to be a demeaning stage of human development since he used it to insult Ben Walls. Please limit your criticisms to movies, not fellow-netters. Paul Sweazey Tektronix, Inc p.s. To Ben Walls: You are welcome on my net anytime.
bernie@watarts.UUCP (07/08/83)
Jim Grams' childish swipe at a net contributor is amazing. I know none of the people involved, but the fact that he immediately dismisses the opinions of a fellow netter simply because he's "a kid" is a reflection of Grams' intellectual tunnelvision.
mp@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mark Plotnick) (07/10/83)
Jim Grams' scathing observation about how one should not believe the opinions of a "kid", and the resulting repercussions, raise some questions about what kind of articles belong in net.movies (hmmm, does this belong in net.movies.d?) While probably everyone agrees that thoughtful reviews of movies and discussion of film in general is probably OK, I get very little satisfaction out of reading articles that simply say "I liked the movie. It had a good plot. I liked it better than ROTJ." When writing a movie review, one should probably provide some facts and examples to back up any opinions, if possible. Otherwise, the newsgroup traffic just degenerates into a "poll", and I don't know anybody who keeps a scorechart on their terminal as they read net.movies. A side benefit of backing up opinions with facts is that one is less likely to be the victim of ad hominem attacks. Does anyone out there actually ENJOY reading nonconstructive attacks on people's reviews? Finally, although this issue has been discussed before (in other newsgroups), please make an attempt to look up a word in a dictionary if you're not sure how it's spelled. It's kind of distracting, and hurts your credibility, if you have phrases like "with out" and "action pact" in your review. Mark
rcj@burl.UUCP (07/11/83)
~= /* flame on!! */ As for Jim Grams' immediate dismissal of a fellow netter because he was "a kid"; let's all get together and pray that Jim Grams' never has any children of his own -- for their sake. This kind of attitude breeds several things: a) children's contempt of adults b) spineless, brow-beaten adults because they were "just kids" until they turned about 23 c) bad public image of computer professionals as insensitive, anti-social flakes. The fact that the "kid" (I forget his name) is working on computers on his own time and taking the time to keep himself better-informed by reading the net, and brave enough to enter this flame-filled forum; shows that he probably has a lot more moxy and initiative than Mr. Grams' ever will possess. .= /* flame off */ I realize that this should have gone to net.flames, I hit the 'f' key too soon again and sincerely apologize to net.movies readers, -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3814 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ floyd sb1 mhuxv ]!burl!rcj