tugs (07/15/82)
My 'n' key isn't broken, and I think additional or sub-newsgroups are
a much-needed change to net.movies. Bruce McLean wan't exaggerating when he
referred to having to wade through a hundred ST II letters, half of which
seemed to be from people who didn't know why a female lieutenant would
be called "Mister". Doesn't this kind of - dare I say it - trekkiness
deserve a separate group? ET, Star Trek, Blade Runner and Tron were NOT
the only movies released this summer, but they do have several things
in common: they are all SF films (please, no mindless flames about the
accuracy of my classification) and they all generated copious amounts
of correspondance which, in my opinion, ceased to be concerned with
the cinematic aspects (I hope that doesn't sound too ivory tower: I'm
referring to general movie talk, like reviews, warnings and those
questions that keep you awake at night) of the films and began to
show a fixation that suggested the films had ceased to be entertainment
and were now a way of life...
(Isn't this guy finished yet?)
So what I'm really trying to say (at last) is that the idea of a
net.movies.followup, or of specific film subgroups (net.movies.STIITWOK)
would be marvellous. Par ticularly as it woudn't entail segregating any
group of films (hey, I liked Blade Runner and the others too...), but would
provide a means of channelling off the talk when it developed (degraded?)
to the point where it was intended for people with a special interest in or
affinity for certain films.
'Nuff said.
Steve Hull
decvax!hcr!tugsotto (07/17/82)
I think the problem of "fads" in newsgroup discussions is one that will be ever with us. Trying to resolve the problem by moving them into their own newsgroup is not going to solve the problem, and only makes sense if the discussion being moved is a long term one. Discussions of STII, ET, or Blade Runner are not long term; they will die out after everyone has had their say (although this may take a month or so). If a lot of people want to talk for a time about the latest movie, that seems like a good use of this newsgroup. Clearly the films this summer have excited a lot of comment, but that will pass and we will get back to more traditional matters of discussion. George Otto Bell Labs, Indian Hill ----------------------
felix (07/21/82)
It is too much for the net to cost money to move articles asking why a female being called 'Mister' and silly questions of the same sort. Reading >10 artcles asking the same thing over and over again is *way* too much. Felix Luk
djh (07/27/82)
My opinion on the proliferation of newsgroups is,
djh (07/27/82)
Is there a place in a literary discussion about why the first line is,
"In The Begining" rather than, " At the start", even though the author's
name is missing from the comment?
Intelligent discusion is my concept of enlightened social developement,
although I am clearly ignorant by some standards.
Newsgroups are directories, as such they are much messier than articles.
Since our system is already overloaded in the area we would have to put
the new directories, I would like to see them stored as compactly as
posible.
I prefer not to read articles in net.movies which have 'no' relevance
to celluloid storage, but I draw the line at defining what aspects of
a movie may be discussed in 'our' newsgroup. I hope to occasionally see
a Marx Brothers' one-liner 'explained' in these revered 'pages'.
>From the other side, the STII response was excessive, even for the film
that set the box record for an opening. Popularity is no excuse.
Dan