rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/09/90)
It feels like it's about time to call a vote for REC.ARTS.CINEMA.
Before doing so, let me state explicitly the apparent resolutions of
the various arguments that have arisen (based on what I perceive to be
the majority opinion). If any of these points disturb you enough that
you will vote 'no' as a result, please speak up now. If you support
the group as described here, you don't have to say anything further.
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.
2. Should the group be moderated or not? Moderated, definitely. I
haven't heard any good arguments against.
3. Should the moderator reject articles on the basis of "poor
writing"? No, this is not sufficient cause for rejection, in general.
Only in extreme cases should an article be returned for this reason.
4. Can we discuss (seriously, of course) tv & video? I'm unclear on
the consensus here -- my impression is that video is ok, tv movies are
ok, but regular tv programs are not ok except insofar as the
discussion is in relation to cinema. Other "serious" tv talk can
happen in r.a.tv.
So, given all that, here's the charter. For the most part, it's
Manavendra's revised version, with one major change (point 3, above).
REC.ARTS.CINEMA
This is a moderated group intended for serious articles addressing any
and all aspects of cinema. Topics appropriate for discussion include
(BUT ARE BY NO MEANS LIMITED TO) the following:
-- cinematic techniques
-- comparative analysis between cinema and other mediums of artistic
expression
-- film history
-- cinema as an entertainment medium
-- cinema as popular culture
-- interpretation or analysis of a particular film or set of films
-- financial, social, or legal issues that affect filmmaking (and vice versa)
-- the quality and/or success of film festivals and other film-related
events
-- and any other topic related to film that people want to discuss in
a serious way.
-- [do we need to say something about 'video' here?]
The following criteria shall be among those used by the moderator to
decide whether an article is acceptable or not:
-- Is the article making a sincere argument? A more precise
way to phrase this might be: does the author truly
expect the readers to believe the points being made? Or
a third way: is the article intellectually honest?
-- Are the points being made in the article cogent and
consistent? Have any important facts or data relevant to
the issues being discussed been left out? Are there any
gaping holes in the fundamental assumptions or the logic
being professed?
-- Is the article likely to be correctly understood?
If the moderator determines that an article is likely to be
misunderstood, it will be returned to the author for
clarification. The moderator will not alter an
article in any way without permission from the author. The
moderator will not reject an article solely on the basis of
minor spelling or grammatical errors.
Items that are specifically excluded from rec.arts.cinema:
-- Any kind of trivia questions/answers/games: use r.a.m instead
-- Simple lists (eg, movies made by director X): use r.a.m instead
-- Simple factual queries (eg "Who starred in x"): use r.a.m instead
-- Movie reviews (as opposed to analysis): use r.a.m.reviews instead
-- Queries/Reports of video availability: use r.v.software if it passes
-- Flames: If you are genuinely outraged by an article, count to 10,
collect your thoughts, and write another article in response.
Otherwise, the moderator will feel free to hose you to help you
cool off.
Moderator: Manavendra Thakuroliver@athena.mit.edu (James D. Oliver III) (01/10/90)
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
odin@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Robert Mollitor) (01/10/90)
sorry for the late suggestion: rec.arts.movies.analysis (moderated) --robt -- i am robert mollitor my user account is odin@media-lab.media.mit.edu
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/11/90)
In article <1990Jan9.175821.19661@athena.mit.edu> oliver@athena.mit.edu (James D. Oliver III) writes: >How about rec.arts.movies.m (for moderated)? How about New.Coke? Yes, it maintains the naming convention in a picayune sense, but all the flavor is gone, and noone will want it by the end of the year. --Blair "Moderate that."
jsp@key.COM (James Preston) (01/11/90)
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
garrett@vlss.amdahl.com (Garrett Lau) (01/11/90)
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. I haven't been following this thread much, since I'm not really interested in subscribing to this new group (although I do think it's a good idea). However, I must voice my objection to the name. I thought "film" was a better term than "cinema," but in either case, it belongs under r.a.m. Also, we already have a "r.a.c", namely, rec.arts.comics. Garrett Lau garrett@vlss.amdahl.com
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/11/90)
In article <113@dorit.vlss.amdahl.com> garrett@vlss.amdahl.com (Garrett Lau) writes: >a good idea). However, I must voice my objection to the name. I >thought "film" was a better term than "cinema," but in either case, it >belongs under r.a.m. "Cinema" seemed to be preferred to "film". It's a more inclusive word as well (since it refers as much to the institution of movie making as to its products). I've been thinking about the hierarchy question. My feeling now is that it does NOT belong under rec.arts.movies. Regardless of its name, r.a.m has a very specific approach to the subject which is not in any sense a super-set of rec.arts.cinema. The two are parallel, not hierarchical. The right solution would be to go with rec.arts.cinema as is and rename r.a.m to rec.entertainment.movies or something similar. Or maybe we need a "rec.movies" hierarchy with two (parallel) subgroups (one for the existing r.a.m, a second for the proposed r.a.cinema). In any case, the problem is that the existing r.a.m group DOES NOT define the base of a meaningful hierarchy, despite the fact that its name suggests otherwise. I don't see how it can be in the interests of a cleaned-up hierarchy to perpetuate that mistake. Rec.Arts.Cinema is very clean from the hierarchy perspective; it's r.a.m which is the odd man out here. No, from every point of view rec.arts.cinema is the best of the suggested names. It's a reasonable length; its meaning will be clear to interested people; and it suggests the correct relationship to other related groups, r.a.m in particular (siblings rather than parent & child). What more could one want in a group name? > Also, we already have a "r.a.c", namely, >rec.arts.comics. Well, that's ok. We have two r.m.g groups, too. I doubt there will be any confusion between the two in this case.
msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) (01/11/90)
> How about rec.arts.movies.m (for moderated)?
I'd go for it.
But then, I'd go for ANY semi-reasonable rec.arts.movies.something name
in preference to the (my opinion) stupid misnaming as rec.arts.cinema.
In the spirit of the comp.society.women compromise -- how about
rec.arts.movies.cinema?
I still want the opportunity to vote separately on the name, because I'm
intending to vote for the group in any case.
--
Mark Brader "Without nuclear weapons we will be nothing
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto more than a rich, powerful Canada...."
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- A Walk in the Woods, by Lee Blessing
This article is in the public domain.rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/11/90)
In article <50608@bbn.COM> rshapiro@bbn.com writes: >2. Should the group be moderated or not? Moderated, definitely. I >haven't heard any good arguments against. Richard, you have heard plenty of good arguments against moderating this or any other rec.* group including several from me. You came into this discussion determined to have a moderated group and you have dismissed or ignored anyone who questioned or protested your decision. Now that's certainly your right but you are wrong when you say that no one has presented good, solid reasons as to why this newsgroup should not be moderated. Certainly from my point of view you have yet to demonstrate why it -should- be moderated -- all of your rea- sons are based entirely on conjecture.
jo@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Jo Ellen McCoy) (01/11/90)
> How about rec.arts.movies.m (for moderated)?
I'd second that vote.
-jorshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/11/90)
In article <10938@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >Richard, you have heard plenty of good arguments against moderating >this or any other rec.* group including several from me. You came >into this discussion determined to have a moderated group and you >have dismissed or ignored anyone who questioned or protested your >decision. What I heard from Trish were a few vague and amorphous arguments against *any* "non-technical" moderated groups. I asked her explicitly to present her arguments on news.groups but she declined to do so. Furthermore, I've already addressed the (non) argument which says "all moderated groups are Evil unless the group is technical", both on news.groups and in email to Trish. There was no response on either forum (except the empty, accusatory one above). I came into this discussion hoping to form a new group. The arguments for moderation have been much more substantial than the arguments against. It's all on the record, Trish. Have a look. rs
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/11/90)
In article <1990Jan11.033402.23405@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >But then, I'd go for ANY semi-reasonable rec.arts.movies.something name >in preference to the (my opinion) stupid misnaming as rec.arts.cinema. Why is r.a.cinema a "stupid misnaming"? In what sense does this proposed group seem to you to be a subgroup of r.a.m? Not the theoretical group which r.a.m should be, but the real, working r.a.m. I don't think it is a subgroup, and therefore I don't think it should be named as one. Like it or not, r.a.m should really be named something like rec.entertainment.movies, shouldn't it? Doesn't that better capture the flavor of the group? And if it was named that way, would rec.arts.cinema be a bad name? That's the question you need to address. In a sense, the whole raison d'etre of this group is that r.a.m is not living up to its name. These are two parallel groups, one of which covers the subject as popular entertainment ("the movies"), the other of which covers it as an academic study topic ("cinema"). They should be named in a way which shows this. The right solution is something like the one above (r.e.m and r.a.c), but barring a rename, the best we can do is r.a.m and r.a.c (and it's really pretty close to the ideal). The r.a.m.* names just make the confusion worse than it already is, and perpetuate the original error -- putting a "movies/entertainment" group under rec.arts. I'd like to hear the opinions of the Net Godz on this (if they're following this thread). From my (user) perspective, it looks to me as if the overall naming hierarchy is *better* served by rec.arts.cinema. Have I missed something? What's wrong with my reasoning? >I still want the opportunity to vote separately on the name, because I'm >intending to vote for the group in any case. The vote...As explained before, because of job change, I won't be able to hold the vote myself. I have a volunteer to do it for me (I think -- jbl, are you still willing?), and it will have to be his choice whether or not to conduct the vote the way you suggest. I'm not opposed to it. I think r.a.cinema is a better name in every way, but I'll support the group under a r.a.m.* name as well.
dougm@unix386.Convergent.COM (The Manic Tinker) (01/12/90)
In article <10938@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > Certainly from my point of view you have > yet to demonstrate why it -should- be moderated -- all of your rea- > sons are based entirely on conjecture. How can an argument on a *potential* new group be based on anything *other* than conjecture? I am not being flip here; I don't see how it's possible. Personally I think: 1) rec.arts.cinema is the best name I've heard so far 2) it should not be a subgroup of r.a.m 3) The charter looks fine -- Doug Moran | I have often felt like a resident of Pompeii pyramid!ctnews!unix386!dougm | who has been asked for some humorous comments dougm@unix386.Convergent.com | on lava.
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/12/90)
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'"
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/12/90)
In article <50754@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: >What I heard from Trish were a few vague and amorphous arguments >against *any* "non-technical" moderated groups. Richard, I never make vague or amorphous statements or arguments about anything or anyone -- I'm one of the most outspoken persons on this network. Thank you however, for so nicely demonstrating my point that you have completely dismissed or ignored anyone who questioned or protested your decision. I asked her explicitly >to present her arguments on news.groups but she declined to do so. I had personal reasons for that -- but there were other netters who posted here questioning the wisdom of making this a moderated group. What kind of snappy dismissal do you have for them, hmmm? Everything you have written about the subject of moderation turns on speculation. You're convinced that for some strange bizarre reason the great unwashed masses of rec.arts.movies will flood the proposed newsgroup with god only knows what sorts of trash. Now I can understand your feeling resentment towards what you call "r.a.m chat." Certainly I got so fed-up with it that I quit reading and posting there myself last May. But that's no reason to moderate this new group. You will recall that one of so-called "vague" suggestions I gave you was to make sure an article detailing the differences between the various movie groups was posted to the proposed group on a monthly basis (as is done in several other newsgroups). Certain- ly that would go a long way towards eliminating inappropriate postings. You will also recall my other "amorphous" suggestion -- that another newsgroup called r.a.m.lists be set up so that those persons who do wish to take polls and discuss the best car crash ever would be able to do so in that newsgroup.
moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) (01/13/90)
In article <10938@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >Richard, you have heard plenty of good arguments against moderating >this or any other rec.* group including several from me. You came >into this discussion determined to have a moderated group and you >have dismissed or ignored anyone who questioned or protested your >decision. I don't know about Richard; speaking for myself, I came into this discussion with a general bias for a moderated group, but read the discussion articles to see if there were any swaying arguments against moderation, or good ideas for the new newsgroup's charter. Of the latter there were several nuggets; but I read nothing that convinced me that an unmoderated rec.arts.cinema (or whatever we call it) would be any different than rec.arts.movies. Obviously, you feel differently -- to be expected after discussion, debate, and the usual subjective reactions of individuals. Thus, we go ahead and proceed to the next step of the process: a) We go vote on the proposed charter, and b) we bitch about the outcome afterwards, bitterly. And so... Hans, release the dancing girls! [P.S. As to the name, I like rec.arts.movies.cinema better, but it's about 32776 on my list of priorities, right below writing John Sculley with customer relations suggestions.] DAVE BARRY'S 1989 IN REVIEW -- July 5th "In what some observers feel could be a tactical error, Hotel Queen Leona Helmsely arrives at her tax-evasion trial riding a broom." --- Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer INTERNET: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM Manual UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, microsoft, hplsla, uiucuxc}!fluke!moriarty CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind... <*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (01/14/90)
msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >...I'd go for ANY semi-reasonable rec.arts.movies.something name >in preference to the (my opinion) stupid misnaming as rec.arts.cinema. I disagree with you. I think that re.arts.movies.* is more of a misnaming. To me, "rec.arts.cinema" embodies the group well, because the group is for the serious discussion of the art form of cinema. I subscribe to r.a.m., and skim over it (insert plug for nn's screen- oriented selection format here). I don't know if r.a.m. has always been the sort of group that it is now, but "arts" it ain't. It's a fun group for talking about movies, with the occasional serious thread that eventually becomes a fun thread. I'll probably be more qualified to post an article to r.a.m., but I'll enjoying *reading* r.a.c. much more. And the moderation, to which I'm still hearing some ojections, will save me lots of skimming and help to preserve the intended quality of the newsgroup. To anyone who objects to moderation of a nontechnical group--why? What about r.h.f., one of the most-read groups on usenet? A very successful group; technical?... What does consensus say is "technical?" And, even with a consensual definition of the word under our belts, why limit moderation to technical groups? Is there a guideline somewhere that I don't know about? And if there is one, why? Karen -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA karen@everexn.uu.net ..{apple, well}!fico2!everexn!karen "I'm the Descartes of anxiety. I panic, therefore I am." -- Richard Lewis
msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) (01/14/90)
This is my last posting on this topic, and I'll try to keep it fairly brief. > Why is r.a.cinema a "stupid misnaming"? The words "movies" and "cinema" are synonyms in this sense, even though they have somewhat different connotations. One topic, one position in the namespace. You can't count to one? :-) > These are two parallel groups, one of which covers the subject as > popular entertainment ("the movies"), the other of which covers it as > an academic study topic ("cinema"). Exactly. Two aspects of one topic. (Hmm, well, maybe this counting business isn't as easy as it's cracked up to be. "Stupid misnaming" was an insufficiently considered opinion. Make it "a misnaming showing insufficient consideration", okay?) > In what sense does this > proposed group seem to you to be a subgroup of r.a.m? Not the > theoretical group which r.a.m should be, but the real, working r.a.m. In the following sense. Suppose someone had written an article in anticipation of the new group being created, but then the group failed its vote, or they decided not to wait. I claim that they would without hesitation choose rec.arts.movies and not rec.arts.misc as the right place to post it. If r.a.m "works" in a manner different from the way that you or I like, it may be cause for moderating it or for splitting it. But it isn't necessarily cause for refusing to create subgroups of it, especially if they are to be moderated. > ... Like it or not, r.a.m should really be named > something like rec.entertainment.movies, shouldn't it? ... Really rec.arts should be rec.arts-and-entertainment; those, while perhaps not precisely a single topic area, are too intertwined to separate. But that name is simply too long. (The original proposal was for rec.media, by the way; I was the one who suggested rec.arts as more appropriate. So you can blame me personally if you don't like it.) Could I interest you in rec.arts.movies.academic? -- Mark Brader "Sir, your composure baffles me. A single counter- SoftQuad Inc., Toronto example refutes a conjecture as ten. ... Hands up! utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com You have to surrender." -- Imre Lakatos This article is in the public domain.
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (01/15/90)
In article <1990Jan14.081527.2367@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >This is my last posting on this topic, and I'll try to keep it fairly brief. Ditto (unless another posting demands a response). Time to stop arguing and start voting. >Exactly. Two aspects of one topic. (Hmm, well, maybe this counting >business isn't as easy as it's cracked up to be. "Stupid misnaming" >was an insufficiently considered opinion. Make it "a misnaming showing >insufficient consideration", okay?) Hardly. The *initial*, poorly considered choice was to make it a subgroup of r.a.m. The parallel group idea took time and exchanges on news.groups to develop. Two aspects of one topic should mean two parallel groups, not one group with a subgroup. But short of renaming r.a.m, the best we can do is r.a.cinema (at least, the best I've heard). >If r.a.m "works" in a manner different from the way that you or I like, >it may be cause for moderating it or for splitting it. But it isn't >necessarily cause for refusing to create subgroups of it, especially if >they are to be moderated. Subgroups of r.a.m are fine -- r.a.m.reviews for instance. Or r.a.m.lists. It's just that this particular group (ie r.a.c) isn't logically a subgroup. >Could I interest you in rec.arts.movies.academic? This has the same kind of problem that "serious" had -- does it mean academic talk or academic movies? It sounds like the latter, as if we would be discussing film schools (not an unreasonable topic, just not the one this proposal is addressing).
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/16/90)
In article <50901@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: >In article <1990Jan14.081527.2367@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >>This is my last posting on this topic, and I'll try to keep it fairly brief. > >Ditto (unless another posting demands a response). Time to stop >arguing and start voting. Perhaps about the name or the need, but... We should not start any voting until it has been determined that there is insufficient support for having the group be moderated. --Blair "How do you expect us to act like adults when we're treated like children?"
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/16/90)
In article <1990Jan13.173807.9313@everexn.uucp> karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) writes: To anyone who objects to moderation of a nontechnical >group--why? Moderation means having to submit your work to another netter first in order to get his or her permission to post it. Now, this may not bother you at all, Karen, but having to ask for someone's else's per- mission before you're allowed to post bothers a lot of other people. Moderation should only be used as a last resort. Why not set this group up as unmoderated, someone can volunteer to write and post the monthly article explaining what belongs in r.a.m and what belongs in the proposed group, try it for four or five months and see how it goes? > What about r.h.f., one of the most-read groups on usenet? What about rec.music.gaffa? Is there a guideline >somewhere that I don't know about? And if there is one, why? Gene Spafford discusses them in one of his monthly articles. And in fact, if you check his most recent posting on this subject you will find he lists 91 rec.groups of which exactly six are moderated (rec. arts.movies.reviews, rec.guns, rec.humor.funny, rec.mag.fsfnet, rec. mag.otherrealms and rec.music.gaffa).
dougm@unix386.Convergent.COM (The Manic Tinker) (01/17/90)
In article <11015@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > Moderation should only be used as a last resort. Why not set this > group up as unmoderated, someone can volunteer to write and post the > monthly article explaining what belongs in r.a.m and what belongs in > the proposed group, try it for four or five months and see how it > goes? This compromise seems quite reasonable, although four or five months seems a bit long to me (I think three would be plenty). Discussion? -- Doug Moran | I have often felt like a resident of Pompeii pyramid!ctnews!unix386!dougm | who has been asked for some humorous comments dougm@unix386.Convergent.com | on lava.
xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) (01/17/90)
In article <775@unix386.Convergent.COM> dougm@unix386.Convergent.COM (The Manic Tinker) writes: >In article <11015@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >> Moderation should only be used as a last resort. Why not set this >> group up as unmoderated, someone can volunteer to write and post the >> monthly article explaining what belongs in r.a.m and what belongs in >> the proposed group, try it for four or five months and see how it >> goes? > >This compromise seems quite reasonable, although four or five months >seems a bit long to me (I think three would be plenty). Discussion? Better - set it up as moderated, run it for four or five months, and gauge both the quality of the resulting group, and the number of screaming flames posted in rec.arts.movies wrapped around postings rejected by the rec.arts.cinema moderator. If the latter is either a null set, or from the class of known uncontrolled flaming addicts whom moderation was designed to exclude, smile softly and enjoy your success and good fortune. Contrariwise, if the flambe-wrapping surrounds articles which contain cool, reasoned discussion entirely appropriate to rec.arts.cinema, entertain a motion to replace the moderator or to unmoderate the group. From the posting habits of those urging an unmoderated group, I can promise you that you will be much more happy with the group with this approach than with one leaving it open to their depradations. Ad hominem arguments are entirely appropriate when it is exactly the referenced person's track record you need to consider when trying to predict the future. So, look who's arguing for unmoderation, and remember what you thought of their postings here recently. -- Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'. xanthian@well.sf.ca.us xanthian@ads.com (Kent Paul Dolan) Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian kit at better toy stores near you. Warning - some parts proven fragile. -> METAFONT, TeX, graphics programming done on spec -- (415) 964-4486 <-
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/17/90)
In article <775@unix386.Convergent.COM> dougm@unix386.Convergent.COM (The Manic Tinker) writes: >This compromise seems quite reasonable, although four or five months >seems a bit long to me (I think three would be plenty). Discussion? Three months is fine with me. Now who wants to write the monthly posting? Richard?
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/17/90)
In article <10464@saturn.ADS.COM> xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) writes: >Better - set it up as moderated, run it for four or five months, and >gauge both the quality of the resulting group, and the number of >screaming flames posted in rec.arts.movies wrapped around postings >rejected by the rec.arts.cinema moderator. If the latter is either a >null set, or from the class of known uncontrolled flaming addicts >whom moderation was designed to exclude, smile softly and enjoy your >success and good fortune. Gee, K*nt, I can't tell you how much admire your frankness and honesty in admitting that unrestricted access to the proposed newsgroup might prove such a temptation for you. I'm quite im- pressed -- you have really come a long ways since that day last June when you posted 87 flames in the space of two eight-hour periods. Or for that matter, since that weekend a few months ago when you felt compelled to scatter those Bandwidth Wasters Hall of Shame things all over the entire network. I think you will agree, however, that it would be better if we worried about this if and when it becomes a serious problem.
xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) (01/18/90)
I said, speaking for moderation of the group, that one should check the bona fides of those speaking against moderation, to see if they were habitual flamers trying to promote one more locale for their disease to overrun. Trish replied : >Gee, K*nt, I can't tell you how much admire your frankness and >honesty in admitting that unrestricted access to the proposed >newsgroup might prove such a temptation for you. I'm quite im- >pressed -- you have really come a long ways since that day last >June when you posted 87 flames in the space of two eight-hour >periods. Or for that matter, since that weekend a few months >ago when you felt compelled to scatter those Bandwidth Wasters >Hall of Shame things all over the entire network. > >I think you will agree, however, that it would be better if we >worried about this if and when it becomes a serious problem. I rest my case. By the way, I intend neither to read nor post to the proposed group, as I am completely indifferent to film as an art form; with no TV for years, I miss the reruns, and I don't even read rec.arts.movies. Yawn at you, Trish. -- Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'. xanthian@well.sf.ca.us xanthian@ads.com (Kent Paul Dolan) Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian kit at better toy stores near you. Warning - some parts proven fragile. -> METAFONT, TeX, graphics programming done on spec -- (415) 964-4486 <-
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/18/90)
In article <1990Jan13.173807.9313@everexn.uucp> karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) writes: >group--why? What about r.h.f., one of the most-read groups on usenet? >A very successful group; It's successful because everyone's looking for a joke, and it's cheap, at 1-6 articles per day, including Brad's incessant and voluminous "this is how I want it done and tough stuff if I say it isn't" postings. Unfortunately, it isn't funny. rec.humor is funnier. --Blair "What word usually follows 'Brad', among the cognoscenti..."
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/19/90)
In article <10485@saturn.ADS.COM> xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) writes: >By the way, I intend neither to read nor post to the proposed group, Great! Then we have nothing to worry about, K*nt. But thank you for your concern and for being such a good net.citizen.
david@indetech.com (David Kuder) (01/22/90)
In article <1990Jan14.081527.2367@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes a few good reasons about why the new serious movie group should be under r.a.m. I have to agree with him. >Could I interest you in rec.arts.movies.academic? No, but how about rec.arts.movies.forum? Better than ".serious" or ".m" and avoids most less pleasant connotations. -- David A. Kuder Now what coach? 415 438-2003 david@indetech.com {uunet,sun,sharkey,pacbell}!indetech!david
xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) (01/22/90)
In article <11060@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >In article <10485@saturn.ADS.COM> xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) writes: >>By the way, I intend neither to read nor post to the proposed group, > >Great! Then we have nothing to worry about, K*nt. But thank you >for your concern and for being such a good net.citizen. What? Huh? Oh, just Trish making a fool of herself again. Yawn. -- Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'. xanthian@well.sf.ca.us xanthian@ads.com (Kent Paul Dolan) Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian kit at better toy stores near you. Warning - some parts proven fragile. -> METAFONT, TeX, graphics programming done on spec -- (415) 964-4486 <-
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/24/90)
In article <10541@saturn.ADS.COM> xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) writes: >>Great! Then we have nothing to worry about, K*nt. But thank you >>for your concern and for being such a good net.citizen. >What? Huh? Oh, just Trish making a fool of herself again. Oh, you're so right, K*nt. It was indeed foolish of me to have thought that you, of all people, were interested in being a good net.citizen. Oh, btw, contrary to what you stated here, the American Medical Association does not accept chiropractors as members nor has it ever done so. I believe you're thinking of osteopaths, dear. Of course, there is a huge difference between the two but some people still get them confused.
xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) (01/25/90)
In article <11132@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: =In article <10541@saturn.ADS.COM> xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) writes: =>>Great! Then we have nothing to worry about, K*nt. But thank you =>>for your concern and for being such a good net.citizen. =>What? Huh? Oh, just Trish making a fool of herself again. = =Oh, you're so right, K*nt. It was indeed foolish of me to have =thought that you, of all people, were interested in being a good =net.citizen. Huh? What? Oh, just Trish believing the net has such a short collective memory that she can successfully distort the meaning of a posting by omission of prior article context, selective editing, and trying to put her words in the author's mouth. You might want to revise your strategy, Trish. Some of the folks you malign by implication here can actually remember something they read as long as a _week_ ago, and they're probably not too thrilled with you assuming that they cannot. So banal. So predictible. So repetitive. So like Trish. So _boring_. Yawn. -- Again, my opinions, not the account furnishers'. xanthian@well.sf.ca.us xanthian@ads.com (Kent Paul Dolan) Kent, the (bionic) man from xanth, now available as a build-a-xanthian kit at better toy stores near you. Warning - some parts proven fragile. -> METAFONT, TeX, graphics programming done on spec -- (415) 964-4486 <-
peterson@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu (Eric J Peterson) (01/26/90)
In article <10622@saturn.ADS.COM>, xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) writes: | In article <11132@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: | =In article <10541@saturn.ADS.COM> xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) writes: | | So banal. So predictible. So repetitive. So _boring_. | | Yawn. My sentiments exactly about *both* parties involved in this thread. -- Eric Peterson <> peterson@nu.cs.fsu.edu <> uunet!nu.cs.fsu.edu!peterson Florida State Univ CS Dept Technician, Room 011 Love Bldg, Phone 904/644-2296 echo "This is not a pipe." | lpr -P laserjet2
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (02/02/90)
In article <10622@saturn.ADS.COM> xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) writes: >Huh? What? Oh, just Trish believing the net has such a short >collective memory that she can successfully distort the meaning of a K*nt, dear, it was your contention that unless r.a.c. was moderated it would full of netters flaming one another and that's just too sil- ly to even bother replying to. I merely chose to concentrate on those parts of your articles that made sense. > Some of the folks you malign by >implication here can actually remember something they read as long as >a _week_ ago, and they're probably not too thrilled with you assuming >that they cannot. Oh my goodness, really? Well, K*nt, please tell me who these peo- ple are ASAP. I would hate to malign anyone by implication (espec- ially via one of your articles) and then not even know about it. >So banal. So predictible. So repetitive. So like Trish. So _boring_. And yet so very irresistible, eh, K*nt? You've been following me around the net for years, hon, and no doubt you will continue to do so for years to come. at that point trish, laughing