rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (11/20/89)
In article <17100@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Steve Kanefsky) writes: >This is a formal call for discussion on the formation of a new newsgroup >to be called rec.video.software (the name is also up for discussion, for >those who may be opposed to the use of "software" in this context). > >This unmoderated group would be for the discussion of video software in any >currently available format, including VHS, S-VHS, Beta, ED-Beta, 8mm, and >Laserdisc, as well as past and future video formats. I support this proposal. Discussions of particular video releases occupy a middle ground between rec.video and rec.arts.movies. They often wind up cross-posted to the two groups, which seems like the worst solution. There really are three distinct subjects: movies as art (or entertainment); pre-recorded videos as commodities; and video equipment. It makes a great deal of sense to me to deal with these three subjects on three different newsgroups. I would say, though, that the charter should explicitly exclude discussions about the artistic and/or entertainment merits of a movie or video. These belong on r.a.m. The last thing we need is more casual reviews of movies. I could, however, see discussions about issues like wide-screen, computer coloring, the "bonus" material that often turns up on premium laser disc releases, etc. Just no movie reviews or actor gossip; and no equipment reviews or camcorder comparisons... Laser discs, especially, are generally purchased (rather than rented); they're not cheap (the interesting ones); and they're of mixed quality. While tapes are more often rented, the same issues still apply for those who like to buy them. A forum for discussion of these things would be very helpful. I'm not crazy about the name, but it is self-explanatory and I can't come up with anything better. I would support the proposal under this name.
kanefsky@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Steve Kanefsky) (11/21/89)
In article <48512@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: >In article <17100@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Steve Kanefsky) writes: >>This is a formal call for discussion on the formation of a new newsgroup >>to be called rec.video.software (the name is also up for discussion, for >>those who may be opposed to the use of "software" in this context). >> >>This unmoderated group would be for the discussion of video software in any >>currently available format, including VHS, S-VHS, Beta, ED-Beta, 8mm, and >>Laserdisc, as well as past and future video formats. > > > I would say, though, >that the charter should explicitly exclude discussions about the >artistic and/or entertainment merits of a movie or video. These belong >on r.a.m. Yes, I failed to state explicitly that I believe that rec.video.software should be devoid of any discussion which doesn't pertain directly to the video transfer. Here's one thing I haven't worked out yet, though: Should spoilers be ok with no warning in this group, should there be a complete ban on spoilers, or should the same rules apply as in Rec.arts.movies? I would much rather have either free-for-all spoilers or no spoilers at all. I don't think putting "(spoilers)" in the subject line would be feasable in this group. >I'm not crazy about the name, but it is self-explanatory and I can't >come up with anything better. I would support the proposal under this >name. Bob Niland suggested Rec.video.titles, but I still favor Rec.video.software at this point. -- Steve Kanefsky kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (11/22/89)
In article <17200@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Steve Kanefsky) writes: >Here's one thing I haven't worked out yet, though: Should spoilers be >ok with no warning in this group, should there be a complete ban on >spoilers, or should the same rules apply as in Rec.arts.movies? If a transfer screwup happens to take place during a spoiler scene, we need to know. I agree that spoiler warnings are tedious in this situation, so I'd say we should simply ignore the whole "spoiler" issue altogether. People can just skip over articles about movies they haven't seen (which might suggest that the subject line should always contain the title of the video in question). >Bob Niland suggested Rec.video.titles, but I still favor Rec.video.software >at this point. Given this choice, I'd go with "software". The naming issue doesn't seem to be all that serious in this case -- no hierarchy confusions or bizarre acronyms to deal with. Let's just stick with "rec.video.software".
scott@shuksan.UUCP (Scott Moody) (11/22/89)
I don't think this group gets enough volume to create any new groups. Look at rec.bicycles (which does get a lot of volumn) and they don't want to split either. The 'n' key works great. -- --Scott Moody UUCP: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!shuksan!scott)
danno@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Secret Squirrel) (11/22/89)
In article <17100@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Steve Kanefsky) writes: >This is a formal call for discussion on the formation of a new newsgroup >to be called rec.video.software (the name is also up for discussion, for >those who may be opposed to the use of "software" in this context). > >This unmoderated group would be for the discussion of video software in any >currently available format, including VHS, S-VHS, Beta, ED-Beta, 8mm, and >Laserdisc, as well as past and future video formats. I support this, if the people in rec.movies feel that "movies on tape" do not belong to their group. I would vote for this group. (As for the name, it's better than a few of the others, although I might prefer something else if it were better.) Ciao, Danno -- ________ --------<--<-@ --------<--<-@ --------<--<-@ ________ \ <O \ Daniel McKinnon '91 danno@dartmouth.edu / <- O> / | } ( | It's always darkest before it turns pitch black. | ) { | / <O -> / "If any of my opinions are caught or killed..." \ O> \
oc@vmp.UUCP (Orlan Cannon) (11/23/89)
In article <7970038@hpfcso.HP.COM> rjn@hpfcso.HP.COM (Bob Niland) writes: >re: "...call for the discussion of a new newsgroup called rec.video.software" >re: "rec.video.software" > >...I suggest we >avoid the suffixes: "software" and "programming". > >May I once again suggest: rec.video.titles Throughout the video industry, which extends to those misty shores known as the video rental and purchase customer, the stuff that is stored on videotape is called "software." This may indeed be confusing to a computer programmer. But it should be very familiar to anyone who regularly reads a group called "rec.video.*". Discussing pre-recorded video software is what I do all day. I welcome a group that would help me cut through the hardware information (which is of very little interest to me) in rec.video. -- --Orlan Cannon ...!uunet!vmp!oc Video Marketing & Publications, Inc. vmp!oc@uunet.uu.net Hoboken, NJ 07030 (800) 627-4551
kanefsky@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Steve Kanefsky) (11/24/89)
In article <1632@shuksan.UUCP> scott@shuksan.UUCP (Scott Moody) writes: > >I don't think this group gets enough volume to >create any new groups. Look at rec.bicycles (which does >get a lot of volumn) and they don't want to split either. A group does *not* have to be overflowing to create another group. I, like many people in rec.video, want to read everything in *both* groups. As a reader of rec.bicycles, I could understand why they didn't want to split, because each group had a lot to offer to the other group. In this case, the hardware/software distinction is broad enough that it is very unlikely that either group would lose any expertise to the other group. It should be clear that discussion of movies, etc. on video tape or disc is a vastly different subject than discussion of how to hook up a TV antenna or a VCR or what camcorder to buy. There should be a software group just because the subject is so clearly defined and separate from the hardware subject. Don't think of this as a group splitting off from another group, think of it as a new group to cover a very clearly defined subject which is growing in popularity. Those of us interested in the group expect a large increase in volume when/if the new group is created because interested people from other groups will join in and because those of us who want rec.video to remain a forum for the discussion of hardware don't want to post software stuff until there is an appropriate place to do it. I, for one, am willing to post monthly reports of upcoming releases on laserdisc, and reviews of all the laserdiscs I purchase, but I won't do it in rec.video because I am equally devoted to video hardware and the range between "when is Roger Rabbit coming out?" and "how do I hook up my TV antenna" is just too large for one group. If you like using your 'n' key so much, why don't we combine the motorcycle and bicycle newsgroups, and you can use your 'n' key all you like. It has nothing to do with large volume, as long as each group has enough volume to justify it as a separate group. It has to do with the logical distinction between topics. That's why you don't see a lot of groups with huge volume splitting; there just isn't a clear enough division in the subject to prevent a lot of cross-posting or expert-stealing. I promise that rec.video.software will have more than enough volume to justify its existence, and that the distinction between hardware and software is more than broad enough to prevent cross-posting and expert-stealing. -- Steve Kanefsky kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu
kanefsky@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Steve Kanefsky) (11/24/89)
In article <1632@shuksan.UUCP> scott@shuksan.UUCP (Scott Moody) writes: > >I don't think this group gets enough volume to >create any new groups. Look at rec.bicycles (which does >get a lot of volumn) and they don't want to split either. > >The 'n' key works great. I already replied to this artice, but one thing I forgot to mention, which clearly distinguishes this case from a case like rec.bicycles, is that the video software discussion is presently taking place in at least two newsgroups, and maybe more. Do you agree that as long as none of these newsgroups has excessive volume that these people should not be able to form a separate newsgroup where all of the discussion can take place? Even if you do, rec.arts.movies certainly qualifies as having excessive volume, and would benefit just as greatly as rec.video if the articles discussing video software could be moved into a new newsgroup. Your fundamental misunderstanding is that somehow all of this video software discussion is neatly packaged into rec.video, and everyone who should be contributing is already reading rec.video, when in fact the discussion is scattered all over the place. -- Steve Kanefsky kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu
oc@vmp.UUCP (Orlan Cannon) (11/26/89)
I am posting this for Mathew, who cannot post to the net. In article <2717@vmp.UUCP> you write: >In article <7970038@hpfcso.HP.COM> rjn@hpfcso.HP.COM (Bob Niland) writes: >>re: "...call for the discussion of a new newsgroup called rec.video.software" >>re: "rec.video.software" >> >>...I suggest we >>avoid the suffixes: "software" and "programming". >> >>May I once again suggest: rec.video.titles > >Throughout the video industry, which extends to those misty shores >known as the video rental and purchase customer, the stuff that is >stored on videotape is called "software." This may indeed be confusing >to a computer programmer. But it should be very familiar to anyone >who regularly reads a group called "rec.video.*". Throughout the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, perhaps. In this country I have NEVER heard anyone describe the contents of a video cassette as "software", and I have never seen it described in such a way in any catalogue or published promotional material. My father and uncle both work in the UK film industry, so I'm talking about press releases and the like, not just magazines from the local newsagent. I will vote in favour of rec.video.titles or rec.video.releases. I will most definitely vote AGAINST rec.video.software if it is proposed. Usenet is no longer the exclusive province of the United States; you may be quite happy to butcher the English language, but don't try to foist your ill-chosen trendy jargon on us. Sorry if this seems a little irate; it's not really a personal attack - I can't post to the net, unfortunately, so I'm hoping someone else will make the point for me. Permission is given to quote any of this if you feel like it. mathew. -- mathew. Undergraduate, Computer Lab, Cambridge University, United Kingdom. JANET: smm12@uk.ac.cam.cl EAN: smm12%cam.cl@ean-relay.ac.uk Earn/Bitnet: smm12@cl.cam.ac.uk UUCP/Usenet: mcvax!ukc!cam.cl!smm12 Internet/Arpanet: smm12%cl.cam@ac.uk or smm12%cl.cam@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
oc@vmp.UUCP (Orlan Cannon) (11/26/89)
In article <2718@vmp.UUCP>, mathew writes: | In article <2717@vmp.UUCP> you write: | >In article <7970038@hpfcso.HP.COM> rjn@hpfcso.HP.COM (Bob Niland) writes: | >>re: "...call for the discussion of a new newsgroup called rec.video.software" | >... the stuff that is | >stored on videotape is called "software." | | Throughout the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, perhaps. In this country I have NEVER | heard anyone describe the contents of a video cassette as "software" | | I will vote in favour of rec.video.titles or rec.video.releases. I will most | definitely vote AGAINST rec.video.software if it is proposed. Usenet is no | longer the exclusive province of the United States; you may be quite happy | to butcher the English language, but don't try to foist your ill-chosen trendy | jargon on us. Mathew is quite correct that I am unfamiliar with British usage. The largest video industry group in the U.S. is called the "Video Software Dealers Association." Are there equivalents in other countries? -- --Orlan Cannon ...!uunet!vmp!oc Video Marketing & Publications, Inc. vmp!oc@uunet.uu.net Hoboken, NJ 07030 (800) 627-4551
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (11/26/89)
In <1632@shuksan.UUCP> scott@shuksan.UUCP (Scott Moody) writes:
Scott> The 'n' key works great.
Statements like this are made far too frequently to cover anything
from high traffic in a group to posting test messages to non-test
groups. It is not a valid argument for people who don't want to see
the articles to begin with. There might be _other_ valid arguments,
but this one simply doesn't cut it.
Perhaps we should merge comp.all into just one group, "comp". After
all, if you don't want to read the articles about everyone else's
system or language, your 'n' key works, right?
Dave
By the way, I don't like the "software" part of the name, either.
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))