|
Another fine message from the rec.arts.movies.erotica reading room...
[Prev][Next][Subject][Thread] Re: RFD: rec.arts.movies.erotica moderated
Christopher B. Stone ([email protected]) wrote: : But if some city wants to pass a law keeping all the sex shops in one : neighborhood, that's their right. Likewise, if some internet service : provider wants to offer a "family friendly" newsfeed, that's her right as : well -- we should not be deliberately trying to name newsgroups so as to : sabotage such setups. I don't think anyone is proposing the name r.a.m.e in order to do so. However, as the r.a.m.* branch begins to differentiate, we will see a host of groups develop whose sole purpose is to discuss specific genres of movies: westerns, sci fi, romance, comedies, NC-17 films. Regardless of your own personal views on erotic films, by arguing that the r.a.m.* branch should remain "user friendly" essentially denies some groups (including r.a.m.e proponents) a forum for their discussion of certain films. I would also suggest that your "zoning" analogy is a poor one. Zoning is done to protect property values, protect children from "undesirables" who may visit an establishment, to create critical masses of of industry or shopping, etc. Despite your assertion that you have a liberal attitude to erotic films, by arguing a zoning anology you are arguing that "those films are dirty and I don't want them in MY back yard!" : It is exceedingly irresponsible to argue one *must* have : the name "foo.bat.bar" rather than "for.bar.bat," because the latter is : much more likely to be dropped. News.groups is supposed to help ISP's : configure their newsfeeds, not subvert them. The RFD was never submitted with the intention of (in essence) increasing a.s.m.'s propagation. NEVER. I was in on this from the beginning, and that issue NEVER arose. A.s.m.'s falling propagation was discussed at length, and creation of r.a.m.e was seen as a way of protecting what little propagation remained. But "piggybacking" on the "good name" of r.a.m.* was never an object. : Comp.*, if I am correct, is the best distributed hierarchy in the Big 8. : Does it follow that we should put every single newsgroup in comp.* : because "to bunch them together in rec.* or soc.* makes them a nice : little ghetto just waiting to be dropped from newsfeeds"? And clumping the r.a.m.* branch under comp.* makes sense ONLY if a person's goal is solely to increase propagation. OUR goal is to discuss MOVIES. Thus, the name. : I should also mention that as things stand, there are far too many : newsgroups in rec.arts.movies.*. People are confused about where to : post, even with seemingly obvious names like : rec.arts.movies.current-films. The groups are a mess and the addition of : *any* other movie group is bound to add to that mess. The way things are : going, I wouldn't be surprised to see discussions of _Babe_ wind up being : crossposted to the adult movies group. :) The r.a.m.* branch is undergoing terrific expansion, and this is why you see the confusion you do. The confusion exists PRECISELY because there is no specialization among the groups, PRECISELY because no "genre" groups like r.a.m.western or r.a.m.children's-movies or r.a.m.erotic exist. R.a.m.e would help CURE the mess, not create more. See ya... Tim -- References:
|