Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!mit-eddie!mp From: mp@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mark Plotnick) Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: Re: Wargames Review Observation Message-ID: <423@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Sun, 10-Jul-83 15:46:18 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.423 Posted: Sun Jul 10 15:46:18 1983 Date-Received: Mon, 11-Jul-83 01:29:26 EDT References: cbosgd.68 <1926@watarts.UUCP> Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 26 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