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