RFD: rec.arts.movies.indian
Sivakumar Ravada
>cs...@athena.mit.edu (Christine S Ng) writes:
>
>>> I don't like this suggestion at all. Why not save one step and call it
>>> rec.arts.movies.indian. I say NO to the above suggestion.
>>
>> Obviously, you guys have no real interests in finding a working solution.
>
>In order to find a solution there must first be a problem. As far as I can
>tell, the only problem with rec.arts.movies.indian is in the heads of the
>folks who seem bound and determined to oppose it.
Exactly!!! They think:
they own RAM.*
noone else (who doesnot read RAM.*) can have movies interest
RAM.* is GOD -- it will never change, it is forever!
(actually it is true for many Indians -- RAM!!! )
making a new greoup will cause EARTHQUAKES in RAM.*
It is only creating a newsgroup! It is not the days of big piles of
files in heavy wooden cabinets of yonder office days! This is
computers!! if only people were also so careful and adamant in their
coding style!!! Maintaing code would be a piece of cake!
Also, however careful you be in newsgroup heirarchy, there will be
posts sent to wrong groups, there will be people looking for a certain
group. A simple way is to do a listing of ALL groups with a certain
pattern of string. e.g. if I want to find all groups of movies, I would
type 'l movie'
So, don't worry people will not be lost in the depths of further breaks
of RAM.*
-- PD
Sivakumar Ravada
>In article <3tgvo9$k...@mack.rt66.com>,
>Lazlo Nibble <la...@mack.rt66.com> wrote:
>>cs...@athena.mit.edu (Christine S Ng) writes:
>>> Obviously, you guys have no real interests in finding a working solution.
>>In order to find a solution there must first be a problem. As far as I can
>>tell, the only problem with rec.arts.movies.indian is in the heads of the
>>folks who seem bound and determined to oppose it.
>
>couple of things here that are different.
>
>1) The proponents of ram.indian have made no effort, and have stated that
>they will make no effort, to first try to see if their posts about Indian
>movies can in fact be fit in to the existing ram.* hierarchy. The opponents
>are saying, in effect, "Before we make a fundamental change to how our
>hierarchy has been set up, can we at least try to find out if this discussion
This is not because we don't know or OUR posts will be lost in the
crowd of RAM.* It is merely being polite, not to bore a LOT of existing
netter of RAM.* with Indian movie discussions.
>does or does not fit in it". The only reasons given for not trying are that
>Indian movies are "special" in some undefined way from the rest of all
>movies in the world and that it's "inconvenient", once again somehow more
>so than any other movies in the world. If this "inconvenience" is sufficient
>for ram.indian proponents to not try posting in the current ram.* hierarchy,
>perhaps they should consider that ram.* members may consider it "inconvenient
>to change the way they've organized their hierarchy.
See Tom,
Indian movies are different in many ways.
1. they are in a different language, it is not even similar to English
2. They are invariably filled with songs -- an INTEGRAL part
3. people discuss the dialogues, songs, pesonalities of actors etc --
which unless you keep up with the movies won't understand or enjoy.
4. there are MANY movies made each year that are seen avidly, discussed
etc. by people, unlike US where an average film lasts a few weeks
In India a film would easily last months. Specially movies before
90. The songs are what VH1 is here, they get played on radio, on TV
etc.
>2) Related to the last bit there, what we've got is people coming in from
>outside the ram.* hierarchy, which has recently reorged itself using a
What do you really MEAN by outside? We have genuine interest in
'movies'. RAM.* is not YOUR personal inherited property. What if I post
mails on RAM.* for a month and then I am an insider, and then I propse
teh same thing. Will you have NO OBJECTIONS then?
>particular paradigm, demanding that the hierarchy and its organization be
>changed to accomodate them...despite their not being willing to work with
>people active in the hierarchy to try to resolve the issue. Frankly, they've
>come across as rude, arrogant, xenophobic, and completely unwilling to even
>consider compromise or other experiments. Why exactly should ram.* welcome
Now, you asked for it. From now on, every article I post on
rec.music.indian.misc about movies, I will post it on RAM.* as well in
an attempt to move the film-related discussionfrom music group to RAM.*
And then when YOU cry for a new RAMI/RAMLI, I wil continue to post on
RAM.* saying I don't differentiate base don country/language!
>them with open arms and just roll over and let their organization paradigm
>be fundamentally changed? This isn't a case of people active in the hierarchy
YOU don't have to roll over! YOU keep reading the same newsgroups. What
will YOU have to change if anther group RAMI or RAMLI is created? Do
you have write a 10,000 line assembly code to make your newsreader
super-smart to NOT read the new group? Actually, with most available
newsreaders, you have to only make an extra 2-key stroke if you WANT to
read the new group, else you can keep going o with your life as if
nothing has happened!
>promoting change; it's people coming in from outside demanding that they
Again, if you think India is outside US so, Indians are outsider, then
you really don't know what Internet is all about, do you?
If you think being an "insider" would give me extra credits, then I can
start any BS after a month's readership, can I?
>be catered to precisely as they wish, no matter how things are currently
>set up (hmm, to my surprise I realize that there haven't been many, if any,
>AOL/CIS/Prodigy addresses among the ram.indian proponents. Same sort of
>attitude's often seen there vis a vis coming onto Usenet).
Why do you think that is important? Do you want me to send you the list
of joke where AOLers are the butt of all jokes? Do you think
AOL/CIS/Prodigy are superior to EDU guys? Or do you think they are
outsider/insider as well. With your level of differentiation, YOU
should be the first one to JUM at RAMI/RAMLI.
regards,
-- Pintu Diwana
Russ Allbery
>
>Now, you asked for it. From now on, every article I post on
>rec.music.indian.misc about movies, I will post it on RAM.* as well in
>an attempt to move the film-related discussionfrom music group to RAM.*
Finally. It certainly took you long enough.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/
Claus Schotten A
This is not because we don't know or OUR posts will be lost in the
crowd of RAM.* It is merely being polite, not to bore a LOT of existing
netter of RAM.* with Indian movie discussions.
You don't need to worry about that.
What do you really MEAN by outside? We have genuine interest in
'movies'. RAM.* is not YOUR personal inherited property. What if I post
mails on RAM.* for a month and then I am an insider, and then I propse
teh same thing. Will you have NO OBJECTIONS then?
There are different groups of people with different interests in USENET.
They meet in different groups and hierarchies, which develop different
discussion cultures. You advocate your interests - that's fine, but if
you want to reorganize ram.*, you should also consider the interests of
the people, who use ram.* today, which are different from yours.
That has not happened.
I'm sure, if you had participated in ram.* and got at least a mild idea
of the discussion culture there and the interests of the people, who use
ram.*, you wouldn't have written this RFD. It is totally in acceptable
for the ram.* community, because it doesn't care about our interests.
YOU don't have to roll over! YOU keep reading the same newsgroups. What
will YOU have to change if anther group RAMI or RAMLI is created?
We would have to divide the threads by "nationality", which is totally
inappropriate for the things discussed in ram.*. Thus, the cuurent
RFD has a high potential for the complete destruction of ram.*.
Ciao, Claus scho...@ert.rwth-aachen.de
Tom Galloway
Sivakumar Ravada <rava...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>Tom Galloway writes:
>Indian movies are different in many ways.
>1. they are in a different language, it is not even similar to English
You mean like German, French, Japanese, Hong Kong, etc. movies aren't in
English?
>2. They are invariably filled with songs -- an INTEGRAL part
You mean like musicals? Darn, I could've sworn songs were an integral part
of films like Pocahontas (to name a recent example).
>3. people discuss the dialogues, songs, pesonalities of actors etc --
> which unless you keep up with the movies won't understand or enjoy.
How is this different from any other group of films I don't follow?
>4. there are MANY movies made each year that are seen avidly, discussed
> etc. by people, unlike US where an average film lasts a few weeks
> In India a film would easily last months. Specially movies before
Could've sworn there was a .past-films group in ram....
> >2) Related to the last bit there, what we've got is people coming in from
> >outside the ram.* hierarchy, which has recently reorged itself using a
>What do you really MEAN by outside? We have genuine interest in
>'movies'. RAM.* is not YOUR personal inherited property. What if I post
>mails on RAM.* for a month and then I am an insider, and then I propse
>teh same thing. Will you have NO OBJECTIONS then?
I mean the proponents have not been active in the ram.* hierarchy, according
to them even in terms of reading it. Thus they are from outside the hierarchy.
What part of that do you not understand?
And, to be blunt, I'd be a lot more willing to listen to a number of arguments
made by the proponents if they (including you) did post to ram.* for a month
or two. It'd certainly help determine if it's "impossible" or "incredibly
inconvenient" to post about Indian movies using the current structure, as
proponents keep proclaiming without any evidence.
>Now, you asked for it. From now on, every article I post on
>rec.music.indian.misc about movies, I will post it on RAM.* as well in
>an attempt to move the film-related discussionfrom music group to RAM.*
>And then when YOU cry for a new RAMI/RAMLI, I wil continue to post on
>RAM.* saying I don't differentiate base don country/language!
Gee, you've actually gotten a clue. But you should've taken two, they're
small. Myself and a number of other people have requested that proponents
try posting their articles in the ram.* hierarchy. Why you think I'd have
a problem with this baffles me.
> >promoting change; it's people coming in from outside demanding that they
>Again, if you think India is outside US so, Indians are outsider, then
>you really don't know what Internet is all about, do you?
>If you think being an "insider" would give me extra credits, then I can
>start any BS after a month's readership, can I?
Please show where I stated that because India is outside the US, it made
proponents here outsiders in the ram.* hierarchy. It has been the proponents
claiming that Indian movies (and only Indian movies) are so special that
they can't be posted about in the current ram.* hierarchy, not me.
As for "not knowing what Internet is all about", well, first off I'm aware
that we're talking about Usenet, which is not the same thing as the Internet.
I've also been on Usenet and what evolved into the Internet since 1980, have
written and taught a course about the Internet, and been paid to write magazine
articles about it.
And yes, being a contributor to a newsgroup does get you more credibility
points when you try to reorganize it. I'd expect exactly the same reaction
from you if I suddenly came into the soc.culture india (or whatever it's
called; I don't know the exact name off the top of my head) and demanded it
be reorganized so that, oh, there's an soc.culture.india.restaurants-in-usa
group.
But, of course, only posting articles you're crossposting to another group
doesn't make you a true contributor. You should be reading the group/hierarchy
as well.
> >be catered to precisely as they wish, no matter how things are currently
> >set up (hmm, to my surprise I realize that there haven't been many, if any,
> >AOL/CIS/Prodigy addresses among the ram.indian proponents. Same sort of
> >attitude's often seen there vis a vis coming onto Usenet).
>Why do you think that is important? Do you want me to send you the list
>of joke where AOLers are the butt of all jokes? Do you think
>AOL/CIS/Prodigy are superior to EDU guys? Or do you think they are
>outsider/insider as well. With your level of differentiation, YOU
>should be the first one to JUM at RAMI/RAMLI.
You totally missed the point here. Let's try it again, using more direct and
simpler language. Many from online services coming on to the Internet have
demanded the Internet be changed to fit their preconceptions. ram.indian
proponents have done the same thing relative to the ram.* hierarchy.
Ken Arromdee
Tom Galloway <t...@quip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>>1. they are in a different language, it is not even similar to English
>You mean like German, French, Japanese, Hong Kong, etc. movies aren't in
>English?
>>2. They are invariably filled with songs -- an INTEGRAL part
>You mean like musicals?
etc.
Tom, here's an exercise for you: try to define "alternative comics". (Or even
"chair".)
Your definition will likely be "it has most of these qualities:", followed by
a list. There will be items not in that category that have one or some of
those qualities anyway. Such items don't make the definition meaningless, and
you can't go down the list and say "see, here's a non-X with property 1, so
you can't use property 1", "here's a non-X with pro- perty 2, so you can't use
property 2", etc. The definition doesn't depend on any specific _single_
quality.
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Romana: "But he had such an honest face!"
Doctor: "Romana! You can't be a successful thief with a _dis_honest face!"
Rajan P. Parrikar
>There are different groups of people with different interests in USENET.
>They meet in different groups and hierarchies, which develop different
>discussion cultures. You advocate your interests - that's fine, but if
>you want to reorganize ram.*, you should also consider the interests of
>the people, who use ram.* today, which are different from yours.
>That has not happened.
This has been explained to you a billion times in the past 2 weeks.
Please take a day off and re-read the whole thread.
>I'm sure, if you had participated in ram.* and got at least a mild idea
>of the discussion culture there and the interests of the people, who use
>ram.*, you wouldn't have written this RFD. It is totally in acceptable
>for the ram.* community, because it doesn't care about our interests.
It is "totally in acceptable" to only YOU and a few other "opponents"
of ram.indian and that is because your tribe wants to impose its
personal preference in matters pertaining to the ram.* hierarchy.
The vote will be the decider. Understand?
>We would have to divide the threads by "nationality", which is totally
>inappropriate for the things discussed in ram.*.
I agree, division based on nationality would be undesirable (note that
I didn't use your word "inappropriate"). We have explained to you
earlier that the Indian movie tradition is very comprehensive, is now
global in extent and very popular even with non-Indians. In other
words, the proposed newsgroup is not predicated on division by
nationality.
>Thus, the cuurent
>RFD has a high potential for the complete destruction of ram.*.
Not at all. But it will be the complete destruction of your silly,
nincompoopy ideas.
Rajan Parrikar
==============
email: parr...@mimicad.colorado.edu
Sivakumar Ravada
>In article <3tmmqf$t...@gold.tc.umn.edu>,
>Sivakumar Ravada <rava...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>>Indian movies are different in many ways.
>>1. they are in a different language, it is not even similar to English
>
>You mean like German, French, Japanese, Hong Kong, etc. movies aren't in
>English?
(borrowed words) but I can make NO SENSE of Japanese. Similary, unless
you (or any other English/French/German/Spanish etc speaking person)
know Hindi (the major chunk of Indian movies are in Hindi, i suppose),
you will really not be able to make head or tail of what people are
talking about. Please trust me on this on, you don't have to feel
challenged in that.
>>2. They are invariably filled with songs -- an INTEGRAL part
>
>You mean like musicals? Darn, I could've sworn songs were an integral part
>of films like Pocahontas (to name a recent example).
Pochahontas is just one! How many Hollywood movies per year have songs?
Pochahontas is a family entertainer. Would you expect songs in Basic
Instinct or Jurrasic park? Well, if they were Bombay productions,
YES!!!! Now, do you get my drift? The way you would discuss MJackson,
Bon Jovi or the others in regards to their latest viceo, Indian movie
songs get discussed that way. And since they are related to movies, the
topic frequently drifts to teh movies.
>>3. people discuss the dialogues, songs, pesonalities of actors etc --
>> which unless you keep up with the movies won't understand or enjoy.
>
>How is this different from any other group of films I don't follow?
It id not the content type (dialogues, persons etc) that I am saying is
different, but the content itself. What will most RAM.* reader make of
when I say,
Ajeet ke kaun kaun se phatte filmoN me haiN aur kaun kaun se banaaye
huwe hai. mujhe ek yaad aataa hai, "raabert, ise likwid aaksijan meN
daal do, likwid ise jeene nahiN degaa, aaksijan ise marane nahiN
degaa"
I am sure this one is in a movie, but I forget which one, it was one
of those early 80's with amrish puri.
And the above one I am NOT making up, this is teh nature of the
discussion that will be for Indian movies.
>>4. there are MANY movies made each year that are seen avidly, discussed
>> etc. by people, unlike US where an average film lasts a few weeks
>> In India a film would easily last months. Specially movies before
>
>Could've sworn there was a .past-films group in ram....
Yes, but the discussion so far on RMIM about movies have shown no just
separation in the minds of readers. Even in real life, there are MANY
Indian in whom the whole of 60's 70's and even 50's is as alive as the
movies of today!! Really! The radio statsions play all the songs with
almost equal frequencies. Forexample, I personally (and I am sure there
are others too) won't need or want to be in too newsgroups for Indian
movie, just because all of them are equally alive irrespective of time.
They are dead or alive based on their quality, but that becomes
subjective)
>> >2) Related to the last bit there, what we've got is people coming in from
>> >outside the ram.* hierarchy, which has recently reorged itself using a
>>What do you really MEAN by outside? We have genuine interest in
>>'movies'. RAM.* is not YOUR personal inherited property. What if I post
>>mails on RAM.* for a month and then I am an insider, and then I propse
>>teh same thing. Will you have NO OBJECTIONS then?
>
>I mean the proponents have not been active in the ram.* hierarchy, according
>to them even in terms of reading it. Thus they are from outside the hierarchy.
>What part of that do you not understand?
let me also explain with a cooler head, or else we both Eistein and
Neil Bohr will not understand each other:-))
When I said we have genuine interest in
'movies' I mean we the proponenets of RAMI/RAMLI want to discuss
movies, so we come to RAM.* but since we ourselves find (having watched
BOTH Indian AND Western movies (NOT Countryside, but American/European)
)that the discussion of Indian movies tend be very different, also
because of the language, and most RAM.* would not have seen MOST of the
mainstream Indian movies. That will make it awkward for the already
existing netter of RAM.* If we make a RAMI or RAMLI, the old users of
RAM.* don't have to find a flood or a trickle of Indian movie
discussion. But if some one really wanted to (because one is into
Indian movies like Jake Lekovich (did I spell it right?) then they can
come over to RAMI or RAMLI and be part of us. We are not xenophobic (as
some one had said) Jake is very good example, I even translateda whole
song for him which had some mythological tones to it, he had seen the
movie but didn't catch the meaning of the song.
>And, to be blunt, I'd be a lot more willing to listen to a number of arguments
>made by the proponents if they (including you) did post to ram.* for a month
>or two. It'd certainly help determine if it's "impossible" or "incredibly
>inconvenient" to post about Indian movies using the current structure, as
>proponents keep proclaiming without any evidence.
Well, I am doing that now onwards, but later below u mention about "not
just cross-posting' see explanation there.
>>Now, you asked for it. From now on, every article I post on
>>rec.music.indian.misc about movies, I will post it on RAM.* as well in
>>an attempt to move the film-related discussionfrom music group to RAM.*
>>And then when YOU cry for a new RAMI/RAMLI, I wil continue to post on
>>RAM.* saying I don't differentiate base don country/language!
>Gee, you've actually gotten a clue. But you should've taken two, they're
>small. Myself and a number of other people have requested that proponents
>try posting their articles in the ram.* hierarchy. Why you think I'd have
>a problem with this baffles me.
I guess there are somethings one can't make someones understand without
actually doing it.
>> >promoting change; it's people coming in from outside demanding that they
>>Again, if you think India is outside US so, Indians are outsider, then
>>you really don't know what Internet is all about, do you?
>>If you think being an "insider" would give me extra credits, then I can
>>start any BS after a month's readership, can I?
>Please show where I stated that because India is outside the US, it made
>proponents here outsiders in the ram.* hierarchy. It has been the proponents
No, I will not show where you said so, because in my line I have a "IF"
you think ..... I meant to say, without having an explanation as to
what YOU meant to be an outsider, I could thin of to cases,
India/Indian movies outsider for US/Hollywood/Western movies OR we as a
group of netter being outsiders.
>claiming that Indian movies (and only Indian movies) are so special that
>they can't be posted about in the current ram.* hierarchy, not me.
I don't know about Japanese or Hungarian movies, I don't how many
RAM.*ians know Hungarian, but I know Indian movies are different from
Western movies in essentially two things: the language and teh culture.
What you may find totally ridiculous when Waheeda Rahamn just drops her
eyes looks down and swaya from side to side, there could be a thread
out of it on RAMI/RAMLI and taking tangent off to Madhubala in this
movie and Sadhana in that movie and Mumtaz in that. I would be
bombabrded. E.G, I understand English, but if I were to find many
articles on Spanish movies, German movies, I would be discouraged. I
would rather have a split of group, since I have to keep wading thru
other articles that i CAN'T make sense in my whole life!
That is the point, Tom.
>As for "not knowing what Internet is all about", well, first off I'm aware
>that we're talking about Usenet, which is not the same thing as the Internet.
>I've also been on Usenet and what evolved into the Internet since 1980, have
>written and taught a course about the Internet, and been paid to write magazine
>articles about it.
Now u take it personally:-) for all that matters we don't know what we
are!
>And yes, being a contributor to a newsgroup does get you more credibility
>points when you try to reorganize it. I'd expect exactly the same reaction
>from you if I suddenly came into the soc.culture india (or whatever it's
>called; I don't know the exact name off the top of my head) and demanded it
>be reorganized so that, oh, there's an soc.culture.india.restaurants-in-usa
>group.
Not to just be picky, that kind (and it could very well be) might be
appropriate in *.restaurants* OR if it HAD to be in SCI.* I personally
won't mind since I don't have to do anything to avoid reading it if I
don't want to read it.
>But, of course, only posting articles you're crossposting to another group
>doesn't make you a true contributor. You should be reading the group/hierarchy
>as well.
Now, Tom, here is the main problem!!! I am NOT interested in discussing
the details of Hollywood films, that I do here in real life with my
Indian AND non-Indian friends. What I miss in US is to discuss Indian
films old and new! We do get cassettes of all Indian movies here, so it
is not that it is a futile exercise. Now, because Indian movies belongs
to RAM.* somewhere (yet to be decided where) we are requesting it in
RAM.*
But that should not mean I HAVE to read all other movies posts AND
contribute too! For all u know I might be readign RAM.* and then I thot
this is a good place for it!
And I have to cross-post so that current reader of RMIM (who post movie
stuff on RMIM) read the reply and being cross-posted to RAM.* so
theycan get it there too -- in a hope that they will start reading
there. Soon, I intend to only post the stuff on RAM.* and NOT on RMIM.
But then teh current RMIM reader who post movie stuff expect their
replies to be posted on RMIM :-((
>> >be catered to precisely as they wish, no matter how things are currently
>> >set up (hmm, to my surprise I realize that there haven't been many, if any,
>> >AOL/CIS/Prodigy addresses among the ram.indian proponents. Same sort of
>> >attitude's often seen there vis a vis coming onto Usenet).
>>Why do you think that is important? Do you want me to send you the list
>>of joke where AOLers are the butt of all jokes? Do you think
>>AOL/CIS/Prodigy are superior to EDU guys? Or do you think they are
>>outsider/insider as well. With your level of differentiation, YOU
>>should be the first one to JUM at RAMI/RAMLI.
>
>You totally missed the point here. Let's try it again, using more direct and
>simpler language. Many from online services coming on to the Internet have
>demanded the Internet be changed to fit their preconceptions. ram.indian
>proponents have done the same thing relative to the ram.* hierarchy.
I agree I missed the point. See, that is not so difficult to accept
one's mistake or ignorance.
regards,
-- ShashiKant Joshi urf Pintu Diwana
Sivakumar Ravada
>In article <3tmmqf$t...@gold.tc.umn.edu> rava...@gold.tc.umn.edu (Sivakumar Ravada) writes:
>
> will YOU have to change if anther group RAMI or RAMLI is created?
>
>RFD has a high potential for the complete destruction of ram.*.
Inappropriate TILL NOW, since there has not been posts on Indian
movies.
Again, if you are worried about TOTAL DISTRUCTION of RAM.* do you mean to
say you don't anticipate any , ANY modification in RAM.* till the
heavens crash into hell? Even Roman Empire fell, India lost it glory,
US has seen depression, Berlin Wall has fallen!
And to be reasonable, we ARE suggesting RAM.local.indian
That way RAM.* remains as such and local will take all the
fragmentation.
Let me tell all RAM.* fanatics, NOTHING, NOTHING is forever, so don't
close your minds, if not today by RAMLI, then tomorrow RAMLJapanese, or
RAMLChines or RAMLGerman or whatever, it is going to happen.
Grow beyond such petty attachments, just like you can't stop your kid
from growing even though you wish s/he never grow above teh cute age of
3, no s/he is GOING to grow and one day may be SHOCK you too :-)))
Pavan Kumar Desikan
: >2. They are invariably filled with songs -- an INTEGRAL part
: You mean like musicals? Darn, I could've sworn songs were an integral part
: of films like Pocahontas (to name a recent example).
No, This does not mean musical like Pocahontas or even as a matter of fact
"my fair lady" or "the sound of music". Indian movies are not musicals but
there are invariably around 8-10 songs in every movie. Do you understand??
: And, to be blunt, I'd be a lot more willing to listen to a number of arguments
: made by the proponents if they (including you) did post to ram.* for a month
: or two. It'd certainly help determine if it's "impossible" or "incredibly
: inconvenient" to post about Indian movies using the current structure, as
: proponents keep proclaiming without any evidence.
two months? For the last one year *I* have not been posting in the ram.*
because it was inconvenient and inappropriate place to discuss indian
films.
: Please show where I stated that because India is outside the US, it made
: proponents here outsiders in the ram.* hierarchy. It has been the proponents
: claiming that Indian movies (and only Indian movies) are so special that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
you are saying this, no one else
: they can't be posted about in the current ram.* hierarchy, not me.
And you do not believe them. And how do you expect us to "prove" to you
that they are indeed different? Get you plane tickets to India and provide
you with the necessary facilities so that you can watch movies and
convince yourself that they are different.? I am sorry, this is not
possible. If you so desire to know then you have to make your own
arrangements and believe me you would notice the difference.
--
Pavan Kumar Desikan
Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0129
Internet: p...@cs.duke.edu
HTTP : http://www.cs.duke.edu/~pkd
Lars J Aas
> > > Indian movies are different in many ways.
> > > 1. they are in a different language, it is not even similar to English
> > You mean like German, French, Japanese, Hong Kong, etc. movies aren't in
> > English?
> I can make SOME sense out of French based on my vocabulary of English
> (borrowed words) but I can make NO SENSE of Japanese. Similary, unless
> you (or any other English/French/German/Spanish etc speaking person)
> know Hindi (the major chunk of Indian movies are in Hindi, i suppose),
> you will really not be able to make head or tail of what people are
> talking about. Please trust me on this on, you don't have to feel
> challenged in that.
Language isn't a problem for me. I see Hong Kong movies (Jackie Chan
rules!) and French movies - I don't understand jack shit from the
dialogue except the tone of voice - I read the subtitles. As long as
movies are exported with subtitles, language should be no barrier.
Where would I discuss the latest Hong Kong or French movie I've seen?
I would go to rec.arts.movies.current-films for Wild Target (French
movie, French language), and rec.arts.movies.past-films for discussing
Police Story 3: Super Cop (a Chinese movie, <who knows which language?>).
It looks like you wouldn't find it appropriate to discuss a Japanese movie
in rec.arts.movies.* because you can't make any sense of the language, in
the same way as "we" wouldn't be able to make any sense out of any Indian
dialogue so you don't find rec.arts.movies.* appropriate. I don't
understand that logic. I mean, if you discuss a movie, people that have
seen that movie will join in and people who haven't will most likely stay
out of the discussion.
I don't care what language the movie was recorded in. It's a movie, so it
goes perfectly well into rec.arts.movies.*. That Indian movies are so
"different" because the language isn't English isn't an argument.
> > > 2. They are invariably filled with songs -- an INTEGRAL part
> > You mean like musicals? Darn, I could've sworn songs were an integral part
> > of films like Pocahontas (to name a recent example).
> Pochahontas is just one! How many Hollywood movies per year have songs?
A few. A few of the most popular in fact, like; The Lion King, The Mask,
Pocahontas, Aladdin, The Nightmare Before Christmas, ...
And related, but slightly different you have an enormous movie soundtrack
industry for mainstream Hollywood movies. You don't think the music in
non-Indian movies is discussed?
A movie is an audio-visual experience. Indian movies are audio-visual
experiences, Hollywood movies are audio-visual experiences. Even simpler:
They are movies. Movies are discussed in rec.arts.movies.*.
> Pochahontas is a family entertainer. Would you expect songs in Basic
> Instinct or Jurrasic park?
The music in Basic Instinct is a frequently discussed topic. Especially
the techno-music we hear at the disco.
> > > 3. people discuss the dialogues, songs, pesonalities of actors etc --
> > > which unless you keep up with the movies won't understand or enjoy.
Doesn't make Indian movies special. This is the same for any country's
movie industry.
> > > 4. there are MANY movies made each year that are seen avidly, discussed
> > > etc. by people, unlike US where an average film lasts a few weeks
> > > In India a film would easily last months. Specially movies before
You obviously don't read rec.arts.movies.*. rec.arts.movies.* is global.
New movies are discussed in rec.arts.movies.current-films while they are
being released theatrically AROUND THE WORLD, which means that movies are
discussed there for at least half a year.
> I don't know about Japanese or Hungarian movies, I don't how many
> RAM.*ians know Hungarian, but I know Indian movies are different from
> Western movies in essentially two things: the language and teh culture.
> What you may find totally ridiculous when Waheeda Rahamn just drops her
> eyes looks down and swaya from side to side, there could be a thread
> out of it on RAMI/RAMLI and taking tangent off to Madhubala in this
> movie and Sadhana in that movie and Mumtaz in that. I would be
> bombabrded. E.G, I understand English, but if I were to find many
> articles on Spanish movies, German movies, I would be discouraged. I
> would rather have a split of group, since I have to keep wading thru
> other articles that i CAN'T make sense in my whole life!
You put so much emphasis on language. Language is no argument. It doesn't
matter at all. Whenever I discuss a movie, no matter which language it was
recorded in, I use English, which is the standard Language for Usenet
newsgroups, and I use rec.arts.movies.*. To me it looks like you want a
group to discuss Indian movies *in*Indian* - which isn't a group for Usenet.
The only Usenet groups I know of that don't only use English are the
soc.culture newsgroups. Sure you won't be better off there?
And again: This discussion should be kept in news.groups, no cross-posting.
Lars J
Preetham Gopalaswamy
In article <3ts0cn$h...@doffen.uninett.no>, la...@stud.idb.hist.no (Lars J Aas) writes:
>> > You mean like German, French, Japanese, Hong Kong, etc. movies aren't in
>> > English?
>
>> I can make SOME sense out of French based on my vocabulary of English
>> (borrowed words) but I can make NO SENSE of Japanese. Similary, unless
>> you (or any other English/French/German/Spanish etc speaking person)
>> know Hindi (the major chunk of Indian movies are in Hindi, i suppose),
>> you will really not be able to make head or tail of what people are
>> talking about. Please trust me on this on, you don't have to feel
>> challenged in that.
>
>Language isn't a problem for me. I see Hong Kong movies (Jackie Chan
>rules!) and French movies - I don't understand jack shit from the
>dialogue except the tone of voice - I read the subtitles. As long as
>movies are exported with subtitles, language should be no barrier.
Well, I have stayed out of this discussion for so long, but when you make
such completely uneducated comments, I had to step and say my part. You have
obviously not stepped into an Indian store and picked up a video cassette.
The first thing you will notice is that 95% of the films do NOT have English
subtitles. The films (atleast the way they are marketed in the US) are
intended for an Indian audience. The few films that do have subtitles (as
abysmally bad the translation is) do so because they were meant for the Arab
countries and so there are some with subtitles in English, some in French and
a lot in Arabic. The whole argument of the proponents of
rec.arts.movies.indian was not to secure a lofty, specialized place for Indian
films in the grand scheme of rec.arts.movies, but to separate a large amount of
traffic which would make no sense whatsoever to a majority of the readers on
ram (and I used to be a pretty regular reader on ram). Discussing a FEW (and
this is the operative word) obscure films from another culture do not imply
that there is sufficient interest on ram for discussing Indian films. It is
the complete cultural difference, combined with the fact that this is about
discussing the good AND the terrible parts of Hindi films. How do you expect
the regular readers on ram to participate in these discussions when they
nothing about the culture behind it AND when they cannot understand the language
(since there are no subtitles available).
>> > > 2. They are invariably filled with songs -- an INTEGRAL part
>
>> > You mean like musicals? Darn, I could've sworn songs were an integral part
>> > of films like Pocahontas (to name a recent example).
>
>> Pochahontas is just one! How many Hollywood movies per year have songs?
>
>A few. A few of the most popular in fact, like; The Lion King, The Mask,
>Pocahontas, Aladdin, The Nightmare Before Christmas, ...
That is where you are so out of your league. You know what they say "A little
knowledge is a dangerous thing" and that is exactly what you have. Knowing
more about what you are arguing against would help your case considerably. Of
all the films that Hollywood releases each year, how many are "MUSICAL"s ????
If 5 films in a year are musicals, that is a big deal (and it is irrelevant to
the discussion as to whether they are hits). In direct contrast, if 5 films
are released in a year by the Hindi film industry (and it is among the largest
film industries in the world in terms of numbers) which do not have any songs,
that is a very very very big deal. Rec.music.indian.misc often brings up the
thread of films with no songs in them, and we have probably found a grand total
of 10 films and this spans the entire gamut of films released from 1930-present.
>And related, but slightly different you have an enormous movie soundtrack
>industry for mainstream Hollywood movies. You don't think the music in
>non-Indian movies is discussed?
>
>A movie is an audio-visual experience. Indian movies are audio-visual
>experiences, Hollywood movies are audio-visual experiences. Even simpler:
>They are movies. Movies are discussed in rec.arts.movies.*.
>
>> Pochahontas is a family entertainer. Would you expect songs in Basic
>> Instinct or Jurrasic park?
>
>The music in Basic Instinct is a frequently discussed topic. Especially
>the techno-music we hear at the disco.
There is a big difference between background score and music as it pertains
to Hindi films. What the original poster was referring to was the fact that
you do not have Sharon Stone or Michael Douglas breaking into song on screen
a la Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer. That is why "Sound of Music" is
referred to as a musical, but "Basic Instinct" is not.
Your completely illiterate responses prove the point of the people clamoring
for a separate newsgroup. There is a basic cultural gap and rami would simply
establish a separate forum. Those who are interested (whatever nationality,
cultural background) can always subscribe to it and participate it, thus sparing
the apathetic/antipathetic ones.
>You put so much emphasis on language. Language is no argument. It doesn't
>matter at all. Whenever I discuss a movie, no matter which language it was
>recorded in, I use English, which is the standard Language for Usenet
>newsgroups, and I use rec.arts.movies.*.
It does matter if you have no way of understanding the film.
>To me it looks like you want a group to discuss Indian movies *in*Indian*
>- which isn't a group for Usenet.
This is just a minor nitpick but you are really racking up those famous
illiterate comments of yours and I do not want to let it pass. There is NO
language called "Indian", there are several Indian languages such as Hindi,
Tamil, Bengali, Marathi, Punjabi, Malayalam, Telugu, Kannada, etc etc etc to
name a few and movies are made in each one of them.
>The only Usenet groups I know of that don't only use English are the
>soc.culture newsgroups. Sure you won't be better off there?
Once again, you are misinterpreting what was said. Discussions will be in
English. But it would be kind of hard to discuss dialogs/humor in a foreign
film without introducing that language, would it not. Hence the introduction
of how language could potentially be an issue.
>And again: This discussion should be kept in news.groups, no cross-posting.
I am only cross-posting it to rec.music.indian.misc and that too because there
is interest on that group in this discussion and nobody has objected yet as to
its relevancy.
> Lars J
Preetham Gopalaswamy
Sivakumar Ravada
I am already tired of explaining the saem thing, (and you must be
thinking the same thing :-) )
I will keep my comments short this time.
Lars J Aas writes:
>Sivakumar Ravada <rava...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>> Tom Galloway writes:
>> > Sivakumar Ravada <rava...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>> > > Indian movies are different in many ways.
>
>> I can make SOME sense out of French based on my vocabulary of English
>> (borrowed words) but I can make NO SENSE of Japanese. Similary, unless
[snip]
>Language isn't a problem for me. I see Hong Kong movies (Jackie Chan
>rules!) and French movies - I don't understand jack shit from the
>dialogue except the tone of voice - I read the subtitles. As long as
>movies are exported with subtitles, language should be no barrier.
There again, you don't see the difference! Not many Indian movies are
subtitled. Within India - NONE are subtitled. SOMETIMES, the Gulf
countries export the video so they subtitle in Arabic or English. But
the majority of the consumers (worldwide) of Indian films i.e. Indians
themselves HATE subtitles for two reasons : the occupy the space on the
screen/tv AND they are hopeless translations.
See ,Jackie Chan kind of movies are action and don't depend on language
THAT much, moreover action has audience out here too. Most of the
classic/hit Indian movies are NON-action, in the popular sense of the
word.
>Where would I discuss the latest Hong Kong or French movie I've seen?
>I would go to rec.arts.movies.current-films for Wild Target (French
>It looks like you wouldn't find it appropriate to discuss a Japanese movie
>in rec.arts.movies.* because you can't make any sense of the language, in
No i said, within in the RAM.* but maybe some specific group AS WELL.
Since there might be some Japanese movie with general appeal, wider
popularity etc and can be discussed by all. e.g. the recent Indian
movies Bandit Queen, Bombay etc are going for Cannes festival and will
easily be discussed on RAM.* but that is 0.000001% of Indian movies
The majority of Indian movies, when discussed about by Indians, will
involve romanised Hindi INVARIABLY!! one juts can't help it!
And, I don't see reason for either:
NOT discussing it in romanised Hindi OR
making all RAM.* reader wade thru seuch post (which most will
not be able to follow)
>the same way as "we" wouldn't be able to make any sense out of any Indian
>dialogue so you don't find rec.arts.movies.* appropriate. I don't
I find RAM.* appropriate, but a separate group, same hierarchy though.
GET IT?
>understand that logic. I mean, if you discuss a movie, people that have
>seen that movie will join in and people who haven't will most likely stay
>out of the discussion.
YES, i get it! BUT how many of CURRENT RAM.* readers have seen
Chaudhavi ka Chaand, Bees Saal Baad, Meri Surat Teri AankheN, Wo Saat
Din, Chitralekha, Dharamputra, Roja, Maya Bazar, Saraswati Chandra?
The RAMI/RAMLI followers will join RAM.* if we don't finally succeed
to get a newgroup of our own, but I AM TRYING TO SAVE THE CURRENT
RAM.* READER, do you hear me?
>I don't care what language the movie was recorded in. It's a movie, so it
>goes perfectly well into rec.arts.movies.*. That Indian movies are so
>"different" because the language isn't English isn't an argument.
If all it has to be is a movie, then why do you have differentiaition
like .past-films, .current-films, .misc etc.? The need WAS felt to have
SOME differentiation. It is called decentralization, Lars, like you
have 50 states in USA. Why not just one thing called America? Why all
these states?
It is true that RAMLI/RAMI proponents didn't feel the problem of the
traffic of movie discussion on RMIM earlier, but then life is never ALL
SOLVED, is it? problems come, solutions have to found. Now, we feel the
need for RAMI/RAMLI so we voice it. You guys HAVE already figured out
the need of .past and .current films group, now may be the time for
language based. At least as the need be. I am not saying fragment it to
500 gazillion groups RIGHT NOW. No, demand-supply of economics also
don't work that way. Only after another language movies become
discussed in huge volumes, will they think of another leaf to RAM.*
hierarchy
[phew! so much for short comments :-) ]
>> > > 2. They are invariably filled with songs -- an INTEGRAL part
>
>> Pochahontas is just one! How many Hollywood movies per year have songs?
>
>A few. A few of the most popular in fact, like; The Lion King, The Mask,
>Pocahontas, Aladdin, The Nightmare Before Christmas, ...
>
>And related, but slightly different you have an enormous movie soundtrack
>industry for mainstream Hollywood movies. You don't think the music in
>non-Indian movies is discussed?
>
>A movie is an audio-visual experience. Indian movies are audio-visual
>experiences, Hollywood movies are audio-visual experiences. Even simpler:
>They are movies. Movies are discussed in rec.arts.movies.*.
Forget it Lars, don't even try :-)))
There are about 10 or 15 'talkie' movies in Hindi (and same number must
hold for otehr Indian languages) to date, that don't have songs. FULL
FLEDGED SONGS i.e., like the VH1, MTV videos! SONGS, not just music!
okay! movie is an audio-video experience, right. reading is an
thoughtful/emotional (whatever you call it ) experience. So if we have
rec.arts.literature.current-books
rec.arts.literature.past-books
rec.arts.literature.misc
rec.arts.literature.survey
That should cover the WHOLE world, right! DOn't run for
rec.arts.lit.shakespeare, and rec.arts.lit.shakespeare.d etc
discuss that too with Homer, Bhartendu, Churchill, Virginia Wolf, Tito,
Sartre, Chanakya and other innumerable writers that I don't even know!
>> Pochahontas is a family entertainer. Would you expect songs in Basic
>> Instinct or Jurrasic park?
>
>The music in Basic Instinct is a frequently discussed topic. Especially
>the techno-music we hear at the disco.
you really have no idea, do you Lars, as to what SONGS are in a movie.
Pretty woman had a few, Disney's has, but they are just a few, in a
niche of their own.
For discussing music we already have RMIM (for Indian music) and we
have no complaints about it.
For heaven's sake, can't you guys understand a SIMPLE logic.
If u go to library and find a PILE OF BOOKS in no particular order, how
would u feel when all u wanted was check out a Swahili book of
paper-craft? and I would say, NO NO NO you want BOOKS right, come here here
is a library, BUT we don't want to differentiate between BOOKS on
language basis or on any basis. This room fornew books and this dungeon
for old ones. Thats is all, have fun!
How would that be Lars, OR DO YOU STILL NOT GET MY POINT.
What the hell, why am i even answering such a post ? I am sure RAM.*
readers (bar a few like you) are NOT all that dumb, I am positive.
>> > > 4. there are MANY movies made each year that are seen avidly, discussed
>> > > etc. by people, unlike US where an average film lasts a few weeks
>> > > In India a film would easily last months. Specially movies before
>
>You obviously don't read rec.arts.movies.*. rec.arts.movies.* is global.
>New movies are discussed in rec.arts.movies.current-films while they are
>being released theatrically AROUND THE WORLD, which means that movies are
>discussed there for at least half a year.
See example of library above. A library is open to all, bu that doesn'r
t mean you have ONE library in the WORLD. or if you many, you pile the
books in one BIG pile, and let everyone ramble thru. You need some
organization!
>> I don't know about Japanese or Hungarian movies, I don't how many
>> RAM.*ians know Hungarian, but I know Indian movies are different from
>> Western movies in essentially two things: the language and the culture.
>> What you may find totally ridiculous when Waheeda Rahamn just drops her
>> eyes looks down and swaya from side to side, there could be a thread
>> out of it on RAMI/RAMLI and taking tangent off to Madhubala in this
>> movie and Sadhana in that movie and Mumtaz in that. I would be
>> bombabrded. E.G, I understand English, but if I were to find many
>> articles on Spanish movies, German movies, I would be discouraged. I
>> would rather have a split of group, since I have to keep wading thru
>> other articles that i CAN'T make sense in my whole life!
>
>You put so much emphasis on language. Language is no argument. It doesn't
>matter at all. Whenever I discuss a movie, no matter which language it was
Heck it is! Because you have only seen action foreign movies (Jackie
Chan) or one with subtitles! Have you ever watched Indian movie? I mean
not the Cannes ones only, general box office movies?
Go see one WITHOUT subtitle, and then tell me what the hell can make
out of it :-)))
>recorded in, I use English, which is the standard Language for Usenet
>newsgroups, and I use rec.arts.movies.*. To me it looks like you want a
NO English is NOT the COMPULSORY language on USENET. I have seen many
using Finnish, German, French etc, though some use English keyboard,
some use local language keyboards.
>group to discuss Indian movies *in*Indian* - which isn't a group for Usenet.
>The only Usenet groups I know of that don't only use English are the
>soc.culture newsgroups. Sure you won't be better off there?
And I am not talking about the soc.cult only
>And again: This discussion should be kept in news.groups, no cross-posting.
It has to cross-posted to the relavant groups at leat, specially
rec.music.indian.misc, rec.arts.movies.misc, news.groups until voting
is done.
-- ShashiKant
Jacob Levich
>discussion. But if some one really wanted to (because one is into
>Indian movies like Jake Lekovich (did I spell it right?) then they can
>come over to RAMI or RAMLI and be part of us. We are not xenophobic (as
>some one had said) Jake is very good example, I even translateda whole
>song for him which had some mythological tones to it, he had seen the
>movie but didn't catch the meaning of the song.
Since I'm pretty sure I'm the one being discussed here (thanks again for
that translation of "Nain so nain") I'll weigh in as briefly as possible.
.
I support the formation of a newsgroup dedicated to Indian movies in the
RAM "hierarchy" (interesting how the hierarchical worldview of so many
netters is reflected in netspeak). These are my reasons:
1. Meaningful discussion of Indian films is difficult in the context of
rmim, because most readers are primarily interested in film music and
resent discussion of films _per se_. I'm interested in both, but would
prefer to discuss Indian cinema in the context of a group devoted to
Indian cinema and Indian film music in the context of a group devoted
to Indian film music.
2. Meaningful discussion of Indian films would be impossible in rec.arts.
movies. I have little or no interest in what RAM people have to say
about cinema in general and absolutely no interest in what RAM people
have to say about Indian cinema. I prefer to discuss any subject with
people who know something about it. Rec.arts.movies.indian will encourage
informed discussion of a topic that requires specialized knowledge. It
will not, however, exclude people (like me) who didn't grow up with
indian cinema but are eager to learn more about it.
3. No one is hurt by the formation of a new newsgroup, and people who fear
that some delicately balanced hierarchy is threatened by the addition
of anything new ought to look themselves up in Freud under "anal sadistic
personalities."
.
4. If the postings I've read from people opposing the formation of rec.arts.
movies.indian are representative of RAM readers, then RAM is clearly
inappropriate for the discussion of Indian movies, since its readers are
ignorant, xenophobic control freaks. My apologies to RAM readers who don't
fit this profile.
.
Regards,
Jake Levich
jle...@delphi.com
Sivakumar Ravada
>
>>discussion. But if some one really wanted to (because one is into
>>Indian movies like Jake Lekovich (did I spell it right?) then they can
>>come over to RAMI or RAMLI and be part of us. We are not xenophobic (as
>>some one had said) Jake is very good example, I even translateda whole
>>song for him which had some mythological tones to it, he had seen the
>>movie but didn't catch the meaning of the song.
>
>Since I'm pretty sure I'm the one being discussed here (thanks again for
>that translation of "Nain so nain") I'll weigh in as briefly as possible.
Yes, Jacob it was you!! I am really sorry to have messed up ur name, it
was not intentional, trust me. :-)))
And u r most welcome for any more translations et al.
>I support the formation of a newsgroup dedicated to Indian movies in the
>RAM "hierarchy" (interesting how the hierarchical worldview of so many
>netters is reflected in netspeak). These are my reasons:
>
>1. Meaningful discussion of Indian films is difficult in the context of
> rmim, because most readers are primarily interested in film music and
> resent discussion of films _per se_. I'm interested in both, but would
> prefer to discuss Indian cinema in the context of a group devoted to
> Indian cinema and Indian film music in the context of a group devoted
> to Indian film music.
I hope RAM.* guys understand that for Indian context, movies and
movie-songs ARE two equally important and big-sized chunks.
They need two newsgroups
>2. Meaningful discussion of Indian films would be impossible in rec.arts.
> movies. I have little or no interest in what RAM people have to say
> about cinema in general and absolutely no interest in what RAM people
> have to say about Indian cinema. I prefer to discuss any subject with
> people who know something about it. Rec.arts.movies.indian will encourage
> informed discussion of a topic that requires specialized knowledge. It
> will not, however, exclude people (like me) who didn't grow up with
> indian cinema but are eager to learn more about it.
There u go!!!! Why did *I* not think of that one :-)))
I guess I didn't get these few words, when I was trying to tell it more
and more words for RAM.* voices to understand
>3. No one is hurt by the formation of a new newsgroup, and people who fear
> that some delicately balanced hierarchy is threatened by the addition
> of anything new ought to look themselves up in Freud under "anal sadistic
> personalities."
Exactly!! This is what i am completely unable to understand. after all,
we are proposing a MOVIES group under RAM.* not about
RAM.*hand-made-leather-products.indian.folk.kolhapuris
>4. If the postings I've read from people opposing the formation of rec.arts.
> movies.indian are representative of RAM readers, then RAM is clearly
> inappropriate for the discussion of Indian movies, since its readers are
> ignorant, xenophobic control freaks. My apologies to RAM readers who don't
> fit this profile.
:-)))
>Regards,
>
>Jake Levich
>jle...@delphi.com
Sivakumar Ravada
>In article <3t9gp4$4...@news.tamu.edu> iak...@tamu.edu (Ikram Ahmed Khan) writes:
>
> You say that the renaming of ram.* as ram.world.* would be inconvenient and
> therefore should not be attempted. First of all, I hope you have a good
> reason for saying that ram.local is ok but ram.world.* would be
> inconvenient.
>
>1) AFAIK, all movies discussed on USENET are from the same world.
> Thus, IMHO "world" would be redundand.
Even though I realize that world is redundant, and thus needs no
clarification, but I do say that, just because everything is happening
in this world doesn't mean we don't need classifications for easier
access by news readers. Even though the need for explicit ".world.*' is
not necessary in MY opinion, need for specific groups is a reality.
> Plus, you are now again still breaking the heirarchy of
> rec.arts.movies. by introducing a local. So what happens to your heirarchy
> explanations??
>
>I'm still not very happy with ram.local.*, because I prefer to keep any
>nationality-split outside of ram.*. At least, it makes clear, that in a
>"local" subhierarchy the threads are organized by different criteria,
>because the groups serve different interests. Thus, it is much better,
>than mixing the current split and a national split in the same place.
Claus, Ever heard of "depth" and "breadth" of a "tree" in computer
lingo. Since u are using "hierarchy" I assume u know that.
You would like to have gazillions trees with one leaf, right?
Why even the prefix rec.arts? just have current_movies, past_movies,
movie_people etc?
What we are asking is "MOVIES" belongs to the branch "RAM.*" and Indian
movies need a new node in the tree, GET IT?
>- Moving the current groups to ram.world.* is not practical.
Agreed
>- ram.i is not acceptable for the current readers of ram.*, because
> the fundamental clash with the ram.* cultur, would hurt or our interests.
>- ram.local.i would clash with my interests too, but to a less extend.
One of them is inevitable Claus. Personally I don't mind either, but
there might be other proponents with specific reasons for the name.
> And till such time as you bring forth an RFD on the topic let me call
> everybody's attention to the fact that Ken when he says that this asking
> the group to change the name is the oldest trick in the group, is probably
> speaking the truth.(Notice how all of you have been saying any other group
> but ram.indian ??).
>
>No, I'm not part of a big conspiraty against the poor indians. I simply want
>to save ram.* as aa usefull discussion forum.
>(Thus, I've opposed ram.{any name} (e.g. india) as well. If I wouldn't care
>about ram.*, but simply delay the creation of a new group, I probably
>would have started a debate "indian" vs. "india" vs. ".." to split the
>proponents.)
So, you think the "poor Indians" can't have a USEFUL discussion on
RAM(L)I ? Only u can have 10 thousand articles on Pochahontas, and
Batman Forever?
And "india", "indian" debate had already been started by me, and I
don't mind either name, though I prefer "india"
Right now we are looking for a place in RAM.* the name to "india" can
be very easily changed. Also, it is only Americans who don't know that
"Indian" means "of India" and not "Native Americans", rest of the world
is not as ignorant as Columbus. Ask the Natives what they call themselves.
"India" comes from "Indus" which is how greeks pronounced "Sindhu" - the river
Just like in Hindi British is called "angrez" and English is called
"angrezi", but that is only a mis-pronounciations (as it always happens
with forign words in any language) and NOT a mis-placed fact.
Sivakumar Ravada
>
>If I may be so bold as to add my two cents to this discussion...
>
>
>The essential difference between Indian films and the rest of the
>world lies not in anything fundamental about the nature of the
>movies, but in the fact that the Indian film industry and the
>rest of the world's movies are almost completely seperate from
>each other. A handful of Indian films get released in the U.S.,
Why can't RAM.* readers believe that Indian film Industry IS a
phenomenon in itself!!
>which to us makes it look no different than the fact that there
>are only a handful of French or Japanese or Czech films released
>in the U.S. each year. But the difference is that in France or
>Japan or the Czech Republic, a large number of the movies they
>see are from foreign countries, often the U.S. In India, I have
>no hard data, but I'm led to believe that nearly all of the
>films shown are from India or nearby.
>
>This means that someone from India responding to a "Five Good
>Comedies" thread, for example, would have a completely different
>set of movies in his knowledge to choose from than someone
>in a different part of the world.
>
>Nearly all of the posts about movies we see, whether it's "Species,"
>"Apollo 13," or "Smoke," mean nothing to him, just as the posts
>about "Scooters in Hindi Films" mean nothing to us.
>
>Note that I would _not_ be in favor of a rec.arts.movies.france,
>or rec.arts.movies.hollywood, or whatever, only one for Indian
>movies. As far as I'm led to believe, the Indian movie industry
And your "led" to believe there is no conspiracy either by any
proponent of RAM(L)I :-)))
Objectively, I STILL think RAM.india(n) is a very good choice, just by
the SHEER volume of movies to talk about AND the readership for
RAM.india(n).
Also, I think I would be inclined to say that just by its number of
movies, the Indian movie industry DOES deserve a RAM.india(n)
I don't know about whether other languages want a group to themsels
yet, i mean if their discussions have exceeded their soc.cult.* groups
>is almost completely seperate from the "worldwide" industry that
>covers most of the rest of the world.
THANK GOD!!! Someone understood, FINALLY!!
This is the only reason I am cross-posting ir to RAM.misc and RMIM for
the dormant voters, when it comes to voting, they should know what is
being discussed.
Sivakumar Ravada
>In article <3thb6v$2...@mack.rt66.com> la...@mack.rt66.com (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
> rec.arts.movies was reorganized to prevent people from having to
> weed through large, generalized groups to get at specific discussions
> they're interested in. Now the very people behind that reorganization
> are insisting that folks who are interested in Indian film should be
> forced to weed through large, generalized groups to get at the specific
> discussions they're interested in. Huh?
>
>No, they should create a newsgroup, which serves their interestd,
>outside of ram.* and leave ram.* intact, so that this hierarchy
>can continiue to serve its purpose.
>
>Ciao, Claus scho...@ert.rwth-aachen.de
Claus, I really don't know what r u sufferring from
1. RAM.* is ur personal inherited property and others are plundering
it like Europe did to teh world during Imperialsim
2. Everyone HAS to be interested in English movies *AND* ANY
discussion of movies HAS to be about English movies.
3. ANY other movies EXCEPT that YOU are interested in SHOULD BE 10
light years awaya from RAM.*
4. With 7 or 8 RAM.X already, RAM.* is THE BEST INTACT hierarchy,
tight little niche of your that can be
So, what IS it Claus?
Now we should have newsgroups called
Claus.*
Shashi.*
Rajan.*
Jacob.*
Lazlo.*
Ikram.*
Evelyn.*
etc.? To cater to ones OWN, FAVOURITE newsgroups?
Either you take all hollywood movies to USA.* and ALL US related stuff
there, or agree that RAM.* is the place for movies discussion.
Given that RAM.* is the place for Indian movies, try to understand the
next little step.
We want a separate group for discussing Indian movies: because its
readership is huge, its language, style, content, distribution is VERY
different from Hollywood movies
Sivakumar Ravada
[major snip]
>Did you have a point to the 3 lines I quoted? I mean, why should we have
>to understand everything about the films being discussed in rmim to propose
>that moderation of that group could be a solution?
>
>Lars J
Lars,
moderation of that group RMIM is unthinkable by RMIMers themselves and
is NOT the solution for avoiding movie discussion there. Movies being
discussed is just the symptom of some problem.
Just by saying "put a duck tape on the patient's mouth so he can't
scream" doesn't mean you have cured teh patient, OKAY?
And YOU DON"T have to understand what is going on RMIM by actually
reading it, but at least try to see our point then -- about the
necessity of RAM(L)I
-- Shashi
Sivakumar Ravada
>In article <3t985e$s...@news.tamu.edu> iak...@tamu.edu (Ikram Ahmed Khan) writes:
>
>Yes, any group for indian movies only is inconvinient for me.
Inconvenience for one, convenience for MANY!
>However, I see, that the current situation is not acceptable for you.
>We need a compromise, which maximizes the benefits for all users and
>keeps the disadvantages as small as possible.
>
>Thus, I favour the creation of a group devoted to indian movies outside
>of ram.*. You get the discussion forum you need, with the small inconvinience,
Claus, I have an idea!!! Why don't we go outside of USENET and make a
tiny winy little groups called m.o.v.i.e.s.i.n.d.i.a
and leave you totally alone with WORLD movies from Hollwood.
It is like World Wrestling Championship has contestants from Florida,
Montan and California. My local cTV channel starts with 'Now the World
News' and tells me about 'Florida and California plights'
Is your notion of 'world' similar to that?
'Disadvantage as small as possible', yeah right!
>that it is not located at your favorite place. We "world movies lovers"
>don't have to divide movies by nationalities (which often is impossible),
>for our discussions in ram.*. Of course, we will loose some articles
>about indian movies.
First of all, you 'world movie lovers' are 'Hollywood movie lovers'
Don't forget Claus, most of RAM(L)I proponents watch Hollywood movies
as well, and there are many Indians on RAM.* discussing Hollywood
movies. I don't know if these are same as ones discussing Indians
movies on RMIM. But, in the sense of 'world movie lovers' you have a
LOT to learn yet! We are telling you after having watched BOTH types of
movies that a separate group is needed.
> Or are you going to subscribe to this newsgroup also and come to read
> about Indian movies??
>
>I don't know yet. Of course, I'll check that group out and watch the traffic.
>Depending on my time and the "signal-to-noise-ratio" (for me), I'll decide,
>whether I read the threads or not.
"Noise lies in the ears of the ignorant"
Christine S Ng
|>
|> First of all, you 'world movie lovers' are 'Hollywood movie lovers'
|> Don't forget Claus, most of RAM(L)I proponents watch Hollywood movies
|> as well, and there are many Indians on RAM.* discussing Hollywood
|> movies. I don't know if these are same as ones discussing Indians
|> movies on RMIM. But, in the sense of 'world movie lovers' you have a
|> LOT to learn yet! We are telling you after having watched BOTH types of
|> movies that a separate group is needed.
|>
I'm really sick of this statement that proponents of ram.indian
like to make. We don't just discuss hollywood movies in ram.*,
we discuss other movies too. That's the point opponents are making.
I read ram.* but not beucase I want to know about hollywood moives.
I read ram.* because we discuss everything there.
Can we just stop this:
"movies are either indian or hollywood"
thing ?
Christine
Sivakumar Ravada
>In article <3t985e$s...@news.tamu.edu> iak...@tamu.edu (Ikram Ahmed Khan) writes:
>
> this is for the discussion of "world movies"
>
>Do you know any other movies? AFAIK, all movies discussed in USENET are
>from the same world. Thus, the term "world" in the name would be completely
>redundand.
Yes!! Indian movies! By your logic, there should be only one group
called jobs
and not jobs.*.ca, jobs.*.us, jobs.*.eu etc??
-- ShashiKAnt Joshi
Sivakumar Ravada
>In article <3t9jq7$7...@lace.Colorado.EDU> parr...@csn.org (Rajan P. Parrikar) writes:
>
> You are welcome to tune into rec.arts.movies.india(n). You will
> find a great deal of happiness there. So much happiness that you
> won't quite know what do with all of it.
>
>I would like to find a lot of happiness in rec.arts.indian-movies.
>However, unlike you, I'm interested in movies from other countries, too.
>Thus, I want to continue to find happiness in all ram.* groups, too.
>That would end, if ram.* would splitted by nationality.
>
On contraire, Claus, it is you who is unaware one of the BIGGEST film
industry of the WORLD!! Whereas, we RAM(L)I proponents know, see,
discuss 'your' films too!!! Just not on RAM.* or not till 'death do us
part'. We do that 'till death do us part' type of discussion for Indian
movies. Comprende??
-- ShashiKAnt Joshi
Sivakumar Ravada
>In article <3tepj0$6...@mack.rt66.com> la...@mack.rt66.com (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
>
> Nobody is proposing that rec.arts.movies be reorganized,
>
>The current organization of r.a.m.* is based on the fact, that movies
>are not divided by nationality, genre or language. The creation of r.a.m.i
>would mean a fundamental change of that organization. Thus, it is a mayor
>reorganization. And, I'm pretty sure, that - once r.a.m.i exists - other
>national subgroups would be added.
Ever had Artificial Intelligence or Logic, Claus?
When I say "birds fly" I mean all birds fly.
ONLY UNTIL I DISCOVER OSTRICH, EMU, PENGUIN AND KIWI.
It would be IGNORANCE to say that since Kiwi is in New Zealand and NZ
is a piddly country in the far corner of teh world, "Kiwis are not
birds" or Kiwis and not different birds.
How Hollywood and Indian cineams relates would be like mammals and
birds OR reptiles and amphibians, ALL vertebrates but different
characteristically.
You have not reached till the species level in RAM.* to start crying
over its split.
And Indian movies are not as rare, less in number or following as the
Kiwi might be in the bird kingdom.
> This is *inane*. The group proposed is, first and foremost, for the
> discussion of *movies*.
>
>No, the group is only for the discussion of *indian movies*.
Claus, are you color blind? you only seem to see the color black,
And we are trying to tell you there are otehr colors too.
They are all colors! And u keep saying BUT THEY ARE NOT BLACK :-(((
YES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT *INDIAN MOVIES* GROUP, WHICH IS MOVIES BUT
DIFFERENT FROM THE CURRENT RAM.* MOVIES DISCUSSED
Sivakumar Ravada
Claus Schotten A writes:
>In article <3t985e$s...@news.tamu.edu> iak...@tamu.edu (Ikram Ahmed Khan) writes:
> Would it not therefore be better that you create all such groups
> (including german expressionist if needs be) over here so that ppl
> when looking for this particular movie can come over here and discuss it ??
>
>You haven't understood the problem.
>Terms like "nationality"/"genre"/"language" are totally inappropriate
>to divide the discussions in ram.*. You can't give a proper and clear
>definition, what a german expressionist movie is and what not (or what
>an US movie is and what not). There are to many movies which a partial
>german expressionist or US.
But you can about what a Indian movie is, just because its language is
not even similar to English, to start with
And its personalities (which are MANY and AS great as Hollywood
personalities in talent) are NOT heard of in West as is Arnold a
non-entity in majority of the world (at least no more than 1/10 of
India might know who Arnold is. Of course the usenet reader know of him
:-)
My point is, the equation does not work both ways.
What do you know of Rekha, Sri Devi, Nutan, Waheda Rehman, Rehman,
Janaki Das or Dev Anand or Kesto Mukherji?
What will u do when u find such articles in RAM.people?
And unlike 'so-organised-you', RAM(L)I proponents want ONE SINGLE GROUP
to discuss ALL aspects (new, old, survey, people, tech) of movies,
because we don't make differentiation based on these things :-)))
We want toknow all aspects. It is not that I only want to know about
technical aspects of filmmaking, i don't care about film per se :-??
>If you try to separate the *threads*, the situation gets even worse.
>E.g there are many actors, who played in movies, that were definitively
>"german expressionist", and in movies, that were definitively not
>"german expressionist". Where should we discuss their careers?
But a handful of Hollywoodians in Indian cineam and vice versa.
>If it would be possible to divide the threads in ram into some distinct
>groups like "US", "UK", "german", "indian", "french" that have few things
>in common, I would agree on such a split. However, there are no sharp lines,
There are between Indian cinema and Hollywood cineam if you don't know
the language and personalities and don't see those movies.
>cause the most traffic would survive. Thus, we would have even more traffic
>about Hollywoods latest hit, but no traffic about small movies, which don't
>get a broad world wide release.
Rest assured that if RAM(L)I is made, u will not find threads about
Indian movies in RAM.* but only in RAM(L)I
>Face it, the world of movies is linked too close together, as a split
>of ram.* by nationalities could work.
>That applies even to indian movies. Two inidications:
>- A proponent of r.a.m.i, listed "Mississippi Masala" under "non-typical
> indian movies". IMHO, it is a pure US movie (but not Hollywood) with a
> director born in India and partly set in the indian community in the USA.
Claus honey, Mississippi Masala is ONE movie, India makes about 800
(EIGHT HUNDRED ONLY) movies a year!! Want to check up Guiness Book or
what? Not that I am saying all rgood :-))
>- Do you know Bacon numberss? Nearly all actors and actresses in the IMDB
> are linked to each other. I checked it in april: The biggest distance was
> 13 from the actors of an italian silent to the actors of a weired
> south american movie from the 60s. I expect, that you can link most indian
> actors to KB in 5 or less steps. And thesse distances shrink as more
> data is added.
>
No, I don't, and average film-goer doesn't either.
But I *AM* interested in knowing what Bacon Numbers is, just like I am
interested in knowing which of the four personality types I fall into
(what is that test that gives you type A, B, C, etc) based on a test.??
As if ALL HUMAN kind is four categories that is. The ULTIMATE truth has
been discovered.
All Film personalities are basically of teh same family and doing
incest!
Do you know Adam and Eve? It is said that they were first humans, hence
we ALL are bros and sis, so most of over logic fails about why we have
different religions or Jesus is not Buddha's gret grand son or
Mohammed's great grand father
Do you get my drift at all, or have you ALL YOU WINDOWS SEALED SHUT
with Olympus Window Sealers Inc (C) ??
-- ShashiKant Joshi ur Pintu Diwana
Sivakumar Ravada
>Harin H. Dholakia <bd...@freenet.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>
>> Anyways, Mr.Almquist at first claimed difficulty for
>> all people from all over the world like myself, and later, when
>> I pointed out that no one from any part of the world can discuss their movies
>> as a result of this universal "difficulty," he then claimed a
>> "minor difficulty." This is very convenient.
>
>The "difficulty" part was for the situation where you had no tagging scheme,
>the "minor difficulty" and "human effort eliminated" was for the situation
So now, you want tags for Indian films? You are differentiating right
there! With>20% articles tagged, it is worthwhile to have a separate
group
>where we had agreed on a tagging scheme. Nothing contradicts anything!
No one agrred upon tagging scheme. This must be your hypothetical
situation
>That is my point! You're saying we are contradicting each other, I'm saying
>that *that* is bullshit.
bullshit lies in the *ss of the beholder!
So, u can start making sense, opening the windows of ur doors,
reeavaluate ur notion of 'world'
>> What is being discussed here is RFD: rec.arts.movies.indian; NOT the
>> moderation of rmim.
>
>You have presented a Problem[tm] to us in this thread; That discussions
>about music and movies can't co-exist in rec.music.indian.misc.
>
>We have presented several possible solutions, in which one of them was to
We have already said, moderation of rmim is IMPOSSIBLE! It caters to
people without restrcting their views. An unmoderated group for Indian
music is needed and RMIM is that.
You do have rec.humor and rec.homr.funny. Tell rec.humor to shut down
because moderated rec.humor.funny is there.
>make rec.music.indian.misc a moderated newsgroup. This is a perfectly good
>solution to the above problem, isn't it? Wether "I understand every
>posting about movies in rec.music.indian.misc" has got absolutely nothing to
>do with this suggestion.
>
>Lars J
No, it is not a solution to teh problem.
I have explained in lot of posts about that
-- ShashiKant Joshi
Sivakumar Ravada
>In article <3tcffn$g...@mack.rt66.com> la...@mack.rt66.com (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
>
>I'm doing just that:
>- make the proponents aware, that their proposal hurts the interests
> of many users in ram.*
>- make suggestions for better solutions.
>- look for a compromise, which could be acceptable for both sides.
Long discussiona already done on all that.
>If the proponents are not willing to change the RFD under any circumstances,
>I cannot stop them from posting the CFV. But they should be aware:
>- unwillingness to consider the legitimate interests of others will
> increase the NO votes.
Speak for yourself Claus, and try to get a broader perspective of
things also. There are 100s of newsgroups on USENET that make NO SENSE
at all, we are at least proposing something reasonable.
>- regardless of the result of the vote, such behaviour doesn't help
> to improve USENET, because the vital interests of one side are not
> matched. It is better to find a compromise both sides can live with,
> so that the core interests of both sides are served.
Agreed, but RAM.* is not made of stone, nor is it ur sanctum sanctorium
Grow up! And read some of my posts to clarify ur points.
-- ShashiKant Joshi
Sivakumar Ravada
>I think the creation of a newsgroup devoted to Indian movies
>within the ram.* hierarchy is justified.
>
>However, I agree with Christine's observation that the name
> rec.arts.movies.indian
>would mess up the structure of ram.* in the long run,
>because of the inevitable creation of other "regional" groups.
>
>But I like Christine's suggestion of calling it
> rec.arts.movies.local.indian
>which anticpates such creations.
Agreed all the above!
>Here is an alternative suggestion:
> rec.arts.movies.genre.indian
>
>Rationale:
>It has been argued before in this discussion that Indian movies are
>very different from non-Indian ones. But that's just a description of
>what a "genre" movie is -- different from movies not belonging to that genre.
>I think .indian would find more quickly other groups residing beside it in
>ram.genre than in ram.local.
I like the idea that someone is seriously taking the issue with a
positive attitude.
But Stefan, .genre will not fit in for teh name BECAUSE:
1 Indian movies have the genres of Hollywood/World movies as well
2 They have been influenced in "genre" by the West-ern movies to start
with then have taken their ownforms influenced by the culture
3 Within Indian movies, there are many genres (like other mmovies) so,
".genre" will not accomodate genres within Indian movies.
Moreover, Indian movie discussions don't mind ALL discussions in the
same group, because we are interested in ALL aspects of indian
movies.
4 We are not saying separate group for Indian movies because they are
of a different genre altogether,, but mainly because of
* its audience limited to mostly who know Indian languages
* its contens, personalities, culture being very different from
Hollywood movies
>But I don't have a strong opinion which one is better for ".indian".
>I favour ".genre" over ".local", but that's just because ".local"
>does not quite clearly express a geographical or country-wise split,
>while ".genre" has a clear meaning within the context of cinema.
I guess, ".local" does sound limiting, but we need a word to describe
"region", maybe RAM.region.* or something like that.
In lack of any suggestion, RAM.local.* is the best way till now.
Thanks for seeing the point, and suggesting some positive things as
well.
-- ShashiKant Joshi
Sivakumar Ravada
>In article <3t94lu$m...@excepcion.cc.gatech.edu> pko...@cc.gatech.edu (Prince Kohli) writes:
[major snip]
> ?? You agree they are movies. You agree they are special.
>
>No, I don't agree, that indian movies are "special".
God bless you !!!
> Or are you trying to say that Indian movies are not movies at all? <laugh>
>
>From some articles in this thread, I really got the impression, that some
>proponents have an IDEA about "indian movies" which is not covered by the
>IDEA of "movies" used in ram.*.
Bless you, again!!
> |> And please remember, the current users of r.a.m.* have also their valid
> |> interests: they justify a hierarchy for the discussion of movies from the
>
> The hierarchy does not work for Indian movies. I should write that in a
> separate post a thousand times so that I don't have to repeat it so often
> later.
>
>That's not a sufficient reason to change the hierarchy, since it works well
>for its purpose: "discussion about movies from the whole world" AND it is
>possible to create a group, which serves your interests, outside the
>hierarchy.
Wake up Claus, USSR has broken into lots of countries, do yuo know, or
that is not in YOUR world?
World, world, world, ... that is all u say, and YOU urself don't know
what world is!!
To tell you the truth by its sheer size and readership, indian movies
DO DESERVE RAM.indian
The reason I would say why maybe Argentina, or Afghanistan or Zimbabwe
MAY NOT deserve a group to themselves is that they don't have enough
movies.
It would be like RAM.indian.movies.in.English !!
And I am not making this statement because of my being Indian, but
because Indian movie industry is not SMALL, it is bigger than the WORLD
(as you know) film industry.
Why only 5 (or is it 7) countries in the UN have veto powers? Because
on certain criteria it was decided they are "powerful" countries.
In the arean of "films" Indian film industry is a power to reckon, if u
r willing to accept this "earth" as the "world".
So, to someone who has a higher IQ and generalKnowledge, I would say
RAM.Indian deserves its own place, but since I am dealing with a
realistic "crowd" (I hope Claus, u are not alone :-)) ), I will go as
far as RAM.local.indian (or any proper substiture for local)
Other dormant followers of this thread, please don't take it
personally, how would I know if u don't say, as to what u might be
thinking :-))
Sivakumar Ravada
>In article <3t7cp3$1a...@fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu> sm...@Lehigh.EDU (SAMIUDDIN MOHAMMED) writes:
>
> RAM.india(n) will have EXACTLY the same function... so what's the problem ?
> Yes, it'll be the first time RAM.* will be divided on the basis of country etc.,
> but then, what's wrong with that ??
>
>It is impossible to divide the current discussions in r.a.m.* on the basis
>of country, genre etc.. You try it nevertheless. The result will be chaos.
>
>I accept, that you want a forum to discuss indian movies only. You don't
>want to bother about "Hollywood" movies. Fine - you should get that group.
>But, please accept, that we want to a forum, where wee can discuss movies
>from the whole world - without trying to divide them by country, genre or
>other inappropriate things. We have that forum already and we want to keep
>it.
>
You will never cease to amaze me, Claus!!!!
Who is taking away your current forum of discussion for 'world' movies,
whatever the definition of 'world' u have?
We are just making another group for 'indian' movies only. And by Joe,
it deserves a place, we at RMIM can feel its shock waves breaking our
window panes!
Why is it IMPOSSIBLE to divide RAM.* on basis of some thing (be it
country, culture, language or followership) ? Just because you are YET
unware of Indian movie world.
Did you have General Knowledge, Geography etc in school?
Do you know that Indian film Industry is EXACTLY as old as Hollywood?
Same year for their first films :-))
And with its very nature of mythology, storytelling style, theatre etc,
Indian cinema developed differently than Hollywood, EVEN though it did
borrow here and there ideas AND technology, no doubt.
[ to those who jump to my throats for bringing in vague things like
mythology etc., there are 5 highly developed classical dances, 2 highly
developed classical music forms, major epics like Ramayan and
mahabharat (10 times longer than Ilyiad) really influencing
the movies, folk theatre since BC, a serious dramatics treatise since
about 100 AD, which influenced drama and in turn infian films ]
James Meek
>Stefan Kahrs writes:
[that something like "rec.arts.movies.local.indian" would be a good idea]
> >But I don't have a strong opinion which one is better for ".indian".
> >I favour ".genre" over ".local", but that's just because ".local"
> >does not quite clearly express a geographical or country-wise split,
> >while ".genre" has a clear meaning within the context of cinema.
>I guess, ".local" does sound limiting, but we need a word to describe
>"region", maybe RAM.region.* or something like that.
>In lack of any suggestion, RAM.local.* is the best way till now.
>Thanks for seeing the point, and suggesting some positive things as
>well.
I definitely see the worth of a group devoted to the discussion of Indian
movies. As has been documented (among the flames), the Indian film
industry is a mammoth enterprise with very little overlap with western
film production/distribution/audience. It makes little sense to me to
claim that the current ram.* heirarchy *must* be the place for discussion
of essentially regional interests. That's not to discount the size of
the Indian region, nor the good open-armed intentions of ram.* readers,
just to observe that those people busy discussing how magnificent
"Braveheart" is or how film critics are morons probably have neither the
interest nor the background to contribute to detailed discussions of
Indian film.
I would not vote for rec.arts.movies.indian, however; there needs to be
another step in the heirarchy indicating to the reader/browser that a
more specific subset of movies is being discussed.
I would vote for "rec.arts.movies.local.indian," although I think that a
better name would be:
rec.arts.movies.regional.indian
or
rec.arts.movies.cultural.indian
Any thoughts on those?
James Meek
j...@u.washington.edu
Lars J Aas
rec.arts.movies.{region[al]/local}.india[n]
is the best compromise we can come up with? And in that case, perhaps
find out exactly which names to use?
For me, deciding between region, regional and local doesn't matter, as long
as it doesn't become "genre". I don't know if I like "cultur{e/al}" either.
Deciding between india, indian or bah<whatever> is also something I'll leave
up to you guys.
Lars J
Christine S Ng
|> ad...@cco.caltech.edu (Adam Neil Villani) wrote:
|> Q(uite) E(asily) D(one):)) Sounds simple when you put it that
|> cogently, Adam. Looks like what they say about CalTech vs MIT
|> is true after all!
|>
|> Ashok
I'm sure Adam wrote his post with good intention. But he
may not have been following this thread since the beginning.
I do support the creation of a "indian" movies newsgroup,
but only if it is called ".local/regional.indian".
Yes, perhaps only indian movies deserve their own group
in ram.*. But once there is a ram.?.indian, other people
will likely propose their own groups to discuss their
own movies. If there are enough people out there who
want a ram.french, they will win and there is no way to
stop them. Therefore, for organizational purposes, we should
add an extra hierarchy now in anticipation of other
"local/regional" movies newsgroup that may be proposed
as a result of this one.
I guess I haven't stated my ponit clearly in my original
post. I see a lot of proponents saying that we only
discuss Hollywood moives in ram.* and that the existing
ram.* = hollywood. I was trying to tell them that this
is simply not true and hope that people will drop this
notion : movies are either hollywood or indian.
Christine
Christine S Ng
|>
|> I would vote for "rec.arts.movies.local.indian," although I think that a
|> better name would be:
|>
|> rec.arts.movies.regional.indian
|>
|> or
|>
|> rec.arts.movies.cultural.indian
|>
|> Any thoughts on those?
|>
|> James Meek
|> j...@u.washington.edu
I actually think "regional" is a better word, although, I don't
know if it is too late to ask Navin to change to .regional.indian.
The word "regional" gives a boarder sense and this branch
will come right before .tech, allowing more of the existing
ram.* to stay together, when arranged alphabetically.
Christine
Claus Schotten A
Claus, I really don't know what r u sufferring from
[...]
So, what IS it Claus?
Today, ram.* is a very good place for the discussions, I'm interested in.
- It covers movies from the WHOLE world.
- It doesn't try to separate movies by nationality, language, genre or
any other inappropriate classification.
That is very important to me, because IMHO the most interesting movies
either cross the borders between the usaul classes or would fall into
very small classes, which would not justify a group of their own.
Thus, any attempt to sort the discussions in ram.* by one of these
inappropriate classifications will seriously harm the discussions,
I like most.
- Of course, there is a disadvantage. There is too much traffic about
the latest US hits. But, given the readership of USENET and the
distribution of Hollywood movies, that is IMHO inevitable.
However, because these are only 3-5 movies at a time, which cause most of
the traffic, it is very easy to kill these threads.
Is it a crime, that I try to save ram.* from changes, that would seriously
affect it ability to handle the discussions I'm interested in?
Now we should have newsgroups called
Claus.*
Shashi.*
Rajan.*
Jacob.*
Lazlo.*
Ikram.*
Evelyn.*
etc.? To cater to ones OWN, FAVOURITE newsgroups?
No, we should try to indentify groups of users with similar interests
(or interests that fit together though they are very different).
These interests can be served by the same place in USENET.
However, there are groups of users with different interests, that don't
fit together, e.g. those interested in movies from the whole world
and those interested in indian movies only. An organization scheme, that
serves the interests of one group best (e.g. a separation by nationality,
no separation except by time of release) will be the worst the other
group can imagine for their discussions. Since there can't exist a single
place which serves the interests of both groups conviniently, there
should be two separated places in USENET.
Ciao, Claus scho...@ert.rwth-aachen.de
Claus Schotten A
Hallo Adam,
indeed, there are good reasons to create an own newsgroup for the
discussions about indian movies.
There are some points, where this group would overlap with the existing
groups in ram.* (e.g. for movies like "Bandit Queen"). Thus, that group
will reduce the discussions about indian movies in ram.*. That's a pitty
(I would like to see an increase), but not a sufficient argument against
such a group.
HOWEVER, there are very good reasons for NOT calling it ram.indian.
If ram.i would be created, it would be just a matter of time until
other national (or regional) subgroups are created. I don't have to
tell you, Adam, what a mess that would be.
Do you think, you can convince someone who is interested in
Hongkong movies or french movies only, that there are good reasons
to create ram.indian but none to create ram.hongkong or ram.french?
I'm sure, I cannot. Look, how they are arguing here. They don't ask,
"Which way is the best to organize discussions?", they say "The indian
movie industry *merits* a group of their own!". Will french users accept,
that their movie industry doesn't "merit" a newsgroup but India does?
Once one national subgroup of ram.* is created, others will follow.
Thus, ram.local (or regional).indian is a much better solution,
since it will keep the groups together and preserves a rest of the
"A movie is a movie" idea behind the current structure of ram.*.
Another plus: I hope, it emphazises, that the main purpose of these
groups is the discussion of movies with "niche" markets (how large
these "niches" will be, Perhaps "special" is the better term).
Movies which get a broader international release should still be
discussed in the current ram.* groups. (But this hope is very small.:-()
However, I still prefer a new group outside of ram.*, because that
could serve for the discussion of indian movies as well, but would
discourage the further split of ram.* into national subgroups.
Ciao, Claus scho...@ert.rwth-aachen.de
Adam Neil Villani
Christine S Ng <cs...@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
>I'm really sick of this statement that proponents of ram.indian
>like to make. We don't just discuss hollywood movies in ram.*,
>we discuss other movies too. That's the point opponents are making.
>I read ram.* but not beucase I want to know about hollywood moives.
>I read ram.* because we discuss everything there.
>
>Can we just stop this:
>
> "movies are either indian or hollywood"
>
>thing ?
Some Background:
I've been here since before all the discussion of the big RAM split, and
was one of the proponents of the proposal that won. One thing we tried to do
was to create groups that would be as seperate and distinct from one another
as possible. This is the reason why genre-related groups like rec.arts.movies.
comedy, or rec.arts.movies.horror were nixed, as well as geographically-
related groups like rec.arts.movies.french or rec.arts.movies.hollywood.
The reasoning was that most people interested in comedy movies are also
interested in horror movies (to some extent, at least), people who appear
in french movies often work in Hollywood, too, etc. In short, most of
the film community works as a unit, and studios, performers, and audiences
work as a strikingly cohesive unit most of the world around. I still
agree with this line of thought and am pleased with how the split has
settled into itself.
HOWEVER,
The situation with Indian films is different. Creating a rec.arts.movies.
indian is a very different thing from creating a rec.arts.movies.german,
or a rec.arts.movies.british, or whatever. The Indian film industry is
a completely seperate entity unto itself. Films like "Bandit Queen" that
cross over to the rest of the world's audiences form an extremely small
fraction of all the Indian films. Go most anywhere in the world and people
watch comparable fractions (within an order of magnitude) local movies
and foreign (usually American) movies. This is not the case in India
(or so I've read and have been told; I've never been to India). In India
the movies are almost exclusively Indian. India has a huge film industry
that makes hundreds of films a year. They have their own stars, who wouldn't
be recognized anywhere else in the world.
The bottom line is that the discussion of Indian films will not cross over
with the discussions we have here in the rest of the r.a.m. hierarchy, except
that I guess the technical aspects (rec.arts.movies.tech) are the same.
Discussions of French films cross over, discussions of Japanese films
cross over, the discussions of Hong Kong movies even crosses over. But
with very few exceptions, the discussions of Indian movies will not cross
over. Have you seen the posts here about Indian movies? They don't interest
me at all. Tom Skogestad even told us how to not have to see them. There
is a distinct group of people that ARE interested in them, though. There's
no reason to make them wade through the discussions of the rest of the
world's films, and there's no reason to make the rest of us have to skip
over the discussions of the Indian movies. I'm all for r.a.m.indian.
And if people want to talk about "Bandit Queen" or "The World of Apu" on
the "regular" r.a.m. hierarchy, that's fine, because those movies have
crossed over. But the VAST majority of Indian films has not, and there's
no reason not to have a r.a.m.indian newsgroup.
--
Adam Villani
ad...@cco.caltech.edu
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~addam
"I was in this prematurely air-conditioned supermarket..."
Ashok
Q(uite) E(asily) D(one):)) Sounds simple when you put it that
Claus Schotten A
Claus Schotten A writes:
> this is for the discussion of "world movies"
>
>Do you know any other movies? AFAIK, all movies discussed in USENET are
>from the same world. Thus, the term "world" in the name would be completely
>redundand.
Yes!! Indian movies! By your logic, there should be only one group
called jobs
and not jobs.*.ca, jobs.*.us, jobs.*.eu etc??
You cut the original article at the wrong place. Thus, you didn't
understand the point. Ikram demanded, that all current newsgroups in ram.*
are renamed to ram.world.*.
AFAIK, there is no group called *.jobs.world.*.
Ciao, Claus scho...@ert.rwth-aachen.de
James Meek
>I guess I haven't stated my ponit clearly in my original
>post. I see a lot of proponents saying that we only
>discuss Hollywood moives in ram.* and that the existing
>ram.* = hollywood. I was trying to tell them that this
>is simply not true and hope that people will drop this
>notion : movies are either hollywood or indian.
You're right--people don't just discuss Hollywood movies in ram.*, which
if I remember correctly is why splits like ".independent" were rejected.
Not all American movies are Hollywood movies, for that matter, although
there are commonalities between most H'wood and non-H'wood movies.
I don't think anyone is really proposing that we could not discuss Indian
movies in the other ram.groups; however, given the mass separation
between the two industries (India and the rest of the world, apparently),
it seems unlikely that most current readers of ram.* want to discuss most
indian movies. That doesn't include _Bandit Queen_, of course, or the
rerelease of Ray's films (coming, at least to Seattle, to a theater near
you this fall). (_BQ_, at any rate, is listed as a UK/India coproduction,
not a regular Indian film.)
I really don't think that adding ".regional" or ".local" discussions
would kill the discussions in the other ram.groups, assuming that other
countries/regions wish to have such discussion groups. Part of the
charter for such groups should probably say that these groups are
intended for discussion of movies that do not/have not yet reached a
worldwide audience. I could see African film discussion groups, for
example, or South American.
The current ram.groups should certainly encourage discussion of any
movies seen by a good portion of the world cinema audience, but I don't
think they really serve the needs of isolated/regional communities (at
least, not India's) to discuss films particular to their culture.
I'd prefer .regional, myself, but I did propose it. :)
James Meek
j...@u.washington.edu
Preetham Gopalaswamy
In article <SCHOTTEN.95...@isnix.ert.rwth-aachen.de>, scho...@isnix.ert.rwth-aachen.de (Claus Schotten A) writes:
>
>Hallo Adam,
>
>indeed, there are good reasons to create an own newsgroup for the
>discussions about indian movies.
>There are some points, where this group would overlap with the existing
>groups in ram.* (e.g. for movies like "Bandit Queen"). Thus, that group
>will reduce the discussions about indian movies in ram.*. That's a pitty
>(I would like to see an increase), but not a sufficient argument against
>such a group.
>
>HOWEVER, there are very good reasons for NOT calling it ram.indian.
>
>If ram.i would be created, it would be just a matter of time until
>other national (or regional) subgroups are created. I don't have to
>tell you, Adam, what a mess that would be.
>
>Thus, ram.local (or regional).indian is a much better solution,
>since it will keep the groups together and preserves a rest of the
>"A movie is a movie" idea behind the current structure of ram.*.
>Another plus: I hope, it emphazises, that the main purpose of these
>groups is the discussion of movies with "niche" markets (how large
>these "niches" will be, Perhaps "special" is the better term).
>Movies which get a broader international release should still be
>discussed in the current ram.* groups. (But this hope is very small.:-()
Why are we splitting hairs over the nomenclature. Irrespective of whether
this newsgroup is called rec.arts.movies.indian OR rec.arts.movies.local.indian
OR whatever you choose to call it, the basic functionality of the group is
the same. It is a specialized newsgroup to discuss Indian films made in India
in various Indian languages for an Indian audience (thus I am excluding the
handful of films like "The World of Apu" and "Bandit Queen" which have gotten
recognition outside India). So if, as you state above, there are good reasons
to create a separate newsgroup for indian films, why not just call it r.a.m.i.
The fear you have that other countries will ask for their own newsgroup is
not minimized just because "local" is added to the path. You could still have
a rec.arts.movies.local.french. So why this whole thing about supporting
r.a.m.l.i but not r.a.m.i.
If it is about trying to maintain the current ram hierarchy, how is it affected
simply by attaching another node to it ??? It seems apparent to me that the
hierarchy is inherently flawed since, based on its current traffic, it really
does not allow for discussion about regional films that are not internationally
released.
>Do you think, you can convince someone who is interested in
>Hongkong movies or french movies only, that there are good reasons
>to create ram.indian but none to create ram.hongkong or ram.french?
>I'm sure, I cannot. Look, how they are arguing here. They don't ask,
>"Which way is the best to organize discussions?", they say "The indian
>movie industry *merits* a group of their own!". Will french users accept,
>that their movie industry doesn't "merit" a newsgroup but India does?
You are distorting the whole premise of the term "merit". None of the strong
proponents of rami said that the "merit" came from a qualitative evaluation,
but rather from a purely quantitative reasoning. If one must argue against
say ram.french (and this is a purely hypothetical case, not to be taken
literally), then the discussion should be about the number of potential
participants in that group, the volume of films that are output from the film
industry in that country, etc. For example Belgium really does not have much
of a film industry to speak of (info courtesy of a Belgian colleague), so it is
obvious that splitting away to form a ram.belgian would probably be unjustified.
Another important consideration is that most of these newsgroups see a lot of
traffic from nettors in the US, Canada and the UK. In all these countries,
videos of Indian films in several languages are very very easily available. The
latest films are now being shown in theaters too. This automatically increases
the volume of discussion on the newsgroup. I am not sure how many people from
other countries have that sort of access to films from back home. I have
walked into several ethnic grocery stores and have never seen shelves from end
to end stacked with videos the way almost all Indian stores do. Somehow this
point has not featured in any of the discussions till now.
However, I think I may be re-treading some old paths. If the general consensus
is that ramli is better than rami, so be it. I bow to the guardians of the ram
hierarchy, who undoubtedly know more about its functional purpose, than I do.
>However, I still prefer a new group outside of ram.*, because that
>could serve for the discussion of indian movies as well, but would
>discourage the further split of ram.* into national subgroups.
I COMPLETELY disagree with that simply because it excludes Indian movies from
the traditional movies hierarchy and I think that is unfair and discrminatory.
Indian films belong under the movies tree, except that they are a very
specialized subdivision because of the size of the industry, its restricted
audience and perhaps less importantly, their cultural difference.
Preetham
Navin Kabra
>I actually think "regional" is a better word, although, I don't
>know if it is too late to ask Navin to change to .regional.indian.
I've already submitted the 2nd RFD with the name
RAM.local.indian.
navin.
Adam Neil Villani
>may not have been following this thread since the beginning.
>I do support the creation of a "indian" movies newsgroup,
>but only if it is called ".local/regional.indian".
>
Good point here; it probably would be a good idea to include "regional"
or "local" in the name. And yes, I did come into this discussion late!
Christine S Ng
|> Why are we splitting hairs over the nomenclature. Irrespective of whether
|> this newsgroup is called rec.arts.movies.indian OR rec.arts.movies.local.indian
|> OR whatever you choose to call it, the basic functionality of the group is
|> the same. It is a specialized newsgroup to discuss Indian films made in India
|> in various Indian languages for an Indian audience (thus I am excluding the
|> handful of films like "The World of Apu" and "Bandit Queen" which have gotten
|> recognition outside India). So if, as you state above, there are good reasons
|> to create a separate newsgroup for indian films, why not just call it r.a.m.i.
|> The fear you have that other countries will ask for their own newsgroup is
|> not minimized just because "local" is added to the path. You could still have
|> a rec.arts.movies.local.french. So why this whole thing about supporting
|> r.a.m.l.i but not r.a.m.i.
|> If it is about trying to maintain the current ram hierarchy, how is it affected
|> simply by attaching another node to it ??? It seems apparent to me that the
|> hierarchy is inherently flawed since, based on its current traffic, it really
|> does not allow for discussion about regional films that are not internationally
|> released.
|>
|>
I've posted this a while ago but I guess at that time not
that many people were following the discussion. The
reasons why we need to add "local" or "regional" in the name
is that :
Suppose Navin submits the CFV for rec.arts.movies.indian tomorrow
and we vote, and that you win.
So, we have to following groups in the hierarchy :
rec.arts.movies.announce
rec.arts.movies.current-films
rec.arts.movies.indian
rec.arts.movies.lists+surveys
rec.arts.movies.misc
rec.arts.movies.movie-going
rec.arts.movies.past-films
rec.arts.movies.people
rec.arts.movies.production
rec.arts.movies.reviews
rec.arts.movies.tech
See that .indian comes right in the middle. The groups
in the newsrc file are almost always arranged alphabetially.
Now, under this senario, .indian is setting a precedent and
other people may want to follow suit and propose various groups to
disucss their own movies among themselves within r.a.m. So,
let's say a few more are created :
rec.arts.movies.announce
rec.arts.movies.asians *
rec.arts.movies.australia *
rec.arts.movies.current-films
rec.arts.movies.french *
rec.arts.movies.germany *
rec.arts.movies.indian *
rec.arts.movies.italian *
rec.arts.movies.lists+surveys
rec.arts.movies.misc
rec.arts.movies.movie-going
rec.arts.movies.newzealand *
rec.arts.movies.past-films
rec.arts.movies.people
rec.arts.movies.production
rec.arts.movies.reviews
rec.arts.movies.tech
You see how all these new groups are messing up the order.
All the groups in the existing ram.* must work together.
Without .past-films, .current-films is a mess. Without
.people, .past-films and .current-films will be flooded
with "people" posts. Without .lists+surveys, we will have
even more "lists and surveys" in current and past.
For the existing hierarchy to work, it is _extremely_
(can't emphasize that more) that newbies see all the
available groups in the existing ram.* or current and
past will be totally messed up. For the present
ram.* to continue to work, all the existing subgroups
must be held intact and newbies (who are just deciding
what groups to subcribe to) must be able to see them
clearly.
One way to ensure that is to ask you to insert "local"
in your name, then, at least, any more new groups of the
same nature that come out as a result of your .indian
will all have to have "local" attached to their names
like below :
rec.arts.movies.announce
rec.arts.movies.current-films
rec.arts.movies.lists+surveys
rec.arts.movies.local.asians
rec.arts.movies.local.australia
rec.arts.movies.local.french
rec.arts.movies.local.germany
rec.arts.movies.local.indian
rec.arts.movies.local.italian
rec.arts.movies.local.newzealand
rec.arts.movies.misc
rec.arts.movies.movie-going
rec.arts.movies.past-films
rec.arts.movies.people
rec.arts.movies.production
rec.arts.movies.reviews
rec.arts.movies.tech
It is much easier in pick out the "non-local" groups when
you put "local" in those regional groups. Some newsreaders.
like if you read news from Netscape, will also show them as :
rec.arts.movies.announce
rec.arts.movies.current-films
rec.arts.movies.lists+surveys
rec.arts.movies.local.*
rec.arts.movies.misc
rec.arts.movies.movie-going
rec.arts.movies.past-films
rec.arts.movies.people
rec.arts.movies.production
rec.arts.movies.reviews
rec.arts.movies.tech
The distinction between the two types of groups is than clearer.
I have just clearly demonstrated why rec.arts.movies.indian
is an _unaceptable_ name. You either stay out of r.a.m.* or
insert "local" in your name.
Christine
Christine S Ng
Thanks for the tip bit. I'd been quite anxious to know
what your decision would be.
Christine
Claus Schotten A
In article <3u0v25$d...@gold.tc.umn.edu> rava...@gold.tc.umn.edu (Sivakumar Ravada) writes:
>No, I'm not part of a big conspiraty against the poor indians. I simply want
>to save ram.* as aa usefull discussion forum.
So, you think the "poor Indians" can't have a USEFUL discussion on
RAM(L)I ? Only u can have 10 thousand articles on Pochahontas, and
Batman Forever?
You missunderstood me. IMHO, ram.l.i would have the same discuusions as
e.g. ra.i-m or s.c.i.m.
What's different, is the impact on the other ram.* groups.
My intention is, to preserve the discussions in these groups.
And I don't bother about the "Batman" or "Pochahontas" threads.
I kill them now, and I'll kill them in the future. However, what happens
to the discussions about "non-Hollywood" movies, when an array of
regional groups is created?
Ciao, Claus scho...@ert.rwth-aachen.de
Ashok
>
> You either stay out of r.a.m.* or nsert "local" in your name.
>
> Christine
>
The Queen [of Hearts] turned crimson with fury, and, after
glaring at [them] for a moment ike a wild beast, began
screaming "Off with [their] heads! Off with ----."
"Nonsense!" said Alice, very loudly and decidedly, and the
Queen was silent.
Lewis Carroll: "Alic's Adventures in the Wonderland"
Ashok
Claus Schotten A
Claus Schotten A writes:
>It is impossible to divide the current discussions in r.a.m.* on the
>basis of country, genre etc.. You try it nevertheless. The result will
>be chaos.
>
>I accept, that you want a forum to discuss indian movies only. You don't
>want to bother about "Hollywood" movies. Fine - you should get that group.
>But, please accept, that we want to a forum, where wee can discuss movies
>from the whole world - without trying to divide them by country, genre or
>other inappropriate things. We have that forum already and we want to
>keep it.
>
Who is taking away your current forum of discussion for 'world' movies,
whatever the definition of 'world' u have?
The proponents of ram.i are trying to divide ram.* by country. (Not the
actual traffic [with few exceptions], but the organization scheme. )
The next step will be other country groups, that would split the actual
traffic.
We are just making another group for 'indian' movies only. And by Joe,
it deserves a place, we at RMIM can feel its shock waves breaking our
window panes!
Yes, it deserves a place. But not neccessarily in ram.*.
Why is it IMPOSSIBLE to divide RAM.* on basis of some thing (be it
country, culture, language or followership) ? Just because you are YET
unware of Indian movie world.
I'm not unaware of the "Indian movie world", but you are unaware, that
we are not talking about a split "India" vs. "Hollywood". If the world
of movies would be so easy, we could split ram.* into ram.india and
ram.hollywood with little overlap. Unfortunately (for the organization
of USENET) and thanks God (for those who love movies), the "world of
movies" is much broader and much more complicated. It is the big rest
of movies, that is neither "pure indian" nor "pure Hollywood", which
makes the discussions in ram.* so interesting and a proper split of ram.*
by countries impossible.
If you would split ram.* by country, culture, language or genre, most
threads that are interesting for me (and many others) would fall
BETWEEN the groups. Thus, such an organization of ram.* is not usefull.
Ciao, Claus scho...@ert.rwth-aachen.de
Christine S Ng
|> cs...@athena.mit.edu (Christine S Ng) wrote:
|> >
|> >
|> > Christine
|> >
|>
|>
|> glaring at [them] for a moment ike a wild beast, began
|> screaming "Off with [their] heads! Off with ----."
|>
|> "Nonsense!" said Alice, very loudly and decidedly, and the
|> Queen was silent.
|>
|>
|> Lewis Carroll: "Alic's Adventures in the Wonderland"
|>
I'm just wondering whether you've studied my orginal post carefully ?
Are you aware of the key issues that I was trying to address ?
Did you understand them? If not, what did you not understand ?
Do you have any desire to find a place for your newsgroup that
is acceptable by others who also use ram.* ?
Do you realize that the proponents are initating a change in ram.* and
therefore it is the responsibility of the proponents to ensure that
such a change would have minimal effects on the existing newsgroups ?
Christine
Trystero...
>The bottom line is that the discussion of Indian films will not cross over
>with the discussions we have here in the rest of the r.a.m. hierarchy... There
>is a distinct group of people that ARE interested in them, though. There's
>no reason to make them wade through the discussions of the rest of the
>world's films, and there's no reason to make the rest of us have to skip
>over the discussions of the Indian movies. I'm all for r.a.m.indian.
>And if people want to talk about "Bandit Queen" or "The World of Apu" on
>the "regular" r.a.m. hierarchy, that's fine, because those movies have
>crossed over. But the VAST majority of Indian films has not, and there's
>no reason not to have a r.a.m.indian newsgroup.
I agree 100% with Adam. This sort of situation is the best reason for creating a
new newsgroup.
As far as names for the new group are concerned, has anyone suggested
"alt.asian-movies.indian"? There's already an alt.asian-movies newsgroup which
serves much the same purpose as is desired here (though it tends to be mostly
Hong Kong and Japanese films). I understand that a "rec" group is preferable; I
just wanted to raise this question (and if it's come up before and I've missed
it, I apologise).
doug
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas .S. Bailey wi...@trystero.iii.net
217 Park Avenue #111 wi...@iii.net
Worcester MA 01609-2243 http://www.iii.net/users/wire/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
it's just for now; it's just for now; even if it makes you happy...
Pavan Kumar Desikan
: Today, ram.* is a very good place for the discussions, I'm interested in.
: - It covers movies from the WHOLE world.
: - It doesn't try to separate movies by nationality, language, genre or
: any other inappropriate classification.
: That is very important to me, because IMHO the most interesting movies
: either cross the borders between the usaul classes or would fall into
: very small classes, which would not justify a group of their own.
: Thus, any attempt to sort the discussions in ram.* by one of these
: inappropriate classifications will seriously harm the discussions,
: I like most.
[snipped to save bandwidth]
: fit together, e.g. those interested in movies from the whole world
: Ciao, Claus scho...@ert.rwth-aachen.de
___________________________________________________________________________
Here is my perception of the discussion going on in the thread
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two main chars - Obstinatius Universalius (OU for short)
J.S.Bach(JSB for short)
LOOP :
OU : I listen to as varied music as Deep Purple, Pink Floyd, Michael
Jackson, Beatles, etc. In short I listen to all types of music in the world.
JSB : But you don't listen to classical music. I cannot possibly discuss
classically music with you.
OU : Did you not hear what I said? I said I listen to all types of music
in the world. I gave you examples too. I fail to comprehend what you do
not understand.
JSB : But classical music is so different
OU : You are employing empty rhetoric tricks. How is it different?
JSB : It is very different. I do not know how to convince you. Lots of
instruments are used.
OU : Of course, instruments are used in music. Did you expect music only
to be vocal? BTW doesn't London Philharmonic play classical?
JSB : YES! you got it. Now don't you agree it is different?
OU : I have heard London Philharmonic play Pink Floyd, Tull and Beatles
and I don't think that it is very different.
JSB : But that is not classical
OU : You just said it was. I am getting pained of this discussion. You
just use empty rhetorics again and again saying it is different. If you
insist that it is different then I say that it is not music.
JMP LOOP
_____________________________________________________________________________
--
Pavan Kumar Desikan
Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0129
Internet: p...@cs.duke.edu
HTTP : http://www.cs.duke.edu/~pkd
Navin Kabra
>As far as names for the new group are concerned, has anyone suggested
>"alt.asian-movies.indian"? There's already an alt.asian-movies newsgroup which
>serves much the same purpose as is desired here (though it tends to be mostly
>Hong Kong and Japanese films). I understand that a "rec" group is preferable; I
>just wanted to raise this question (and if it's come up before and I've missed
>it, I apologise).
>doug
From the RFD:
The alt.movies.indian newsgroup was created to address this issue, but
did not succeed in taking away much traffic from rec.music.indian.misc
because it is an alt.* newsgroup and many sites do not carry
it. People without access to alt.movies.indian, and people who want
their posts to reach a wider audience, continue posting on
rec.music.indian.misc.
navin.
Sivakumar Ravada
-->In article <3u1jd9$1...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>, j...@u.washington.edu (James Meek) writes:
-->|>
-->|> I would vote for "rec.arts.movies.local.indian," although I think that a
-->|> better name would be:
-->|>
-->|> rec.arts.movies.regional.indian
-->|>
-->|> or
-->|>
-->|> rec.arts.movies.cultural.indian
-->|>
-->|> Any thoughts on those?
-->|>
-->
-->I actually think "regional" is a better word, although, I don't
-->know if it is too late to ask Navin to change to .regional.indian.
-->The word "regional" gives a boarder sense and this branch
-->will come right before .tech, allowing more of the existing
-->ram.* to stay together, when arranged alphabetically.
-->
-->Christine
And I like the regional, because it denotes more a larger scope than
"local".
-- ShashiKant Joshi
Sivakumar Ravada
-->In article <3u225c$e...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> ad...@cco.caltech.edu (Adam Neil Villani) writes:
-->
-->There are some points, where this group would overlap with the existing
-->groups in ram.* (e.g. for movies like "Bandit Queen"). Thus, that group
-->will reduce the discussions about indian movies in ram.*. That's a pitty
-->(I would like to see an increase), but not a sufficient argument against
-->such a group.
-->
-->HOWEVER, there are very good reasons for NOT calling it ram.indian.
-->
-->If ram.i would be created, it would be just a matter of time until
-->other national (or regional) subgroups are created. I don't have to
-->tell you, Adam, what a mess that would be.
-->Do you think, you can convince someone who is interested in
-->Hongkong movies or french movies only, that there are good reasons
-->to create ram.indian but none to create ram.hongkong or ram.french?
-->I'm sure, I cannot. Look, how they are arguing here. They don't ask,
-->"Which way is the best to organize discussions?", they say "The indian
-->movie industry *merits* a group of their own!". Will french users accept,
-->that their movie industry doesn't "merit" a newsgroup but India does?
-->
-->Once one national subgroup of ram.* is created, others will follow.
-->Thus, ram.local (or regional).indian is a much better solution,
-->since it will keep the groups together and preserves a rest of the
-->"A movie is a movie" idea behind the current structure of ram.*.
-->Another plus: I hope, it emphazises, that the main purpose of these
-->groups is the discussion of movies with "niche" markets (how large
-->these "niches" will be, Perhaps "special" is the better term).
-->Movies which get a broader international release should still be
-->discussed in the current ram.* groups. (But this hope is very small.:-()
-->
-->However, I still prefer a new group outside of ram.*, because that
-->could serve for the discussion of indian movies as well, but would
-->discourage the further split of ram.* into national subgroups.
I guess, Claus, you are just repeating yourself in an infinite do-loop
:-))
I guess, we all realize now, that:
we need a movie group for indian movies
it has to be RAM.*
it should be within a node below RAM.* like RAM.local.india or
RAM.regional.india
RAM.region might be good from both the alphabetical order and
"region" connoting a braoder scale than "local"
Let us not keeping beating the same horse dead, or whatever the
expression is :-))
I think both sides have already come to
compromises/agreements/realisations etc, and it is good to finally see
some opponents being supportive.
Thanks to all, let us go ahead with the next steps.
Sivakumar Ravada
-->I don't think anyone is really proposing that we could not discuss Indian
-->movies in the other ram.groups; however, given the mass separation
-->between the two industries (India and the rest of the world, apparently),
-->it seems unlikely that most current readers of ram.* want to discuss most
-->indian movies. That doesn't include _Bandit Queen_, of course, or the
-->rerelease of Ray's films (coming, at least to Seattle, to a theater near
-->you this fall). (_BQ_, at any rate, is listed as a UK/India coproduction,
-->not a regular Indian film.)
It doesn't matter who put the money. But even BQ is made in Hindi, has
Indian cast, is about an Indian stor (this last one is not a strong
point) is shot in India so it is an Indian movie. How many times we
care who put in the money, I guess not the avearge movie goer!
-->I really don't think that adding ".regional" or ".local" discussions
-->would kill the discussions in the other ram.groups, assuming that other
-->countries/regions wish to have such discussion groups. Part of the
-->charter for such groups should probably say that these groups are
-->intended for discussion of movies that do not/have not yet reached a
-->worldwide audience. I could see African film discussion groups, for
-->example, or South American.
Yes, that is implied. If you want to discuss Indian films you come
over to RAMLI, and Bandit Queen MIGHT ALSO be discussed there, maybe
from an Indian perspective, I don't know, but the regular readers of
RAMLI won't go to RAM.* to discuss BQ.
If a current RAM.* reader wants to discuss BQ, they could start it on
RAM.* or join RAMLI. It is like two groups of discussion don't mean
they CAN'T discuss the same thing once in a while :-))
-->The current ram.groups should certainly encourage discussion of any
-->movies seen by a good portion of the world cinema audience, but I don't
-->think they really serve the needs of isolated/regional communities (at
-->least, not India's) to discuss films particular to their culture.
-->
-->I'd prefer .regional, myself, but I did propose it. :)
me too!! "region.india" is also a good choice.
-- ShashiKant Joshi
Claus Schotten A
Two comments:
You don't know SKY? Do you? :-)
You have missed my key-point.
Regardless, whether "indian movies are different" (from what?) or not,
there are two groups of users with different interests. BOTH need a
forum to discuss their topics in USENET. Due to different interests,
an organization scheme for threads, which is convinient to one group,
is totally inconvinient for the other group and vice versa. Though the
topics overlap, the discussions don't mix because of the different
structures of the groups.
My conclusion: We need two different places in USENET. Then, each group
of users can organize their traffic conviniently for their needs, without
affecting the organization scheme of the other group.
Ciao, Claus scho...@ert.rwth-aachen.de
Che...@commerce.otago.ac.nz
>From: rava...@gold.tc.umn.edu (Sivakumar Ravada)
>Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.movies.indian
>Date: 17 Jul 1995 16:17:41 -0500
>In <29567> of <news.groups,rec.music.indian.misc,rec.arts.movies.misc> cs...@athena.mit.edu (Christine S Ng) writes:
> -->|>
> -->|> better name would be:
> -->|>
> -->|> rec.arts.movies.regional.indian
> -->|>
> -->|> or
> -->|>
> -->|> rec.arts.movies.cultural.indian
> -->|>
> -->|> Any thoughts on those?
> -->|>
> -->
> -->I actually think "regional" is a better word, although, I don't
> -->know if it is too late to ask Navin to change to .regional.indian.
> -->The word "regional" gives a boarder sense and this branch
> -->will come right before .tech, allowing more of the existing
> -->ram.* to stay together, when arranged alphabetically.
> -->
> -->Christine
>
>
>And I like the regional, because it denotes more a larger scope than
>"local".
>
>-- ShashiKant Joshi
It is not the question of what name we like....the question we should be
asking is....WHEN...WHEN ARE WE GETTING THE MOVIES GROUP...WHATEVER THE
NAME. An old saying comes to mind here...aam khane se matlab rakho, perd
ginne se nahi!
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
THE OPTIMIST SEES THE DOUGHNUT WHILE THE PESSIMIST SEES THE HOLE
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Pintu Diwana
writes:
>>And I like the regional, because it denotes more a larger scope than
>>"local".
>>
>>-- ShashiKant Joshi
>
>
>It is not the question of what name we like....the question we should be
>asking is....WHEN...WHEN ARE WE GETTING THE MOVIES GROUP...WHATEVER THE
>NAME. An old saying comes to mind here...aam khane se matlab rakho, perd
>ginne se nahi!
bhai jab peD. kisee aur ke baag meN lagaane hoN to gin ne bhee paD.te haiN,
barkhurdaar!!
--
-- Pintu Diwana (the name is snough!)
tamil.il...@gmail.com
Tollywood, Kollywood, Bollywood Latest Movie - News, Gossips, Videos, Trailers, Reviews and much more @ iluvcinema.in (i love cinema, ilovecinema)
i love cinema, tollywood movies news, tollywood movies gossips, tollywood movies videos, tollywood movies trailers, tollywood movies reviews kollywood movies news, kollywood movies gossips, kollywood movies videos, kollywood movies trailers, kollywood movies reviews, bollywood movies news, bollywood movies gossips, bollywood movies videos, bollywood movies trailers, bollywood movies reviews, tollywood movie updates, kollywood movie updates, bollywood movie updates iluvcinema, i luv cinema, ilovecinema
On Saturday, July 8, 1995 12:30:00 PM UTC+5:30, Sivakumar Ravada wrote:
> >>> I don't like this suggestion at all. Why not save one step and call it
> >>> rec.arts.movies.indian. I say NO to the above suggestion.
> >>
> >> Obviously, you guys have no real interests in finding a working solution.
> >
> >In order to find a solution there must first be a problem. As far as I can
> >tell, the only problem with rec.arts.movies.indian is in the heads of the
> >folks who seem bound and determined to oppose it.
>
> Exactly!!! They think:
> they own RAM.*
> noone else (who doesnot read RAM.*) can have movies interest
> RAM.* is GOD -- it will never change, it is forever!
> (actually it is true for many Indians -- RAM!!! )
> making a new greoup will cause EARTHQUAKES in RAM.*
>
> It is only creating a newsgroup! It is not the days of big piles of
> files in heavy wooden cabinets of yonder office days! This is
> computers!! if only people were also so careful and adamant in their
> coding style!!! Maintaing code would be a piece of cake!
>
> Also, however careful you be in newsgroup heirarchy, there will be
> posts sent to wrong groups, there will be people looking for a certain
> group. A simple way is to do a listing of ALL groups with a certain
> pattern of string. e.g. if I want to find all groups of movies, I would
> type 'l movie'
>
> So, don't worry people will not be lost in the depths of further breaks
> of RAM.*
>
> -- PD