|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 66 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 25 of 66:
| 
Dec 9 16:54 UTC 1996 |
That's technically possible. I don't understand why it would be
desirable though.
|
ladyevil
|
|
response 26 of 66:
|
Dec 9 17:32 UTC 1996 |
Funny, I understand totally.
|
srw
|
|
response 27 of 66:
|
Dec 9 22:27 UTC 1996 |
It was my inderstanding that Valerie's wish to have a Web conference
stemmed from a desire to discuss web authoring. Web authoring is a big
topic, with lots of side issues, and rather a bit outside the framework
of the internet conference. The latter is more focused on using the
various bits of internet out there (including the web).
So it seems like a good idea to be a separate conference to me. It seems
like it might have a different (overlapping) group of participants.
None of this has had anything to do with how the conference is accessed,
so I don't understand why TS would have suggested that. I am backtalking
this response right now, and bandwidth seems to be fine.
|
janc
|
|
response 28 of 66:
|
Dec 10 23:00 UTC 1996 |
I'd enjoy participating in a "web authoring" conference.
|
robh
|
|
response 29 of 66:
|
Dec 10 23:02 UTC 1996 |
I think a lot of people would, especially people who don't
normally do a lot of conferencing. That's why I love the idea.
|
tsty
|
|
response 30 of 66:
|
Dec 16 06:01 UTC 1996 |
re #21/24/25 .... 24 has it right for the reason in the 2nd graph of 21.
resources. i'm not pleased with my own suggestion in #20, but if grex
is streaching resources too far, something might need to be re-thunk.
|
nephi
|
|
response 31 of 66:
|
Dec 22 11:35 UTC 1996 |
Were there a Web Conference, I would want to participate.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 32 of 66:
|
Dec 25 00:41 UTC 1996 |
Actually, it exists. It's waiting for us fair witnessly types to enter the
first item.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 33 of 66:
|
Jan 8 23:29 UTC 1997 |
I have a conference idea. Why not a new conf dedicated to film criticism
and discussion. I think the arts conference is fairly general and doesnt
lend itself to more than perfunctory discussion of any one topic.
This would be a conf about movies and movie-making. For items about your
favorite films, actors and actresses and directors. I see
items for meta-discussions of individual movies and their themes.
Could also discuss ideas for movies, what books would make good film.
Also discussion about foriegn films, film noir, genre films.
I think there is more than enough material there and that the "Movies"
conference could be a good one!
|
valerie
|
|
response 34 of 66:
|
Jan 9 15:31 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 35 of 66:
|
Jan 9 16:00 UTC 1997 |
I've been thinking of proposing such a conference for a while
now and would certainly participate.
|
ladymoon
|
|
response 36 of 66:
|
Jan 11 04:52 UTC 1997 |
Richard had a good idea!
|
richard
|
|
response 37 of 66:
|
Jan 11 22:02 UTC 1997 |
So is anyone interested in being a co-fw for this movies conference?
I'm also looking for suggestions for a name. Certainly it will be known
generically as the "movies conference" but I always think a conf should
have a catchy title.
So far I've come up with "Cinema Paradiso" or "Rosebud" (which I think
sound better than something tacky like "At the Movies"
Any suggestions?
|
janc
|
|
response 38 of 66:
|
Jan 11 22:50 UTC 1997 |
Cinema Paradiso is a very good name.
|
remmers
|
|
response 39 of 66:
|
Jan 12 11:30 UTC 1997 |
The aliases "movies" and "film" are currently held by the Arts
conference, of which I'm one of the 4 fw's. It would certainly
lessen confusion to re-assign those aliases to the new
conference regardless of what it decides to call itself in the
masthead, and it would be fine with me to do that. There's very
little discussion of film in the Arts conference anyway, except
for the movie item that's linked from Agora.
But the other 3 fw's of Arts should have an opportunity for
input, so I'll mail them and let them know that this discussion
is taking place.
|
omni
|
|
response 40 of 66:
|
Jan 12 20:30 UTC 1997 |
I would support this, and since I enjoy movies a great deal, I'll volunteer
to co-fw, that is if the powers that be don't think I'm spreading myself too
thin ;)
I have always felt that the arts conf was too general for films.
just re assure me that you won't link every item to hell and gone. Linking
has really gotten out of hand in the world conf, and the travel conf. I'm
not against linking, but overdoing it tends to tear the soul right out of the
conf.
|
richard
|
|
response 41 of 66:
|
Jan 12 22:29 UTC 1997 |
well since the world conf no longer exsists, I assumeyou are talking
about Newsline (the merged conf) I think I linked one item in the last
two months. I agree that too much linking is counterproductive.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 42 of 66:
|
Jan 14 20:24 UTC 1997 |
Okay this conf should be created soon. I'm hoping to get the
movies and films pointers redirected from the Arts Conf (to
avoid confusion, if the fws there are willing) Thye only pointer though
that I've come up with otherwise to start it is "cinema" So I
need suggestions...what are other pointers that would be good fora movie
conf?
|
remmers
|
|
response 43 of 66:
|
Jan 14 21:16 UTC 1997 |
Three's plenty.
|
jenna
|
|
response 44 of 66:
|
Jan 15 04:41 UTC 1997 |
well, if you can et them from the arts cf
|
tsty
|
|
response 45 of 66:
|
Jan 15 17:21 UTC 1997 |
the Library is about to start including movie reviews from the LA Times.
|
scott
|
|
response 46 of 66:
|
Jan 15 21:21 UTC 1997 |
Is that OK copyrights, TS?
(Sounds like I need to check out the Library, if it's going to have cool info
like that)
|
omni
|
|
response 47 of 66:
|
Jan 16 05:52 UTC 1997 |
Why not go right to the horses mouth (www.latimes.com)?
|
tsty
|
|
response 48 of 66:
|
Jan 17 19:54 UTC 1997 |
that's where the reviews are coming from, and they are emailed to
thix system. i figure theyr are worth posting. lower net traffic
to a single occurrance for the same file.
as well as flushing out the library
|
valerie
|
|
response 49 of 66:
|
Jan 31 15:19 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|