From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.comics,alt.manga
Subject: The rec.arts.{comics.}manga wars continue
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:18:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.-+sjr1
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Second-String Public Enemies (Western Comics Division)

I've bunched together a handful of replies here to save people time.

thwang@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Tommy Hwang) writes:

>> how often are charters respected?
>
> As far as I know, NEVER. :-) :-)

I must say that by simultaneously calling manga "comics" in the charter
and insisting that they're *not* comics in their agitation for their pet
group name, the rec.arts.manga people are getting an *awful* early start.

[On his planned crossposts from alt.manga into rec.arts.comics:]

>>> I will cross post AS IS.  No "MANGA" warning in headers. 
>>
>> You're advocating deliberate rudeness. 
>
> I just do not think that the "Mangas" should all be combined into one
> subject. the headers WILL be based on the intended subject (ie. the
> title of the books, or the name of its creater, etc...).  This is not
> rudeness, I personally feel it is Fairness.

It's rudeness.  People who post to rec.arts.comics are asked to keyword their
subject lines to help people decide which articles to read and which ones to
ignore.  Posts about manga should have MANGA: in the subject.

If you didn't know about this guideline you could plead ignorance, but you
can't.  Deliberately agitating people in rec.arts.comics *isn't* going to
help your chances of getting the group you want. 

>> The _charter_ for this group refers to manga as a type of comic book.
>> By accepting this charter proposal the supporters of the group are
>> telling us (the uninformed) that manga are comics. 
>
> To the best of my knowledge, it is the only way to make the proposal
> understandable by you (the uninformed). 

And insulting people won't help either.

>> they walk like comics, they talk like comics, they smell like comics --
>> so they're *comics*.   
>
> Corrections, *comics* walks like manga, *comics* smell like manga -- so
> *comics* are mangas.  (this also works, ne?)   

Not when you're speaking English.  Last time I checked, we were.

>> So now you can explain to me again why these Japanese, Taiwanese, and
>> Hong Kong comics aren't *really* comics (They're MANGA!) and therefore
>> don't belong in the comics hierarchy.    
>
> Then, can you explain why they are a subunit of *comics*? 

They aren't a "subunit", they're a *type* of comics.  Your own charter
says this!  If they're comics, THEY BELONG IN THE COMICS HIERARCHY.
Which word don't you understand, Tommy?

> I would suggest you to check in the dictionary.  ONLY in the U.S. or
> countries that used "American English" are these books called *comics*. 

How many groups in the mainline Usenet can you think of that *don't* use
English as their primary language?  If the primary language of your
audience was Japanese, you might have a case for rec.arts.manga.comics. 
It isn't, and you don't. 

> Also, I think the comparasion should be more like "Mangas are comics
> just like boxing is to Judo." (I hope you get it.) 

Manga are to *western* comics as judo is to boxing.  Both manga and
western comics are comics, and both boxing and judo are martial arts. So
put the group where it belongs. 

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)