From: pete@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter Alexander Merel)
Subject: Re: BLADE RUNNER FAQ Version 1.0
Keywords: blade runner faq cult movies
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 15:28:09 GMT

jk87377@cc.tut.fi (Kouhia Juhana) writes:
>You miss the point of making the FAQ.
>You should add the above kind info to the FAQ too; you should write
>to FAQ:
>  somebody thinks "This wasn't denied in the film, so it must be true."
>And later when people comment that line, you should add the comments.

An the definition of faq is "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions"; it is
supposed to be a baseline document from which informed debate can proceed.
There's nothing wrong with speculation, but it does not belong in a reference
document like an faq unless it is a frequently posted speculation.

Now the trouble with Blade Runner is that _everybody_ has their own little
theory about it, and an faq that included every speculation would be a
singularly unusable reference document. I think so far Murray Chapman has
done a very good job with it - 1.0 is an enormous improvement over 0.9, and
1.1 promises to be even better.

>I'm interested in to help you.
>I request that you mail me the e-mail submits you got to the FAQ.
>I will check them too.
>The material I compile will be then to put to the BR FAQ by Chapman
>(we don't want multiple FAQs, eh?).

I suggest that this is not a good idea. Documents edited by committee are
as a rule much poorer than documents edited by a single editor. Examine
the ISO standards if you would like an example. 

> >	4) It is generally accepted that (you are wrong | it is unclear).
> >		Remember, other people have different views.  I'm specifically
> >		referring to the "Deckard is a replicant" question.  Half of
> >		you tell me that he is a replicant, and half tell me that
> >		he isn't.  *I* am in the best position to decide what is
> >		the consensus of opinion.  I have tried to provide a balanced
> >		and objective viewpoint.

>You're not in the best position, because the question in making FAQ
>is not what you think about the "Deckard is replicant?!", but instead
>the question is will you put the all opinions to the FAQ.

So far he seems to have struck a good balance - at least neither camp has
complained publically, and on the net silence is definitely assent. Perhaps
you could outline the problems you have with the mix so that they can be 
debated and fixed, rather than seeking to usurp Chapman's editorial control.

>To be neutral person on this, you should add everything to the FAQ
>and then wait comments from the readers how to write further.

Surely that is just what he is doing.

>You are supposed to be just compiling all submitted material;

No. Chapman is trying to come up with a coherent document - if you want to
see _every_ opinion you can go through the alt.cult-movies archives (though
why you would want to is beyond me). If you perceive an editorial bias then
by all means tell us about it. Otherwise, don't worry about it - it will come
out in the wash.

>I'm sure those people who submitted and expected to get their view
>to the FAQ, thought the same.

You can't please all the people all the time, but no one has been displeased
enough to voice their dissent - that in itself is a pretty amazing acheivement
when it comes to Blade Runner, and Chapman is to be congratulated.

-- 
Internet: pete@extro.su.oz.au             UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!extro!pete
                       I am a big pond in a small fish.
Newsgroups: alt.cult-movies