From: muzzle@cs.uq.oz.au (Murray Chapman)
Newsgroups: alt.cult-movies
Subject: Re: BLADE RUNNER FAQ Version 1.0
Keywords: blade runner faq cult movies
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:34:08 GMT
Reply-To: muzzle@cs.uq.oz.au

In <1igq76INN327@cc.tut.fi> jk87377@cc.tut.fi (Kouhia Juhana) writes:
> >	3) The point is irrelevant or insignificant.
> >		A lot of the feedback I've received is of the type:
> >		"This wasn't denied in the film, so it must be true."
> >		Sorry, this file is too big already for speculations.

>You miss the point of making the FAQ.

I don't think so.

>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.

>If the file is too big for speculations, you propably need help
>in compilation.

I would like to keep the file as compact as possible, not for management
purposes, but for readability.  I'm not sure that people want to wade through
Pages and pages of "No he isn't", "yes he is" style arguments, with the
occasional "HEY!  DECKARD'S EYES GLOW!!!!!  K00L!"  comments popping up
regularly.

>Note that most articles in the Net are speculations.
>Thus they should be in FAQ.

FAQ stands for "Frequently Asked (or Answered) Questions", and it's NOT a
collection of discussions or arguments.  99% of the FAQs that are in
news.answers do not contain discussions.

The net is the perfect place discussions: it's dynamic, unlike a list which
is posted only every 30 days or so.

If you or anyone else wishes to keep track of all the discussions about
Blade Runner, I'd be more than happy, as this would keep them out of the FAQ.

>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.

>I also hope that if people, who did sumbit material but never get
>it to FAQ, could mail the material directly to me (just in case
>I don't get it from the FAQ maintainer).

80% percent of people who suggested new material will have their contributions
appear in the next version.  Of the remaining 20%, 17% proposed things for
which there was either an explanation or evidence to the contrary.  In either
case, I notified the sender.  The remaining 2% had their replies from me
bounce.  I suggest that if they were serious about having their views considered
in the FAQ, they would be asking me why their views didn't appear in the FAQ.
So far, nothing.

If you believe I've snubbed your idea, post it to the net and ask for support.

>I also hope that I get note from people who are willing to check the
>plain raw material too, and make decisions how to put something
>to FAQ.

I think your idea is getting unnecessarily complex.  

>The material I compile will be then to put to the BR FAQ by Chapman
>(we don't want multiple FAQs, eh?).

Why don't you start up another (non FAQ) list, detailing the arguments that
people have about the movie?


> >	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.

Please read my statement again.  I did not say "I am the person most qualified
to decide if Deckard is a replicant", I merely claimed that I was in the best
position to summarize what the net has proposed.

>Note that by choosing material to the FAQ, you just apply your
>opinion.
>To be neutral person on this, you should add everything to the FAQ
>and then wait comments from the readers how to write further.
>You are supposed to be just compiling all submitted material;
>I'm sure those people who submitted and expected to get their view
>to the FAQ, though the same.

There's a point where you have to draw the line.  Sure, it would be great if
the FAQ could answer every question and cover every opinion about BR, but
that's not the idea of the FAQ.  I'm writing the FAQ, so you've got to expect
that some aspects of my personality are reflected in it.

I'm not petty or conceited enough to snub someone just because I don't
agree with them; there's a lot of stuff in the FAQ that I *don't* agree with,
but that's just my personal opinion.  If you provide a good argument which
doesn't contradict known facts, then it goes into the FAQ.

>Juhana Kouhia

Murray Chapman
muzzle@cs.uq.oz.au
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
  Murray Chapman                           muzzle@cs.uq.oz.au
  University of Queensland                 How many lightbulb jokes does it
  Brisbane, Australia                      take to change the subject?
Newsgroups: alt.cult-movies