Jerry Johnson's mailing supposedly supporting Charles Ramirez Berg's further definition of what Murray Pomerance has suggested in his mailings is certainly guilty of the same "overgeneralizations" that he accuses certain professors of. Mailings on this subject have not contained "underlying venom" against students in general. They have criticized the laziness of certain individuals who deem it unfit to engage in the type of explorations that both Berg and now Johnson (re. his film society screenings) engage in. The relevant arguments concern informed discussions, not dismissal of a particular film after 30 minutes of viewing by relying on a particular "sound bite" approach denying deeper exploration and engagement with the text. Johnson's mailing ignores these relevant points. Instead of engaging intelligently with the discussion, he has chosen to use Berg's well- argued points for bombastic demagogery against his chosen targets. Johnson emphasizes a group of students who"WANT TO LEARN" - fair enough. But learning involves hard work, research, exploration of previous work on the subject, and a defined grasp of where an argument is original as opposed to mere opinion and ignorance. That is what distinguishes educational work in both colleges and film societies. Anything else is half-baked demagogic rabble rousing.I'm also pleased to note that MR. Johnson regards himself as an authority on all students "regardless of race, sex, background." Do I detect a particular "lack" of recent scholarship in this area dealing with complex issues of spectatorship? Or does this not count at all? Tony Williams ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]