On Tue, 16 May 2006 Jon_Lincicum at stream.com wrote: > Philip Hart <philiph at slac.stanford.edu> > On Mon, 15 May 2006, Jon Lincicum wrote: > >> This is not at all what was happening here. > >> > >> I suppose this really gets into how you choose to define "spoiler". > > > >I don't choose how to define things - that's done by people who use the > >language and by dictionary writers. You can choose to ignore part of the > >common definition if you like. > > Well, if you won't even agree on terms, I don't see how we can have any > meaningful discussion about anything. > > I'm willing to listen to whatever your so-called "common definition" is, > if you have one to offer. I already described what a spoiler is. What happened was that you, not understanding what a spoiler is (i.e. info of type X, implying info of types X', X'', or X''''), said it was info of type X''''. I explained the difference. > And the picture of the rather goth-looking figure with giant teeth on the > front cover of /Agyar/ doesn't do the same? That's new, and in fact a reasonable argument in favor of not protecting the info. > My point being that they wouldn't be here if they didn't expect to talk > (and hear) about at least extremely obvious topics from SKZBs books. If > someone really needs that level of "spoilage" protection, they probably > shouldn't be here. Again, after discussion the community decided something else. You have every right to disagree with us and with SKZB, just as you are free to wear plaid pants, a striped shirt, and a polka-dotted tie, or go jump in a lake. And note the name of this list. I haven't read _Gypsy_ or _Cowboy Feng's_ yet, and I've gotten stuck early in _F&N_ twice now, and I appreciate the fact that I can read this list without inadvertently coming across the Cliff's Notes versions of their plots. > >there is a clear consensus that this particular bit of info should get > >a spoiler warning, along with the two important bits of info at the end > >of _O_, and all discussion of new Works until a few weeks after the ppb > >edition. > > But if you Note that you're addressing the entire list here. > want to be consistent with this, you really ought to consider Do you not understand that having had a discussion and having arrived at a consensus means we have considered the issue? Or perhaps you don't understand that public policies require the balancing of various interests and typically require setting rules that somewhat arbitrarily split the difference?