[Let's keep the discussions separate for the two lists. This message is going to only readalong.] Matthew Hunter <matthew at infodancer.org> wrote on Fri, 14 Jun 2002 02:57:02 > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2002, Thomas Yan <tyan at twcny.rr.com> wrote: > > I want simple rules, too. "Must protect if newer than <x> months" > > strike *me* as more complicated than "always protect" :) > > Tell you what. > > Can you define criteria under which an on-topic message would NOT > deserve spoiler protection? -snip- Sure: If it doesn't spoil any book except for the one selected for discussion. *thinks some* OK. My understanding of this list was to read a book, and "analyze it intensely" as we go along. But what does that mean? One natural class of intenses analyses is to make connections with the other books, some of which came "before" and some of which come "after". Defining "before" is probably so hellish as to be impractical: series order? publication order? discussion-here order? So I'll back up some. Maybe for this list, it *does* make sense to say: Don't join if you want to avoid spoilers. In which case, if you (generic) are sensitive to spoilers, and hoped to join this list or read the archives to enhance your enjoyment as you read along for the first time, you're screwed. Sorry. - tky