Re: OT: "I don't see why..."

["mudrat_26" <mudrat_26@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hey all,

mudrat here - chronic lurker. Have to say that I agree with Alnisa's 
statements. Personally, I live for spoilers. Here in Australia, we 
won't be seeing the episodes currently being discussed til about 
August, so I'll happily take all the info I can get on 'em. If we're 
all responsible enough to sign up for lists such as this, then surely 
we're all responsible enough to read the subject header, and avoid 
comments/discussions we don't wish to take part in.

Now, the item in question was deleted before I even got a chance to 
look at it, so I couldn't tell you whether I thought it was headed 
correctly or not. 

I hope I'm not crossing a line here (some lists react strongly to 
anyone who expresses an alternate opinion), but I have to say I 
disagree with the idea of deleting someone's post without actually 
looking at it. Especially since the post that warned not to look at 
Alnisa's post didn't mention anything about it breaching the 
rules/guidelines for posting spoilers.

I apologise for the rant - I have a head cold, and am off in la la 
land on cold and flu tablets. But I felt I needed to share. Now I'll 
go back to work.


mudrat






--- In buffywantswillow@y..., Alnisa Allgood <allgood2@s...> wrote:
> At 5:27 PM -0700 5/9/02, danspector@w... wrote:
> >On listmom's question as to why I deleted the post:
> >
> >Because the people who get daily digests would otherwise see the
> >(improperly-headed) spoiler post before they saw blinviz's warning 
not
> >to read it. Since allegedly it didn't use a proper heading and/or
> >spoiler space (I just deleted it sight unseen), the unspoiled 
wouldn't
> >have a chance to employ the "If you don't want to know, don't read"
> >rule.
> 
> Interesting since the message in question had tons of spoiler 
space. 
> Not only did it indicate spoiler in the title, but it used a fairly 
> large leader, then an excessively large quote of a prior message 
when 
> I only really needed two sentences of the original message to make 
my 
> point.
> 
> I realize that a fair number of people don't want to be spoiled. 
But 
> the lengths people force others to accommodate them is excessive. I 
> replied to a conversation that was almost entirely spoilers. In 
> keeping with that reply I tool great care to insure that my message 
> wouldn't be viewable to those using preview panes for messages.
> 
> I was even quite when the little lecture about how spoilers posters 
> should not only give fair warning but then take the extra, extra 
> effort to break spoilers down into multiple type. I really don't 
> care that the message was deleted, but I do have to say, I believe 
> the responsibility for those who wish to remain spoiler free should 
> be on those who want to remain spoiler free.
> 
> Certainly some care and consideration should be given by others, 
but 
> its not my responsibility to make sure someone who reads a post 
> subjected SPOILERS, doesn't get spoiled. If they don't want to be 
> spoiled DON'T read the post.
> 
> I'm sorry. Cause I'm certain its not the popular thing to say, but 
I 
> will say the following...
> 
> Providing spoiler space and clearly labeled SPOILER headings in the 
> subject is a courtesy. Its meant to be respectful and considerate 
of 
> those who wish to remain spoiler free. Having those who wish to 
> remain spoiler free demand, multiple spoiler spaces between 
different 
> types of spoilers is just demanding, rude, and absolutely without 
> courtesy to those who wish to participate in those topics of 
> conversation.
> 
> I've watched as more and more rules keep getting added to how to 
> treat spoilers. And really they are just ridiculous. My post 
clearly 
> indicated that spoils would be contained within, the post I 
responded 
> to clearly indicated that spoilers would be contained within, and 
the 
> entire topic of conversation was about where the show would go 
after 
> the most current episode (obviously speculation and spoilers). I 
> really don't see why myself or any other posters would have to take 
> any more responsibility than that.
> 
> Certainly I understand the compelling need for those who belong on 
> the list to want to participate in as many conversations as 
possible. 
> But if you've made the decision to be spoiler free. Then at least 
> take the responsibility of not reading messages with the subject 
> SPOILERS in them. Reading them, then being surprised and dismayed 
> that you were spoiled is.. well just inane.
> 
> Alnisa
> -- 
> .........................................
> Alnisa Allgood
> Executive Director
> Nonprofit Tech
> (ph) 415.337.7412 (fx) 415.337.7927
> (url) http://www.nonprofit-techworld.org
> (url) http://www.nonprofit-tech.org
> (url) http://www.tech-library.org
> .........................................
> Nonprofit Tech E-Update
> mailto:nonprofit-tech-subscribe@e...
> .........................................
> transforming nonprofits through technology
> .........................................