This news has been all over the internet the last couple days. Two characters will not be appearing in season 5. This link is at time.com.
Is it a spoiler?
Edited By GORDON on 1410075345
There's Something About Spoilers
I never saw it. Because someone thankfully spoiled it for me.Malcolm wrote:If you couldn't figure that out by halfway through the film, then I don't know what to say.Vince wrote:Occurred to me one time that spoilers were good. The Crying Game.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Once upon a time either you watched a show when it was shown or you just never saw it. Spoilers was not a thing, at least not for TV shows. Now people watch things at all sorts of different times, so who knows.
The only way to avoid it would be to have a separate thread for every episode of the series so you could talk about stuff with other people in that thread who were at the same point of watching the show as you. But that's a lot of threads.
A thread per season can work, although it does mean only going to that thread after you've watched that season and no further.
The only way to avoid it would be to have a separate thread for every episode of the series so you could talk about stuff with other people in that thread who were at the same point of watching the show as you. But that's a lot of threads.
A thread per season can work, although it does mean only going to that thread after you've watched that season and no further.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
More research supports Malcolm.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
They support your view. They don't support all views.
Show me the research where the exact same person is able to watch something for the first time...twice...once knowing the spoiler and once not knowing, and saying both experiences were the same or that knowing the spoilers was more enjoyable.
Until you can do that, your position is wrong.
Not everyone's preference is the same. Just because you have one, doesn't mean anyone's who is different is wrong.
There are men and women in this world who don't enjoy receiving oral sex. Does that mean everyone who likes getting it is wrong? Or because they're the minority should we force it upon them because "our side is right"?
Show me the research where the exact same person is able to watch something for the first time...twice...once knowing the spoiler and once not knowing, and saying both experiences were the same or that knowing the spoilers was more enjoyable.
Until you can do that, your position is wrong.
Not everyone's preference is the same. Just because you have one, doesn't mean anyone's who is different is wrong.
There are men and women in this world who don't enjoy receiving oral sex. Does that mean everyone who likes getting it is wrong? Or because they're the minority should we force it upon them because "our side is right"?
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
Show me the research where the exact same person is able to watch something for the first time...twice...once knowing the spoiler and once not knowing, and saying both experiences were the same or that knowing the spoilers was more enjoyable.
Until you can do that, your position is wrong.
That's just not how science works. All because you are unable to come up with ways to test something reliably doesn't mean that it's automatically in error. Nor does that failure automatically mean the inverse position is correct.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
So show me where science proves that because John enjoys something one way, so will Tom.TPRJones wrote:That's just not how science works. All because you are unable to come up with ways to test something reliably doesn't mean that it's automatically in error. Nor does that failure automatically mean the inverse position is correct.Show me the research where the exact same person is able to watch something for the first time...twice...once knowing the spoiler and once not knowing, and saying both experiences were the same or that knowing the spoilers was more enjoyable.
Until you can do that, your position is wrong.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
Science has nothing to do with that. But it can have to do with something like "we have found that 78% of our large randomly-chosen sample of people enjoy things in the way described in the case of John, while the other 22% enjoy things in the way described in the case of Tom."
Nothing is true of everyone. But many things are true of most people.
Nothing is true of everyone. But many things are true of most people.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
But the second part is just as important. It's the basis for all of the social sciences as well as most of modern medicine.
It seems like you are saying that if someone comes up with something that is reliably true about 76% of people, it's still completely useless because of that other 24%.
Edited By TPRJones on 1411572712
It seems like you are saying that if someone comes up with something that is reliably true about 76% of people, it's still completely useless because of that other 24%.
Edited By TPRJones on 1411572712
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
To be fair, you're talking about medicine, and I'm talking about people's personal preference and opinions.
My stance was spoilers ruin things for people. The counter stance was "we" enjoy things more if they're spoiled.
So science can go suck a cock. I don't give a shit if 98% of the people don't care if they have something spoiled ahead of time. I do and it's very clear I'm not the only one here that feels this way.
My stance was spoilers ruin things for people. The counter stance was "we" enjoy things more if they're spoiled.
So science can go suck a cock. I don't give a shit if 98% of the people don't care if they have something spoiled ahead of time. I do and it's very clear I'm not the only one here that feels this way.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
So you are all people?Leisher wrote:To be fair, you're talking about medicine, and I'm talking about people's personal preference and opinions.
My stance was spoilers ruin things for people. The counter stance was "we" enjoy things more if they're spoiled.
So science can go suck a cock. I don't give a shit if 98% of the people don't care if they have something spoiled ahead of time. I do and it's very clear I'm not the only one here that feels this way.
It's not me, it's someone else.
98% of the time, I don't care and don't mind reading spoilers. There are very few movies where it's made a difference to me. Let's face it, most movie and TV plots today aren't written well enough to spoil by knowing them ahead of time. Hell, you can pretty much look at the movie poster and read the tag line and get on the green of the exact plot line (to use a sort of golf metaphor).
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Are you an actual feline?TheCatt wrote:So you are all people?Leisher wrote:To be fair, you're talking about medicine, and I'm talking about people's personal preference and opinions.
My stance was spoilers ruin things for people. The counter stance was "we" enjoy things more if they're spoiled.
So science can go suck a cock. I don't give a shit if 98% of the people don't care if they have something spoiled ahead of time. I do and it's very clear I'm not the only one here that feels this way.
Let's not do the nitpicky horseshit to keep a dead thread alive.
If you want to judge the use of the word people, start with Malcolm and this article he posted. You'll notice their use of the word is exactly the same.
End of the day, show some courtesy regarding spoilers. We're not all the same. Some of us don't mind spoilers, others do.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
No. I am THE actual feline. All others are mere imitation.Leisher wrote:Are you an actual feline?
End of the day, show some courtesy regarding spoilers. We're not all the same. Some of us don't mind spoilers, others do.
Most people enjoy spoilers. You do not. That;s fine. I try to keep the world spoiler free.
It's not me, it's someone else.
Most people enjoy spoilers.
If the average IQ is 100 and "most people" enjoy spoilers then it stands to reason that most people that enjoy spoilers are morons.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell