Page 2 of 3
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 3:35 am
by GORDON
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
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 9:22 am
by Vince
Malcolm wrote:Vince wrote:Occurred to me one time that spoilers were good. The Crying Game.
If you couldn't figure that out by halfway through the film, then I don't know what to say.
I never saw it. Because someone thankfully spoiled it for me.
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 9:34 am
by TheCatt
I was spoiled, and saw it. The best part was watching it with friends who weren't spoiled. "Hey, that chick's pretty cute." And then waiting for his reaction face later. 
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:31 pm
by TPRJones
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.
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:34 pm
by GORDON
I don't read the running threads where people talk about the show as it airs... until I am caught up to the latest episode.
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:20 pm
by Malcolm
More research supports Malcolm.
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:55 pm
by Leisher
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"?
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:09 pm
by TPRJones
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.
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:14 pm
by Leisher
TPRJones wrote: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.
So show me where science proves that because John enjoys something one way, so will Tom.
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:14 pm
by TPRJones
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.
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:51 pm
by Leisher
Nothing is true of everyone.
That's all I'm saying.
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:31 am
by TPRJones
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
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 2:06 pm
by Leisher
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.
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 2:28 pm
by TheCatt
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.
So you are all people?
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 3:15 pm
by GORDON
Who you callin all people
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:15 pm
by Vince
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).
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:18 am
by Leisher
TheCatt wrote: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.
So you are all people?
Are you an actual feline?
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.
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:25 am
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote:Are you an actual feline?
No. I am THE actual feline. All others are mere imitation.
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.
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 9:31 am
by Leisher
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. 
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:06 am
by GORDON
I greatly dislike spoilers.