I even think the need to bring this discussion up in Light Bulbs is kinda over the top

How else would it be changed?

We *can* make an educated guess that if (pulling numbers out of my ass) 48 people have posted implying that they know the casting news, and two have posted implying that they do not, 96% of all active board members know the casting news.

Just as a statistical note, I think that may not be a valid inference. Because a person who doesn't know the casting news would also be less likely to know that there is casting news warranting comment from them (simply because a person who knows the casting news obviously also knows of the casting news). This means that the sampling method proposed would likely skew against the unspoiled, as there's a certain element of self-selection.

I think the fact that Elena got spoiled for it within these threads creates another possible bias, namely, if it has been mentioned on these boards, it may be that those unspoiled who were participating in the thread and therefore were in a position to announce their unspoiledness, would have run the risk of becoming spoiled as a result - thus again skewing against the unspoiled by the given sampling method.

Weird! Was I a big goofball? Or was I being a pretentious twit?

Neither. You were delurking to make a pretty good point about Xander and Anya's engagement, and then there were a lot of "Welcome Burrell!!!"s

Except -the summer before it would have bugged me a lot when speculating about the on-coming season to have taken part in a discussion about *whether* Buffy was returning and having had to confine speculationa about *how* she was returning to the spoiler threads.

That's getting really close to the "all the lurkers agree with me!" argument. Obviously, we can't know what people who don't say anything know, think, feel or believe.

I agree, Lyra. And I'd like to point out that I'm not the person who keeps bringing up the 'most people know' point. (edit) Except to ask if that's really the case.

Billytea, I understand that. My point is that if they don't say anything, we can't assume there's a vast army of the spoilerfree. It's the whole proving-a-negative issue.

Also, this thread was announced in Press; I'd think the unspoiled would want to weigh in here, since theyr'e the ones at risk.

Billyteas point is why I have said I can't prove it. But not just in the lightbulb threads, but in the natter, and discussion threads, I have gotten the impression that an overwhelming majority of people on this board don't find this particular type of information spoilery.

Bear in mind that basically we are talking about stuff that will be in the promos but is not yet. So it is spoilery only for those who find promos spoilery and manage to avoid them. And I don't think it is a bad guess that this is a small minority.

we can't assume there's a vast army of the spoilerfree

But we also can't assume everyone knows -- and I have been explicitly told that. So weighting one's vote on how many people are inconvenienced either way, although tempting and perhaps unavoidable, isn't sound.

I have another question.

If AD is leaving Angel, for instance, how will the promos tell us this?

Billytea, I understand that. My point is that if they don't say anything, we can't assume there's a vast army of the spoilerfree. It's the whole proving-a-negative issue.

Well, this is true, but is counterbalanced IMO by the inability to assume that there isn't such an army. Coupled with the concern that the observed spoilt:unspoilt ratio probably has a persistent skew against the spoilerfree when compared to the underlying ratio.

I do actually think the number probably is small, and Gar's reasoning - that the people who find it spoilery are likely to match closely with those who find promos spoilery - is part of the reason. But I also reason that the number is greater than it appears; I don't know how much greater.