Nope. I just want a thread that continues the "show or promo" policy we've had all along.

And all we're saying is that including print and radio ads is in keeping with the spirit of that - effectively a semantic change.

Expanding the definition of "on air promo" doesn't even allow us to talk about all of the various casting changes to Angel this year.

Technically, it allows us to talk about one of them.

It's not throwing the doors open.

You left out Katie's interpretation.

Trudy didn't cite Katie's interpretation. I'll admit I disagree with Katie's interpretation (because I said so, and explained precisely why), but that wasn't the issue in the sections Trudy quoted.

The disagreement is that one of you includes the website and one of you does not.

In which case I'm right because I am referring directly to Jim's text. :-)

As it stands now, a medium is either kosher or not.

Ah, okay, if kosher law is to be our model, then I think everything should be spoilerfonted until the last episode airs in Austrailia. Or maybe that's just my issue with the two sets of dishes, etc.

But if it were merely effectively a semantic change, Sean, it wouldn't add any topics to the menu at all.

For Trudy (or Liese or Elena or unnamedlurker), one spoiler is one too many. And when the next one makes the new criteria, then it's two spoilers too many.

In, as currently proposed, all NAFDA threads.

See, I would like to continue the same policy as before, too. I just feel that for some reason, this year, everything is a spoiler as Jessica said.

Personally I am fine if we don't discuss Big Casting Spoiler.

I would just like to feel that I wouldn't be jumped on or deleted if I mention that Iyari Limon is going to be added to the cast of Scrubs or something. I think it may be the end of Buffy-- we don't know what to do about what we know about the futures of people on a show that has ended, but is connected to a show that is still on.

It is like, if we were a board about Happy Days, and it was cancelled, could we not talk about a future project of Ron Howard because he is someone who might guest star on Mork & Mindy?

I realize this really has nothing to do with the proposal, but I think it might be where a lot of the resentment is coming from.

I would just like to feel that I wouldn't be jumped on or deleted if I mention that Iyari Limon is going to be added to the cast of Scrubs or something.

I, for one, can certainly deal with that.

"kosher" just translates as "OK" btw. Nilly said so.

I would just like to feel that I wouldn't be jumped on or deleted if I mention that Iyari Limon is going to be added to the cast of Scrubs or something

But if you would now, you would be if this proposal is voted in -- wouldn't you?

DCJ was jumped on because people thought he posted a link that revealed something that would still be a spoiler now. How would the proposal fix that misunderstanding?

It wouldn't ita-- that's why I said it had nothing to do with the proposal.

I just realized that that was really the source of my personal resentment and thought it might shed some light on why other people were also upset and help us solve the larger 'upset people" problem.

Sorry, Sophia -- I was reminded that DCJ's post being deleted was cited as an cause of dis-ease above, and I was more addressing that than the Iyari suggestion.

And the proposal wouldn't make a whit of difference to the anti-spoiler issue that happened earlier (because it didn't refer to a regular cast change publicised by the network in any fashion).

I don't see how it'll make those things go away. And if people are voting out of that, like you said, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

But if it were merely effectively a semantic change, Sean, it wouldn't add any topics to the menu at all.

My turn to say I'm not trying to be a pill, but I wasn't entirely sure what you meant by that one, ita.

In which case I'm right because I am referring directly to Jim's text.

That wiley Burrell, with her direct references.

Be a pill, it's okay. Doesn't "effectively semantic" downplay the effect that the change will have? It's how I read it.

And the downplaying part is what I'm pointing to. You don't care. I don't care. To us it *is* no big deal, letting in one or two more topics of discussion. Trudy, she cares. She's mad she knows what she knows, doesn't want to know more, and can't be talked out of that.