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.

And the downplaying part is what I'm pointing to.

Okay, I see what you're getting at.

I do have a tendancy to downplay it, probably because my reading of the way we seem to be heading is that it will allow us to talk about only one thing, that is probably the one that even Trudy and Elena know about, though I'd hate to speculate too far on that.

I guess I just think that we're allowing whoever complains the most to dictate policy.

Those of us who want to discuss some of these casting changes in thread are all primarily of the opinion that it doesn't put us out to not talk about it.

That's not quite the same feeling I get from some of the people who wish to remain pure - i.e. that it's a subject that can be talked about rationally - and that's starting to bother me.

But, since I really don't care either way, I think I'm just going to leave it alone, and likelty vote yes on the proposal anyway.

Those of us who want to discuss some of these casting changes in thread are all primarily of the opinion that it doesn't put us out to not talk about it.

Actually, not necessarily true. So far, I'm the only one who has said that precisely. Several others have explicitly stated that they feel discussion is hampered by *not* discussing the changes in thread.

Me for example. To take something that did not happen: if coming off season five we had discussed season six without being allowed to say that Buffy was coming back - this would have cut back speculation on *how* she came back. And I would have been very very frustrated.

Unfortunately, I see this as an issue where there will inevitably be bad feelings, whichever way the results go.