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.
Skipping ahead to clarify GoogleNews thing:
I couldn't remember the guy who plays Connor's last name and didn't feel like looking it up, so I skipped that search. I suspect a search using that term is what spoiled ita (or, lead her to a page that could be considered spoilery), and I apologize. But the method isn't fundamentally invalid because I'm lazy and have no memory!
That aside, I think we're in danger of getting so hung up in technicalities that we end up with a lot of discord and a rule that's useless. But I'm always in favor of making a general rule first, then coming up with exceptions, extensons, and what-ifs when they actually happen.
Which is probably why I will never be Ruler of the Galaxy, drat it.
I'm confused by the idea that one person can be a regular on two shows at once
I can think of two people who did it recently: Wayne Knight was a regular on both Third Rock From The Sun and Seinfeld, and I believe it was Lee Tergesen who was not only a regular but listed in the credits of both Oz and The Beat.
So simply saying that David Boreanez is going to also be playing Ray Romano's lover on Everybody Loves Raymond doesn't mean that he won't be on Angel any more.
You did all know about that one, didn't you?
AS did Quark and Snyder at the same time, FWIW.
(One of the reasons I tuned in and watched BtVS.)
Really? I thought Quark was gone when AS joined the cast of Buffy. But I'd stopped watching DS9 long before.
Really? I thought Quark was gone when AS joined the cast of Buffy. But I'd stopped watching DS9 long before.
Huh. I thought he was doing both, but I can check IMDB.
(Being as I was a Non-cable-having tape-depending-on person from 1996-1998, I may have been confused.)
