I'm not saying that to be a bitch; I think that's our policy. So I actually don't know how one would get Lightbulbs closed, unless there was something definitely definite, and I think there are too many people who think there is NOT definite reason to close the thread right now.

And several people who think that there just may be a valid reason, and think that needs to be hammered out.

I see three basic positions represented:

You miss the main position, which is that when the network promotes its cast line-up for the new season, we agree it's not spoilery in TV promos, and so fail to see the logic behind calling it spoilery in their press releases and official cast list on their website.

ita - I don't get why you need search terms for this stuff. If they make an official release, you will hear they make an official release. I feel like idiot Jed here, I'm not trying to be obtuse, what's the problem with the official releases and why would anyone need to search it. "The WB announces it's new fall line up today blah blah Angel returning blah blah blah cast."

If your problem is how do we word that in the FAQ, can we wait and see if the proposal passes. We have a gazillion wordsmiths here. Someone will come up with an idea on how to word the faq entry.

Say, there seem to be a lot of people around. Does anyone feel like burning off some agression by killing quotes? I can authorise an emergency deathmatch...

you will hear they make an official release

Where will I hear that? If my best friend says "oh, did you hear that Michelle Trachtenberg's on Angel next fall?" how do I know if it's a leak, or a promoted addition to the regular cast? My best friend, I guarantee, will have no idea.

Or am I being obtuse too?

Until now unspoiled has been the default and spoilers had to go elsewhere (since people can't be UNspoiled once sullied).

I think though, that until recently, it wasn't a big deal because we allowed discussion of things that we don't now.

You miss the main position, which is that when the network promotes its cast line-up for the new season, we agree it's not spoilery in TV promos, and so fail to see the logic behind calling it spoilery in their press releases and official cast list on their website.

That's position two, cindy. It is the people who want to include the website and official press releases. They want to discuss more than Spike's Back from now on.

you will hear they make an official release

Actually, Cindy, where would this information go? To the WB site? To TV guide? Where would I be able to find it?

Sincere question.

You miss the main position, which is that when the network promotes its cast line-up for the new season, we agree it's not spoilery in TV promos, and so fail to see the logic behind calling it spoilery in their press releases and official cast list on their website.

This is where I am.

Elena, sounds like fun! I'm in!

And several people who think that there just may be a valid reason, and think that needs to be hammered out.

It *does* need to be hammered out. But until it is, I don't think this thread can be closed.

I think that's the proposal on the table, Susan. I know one addition and one deletion.

Um, do you mean that you ALREADY KNOW of two BCSs on the show? In other words, your knowledge and mine is the same? But that I can't discuss it openly for fear of spoiling you?

I'm going to go bang my head against the wall now.