Re: DWTS - George Hamilton gone

"Mike Corbett" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:oi8gv1pbup9cd8r4hpkdgfl9fb60588gv4@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 18:55:57 -0600, "Bob Wheatley"
<xmaster.dancer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Bob wrote:
The difference here Peter is that people KNOW when they are making an
"announcement" or an "advertisement". There is no way in hell to know if
they are putting information in a header or post that might be a
"spoiler". >>


Mike replies:
Malarkey. Of course there are times when it will not be possible to know
that somebody might not want to see something. >

:>)
I'll just let that rebuttal stand on it's own.:>)


We aren't talking about exceptions. We're talking about such things as
results of contests broadcast live or Darth/Luke kinds of things early in
a movie's run. >


We are talking exceptions.
We started this discussion about a specific incident about a TV show that
resulted (after the fact) in very specific netiquette rules being thrown out
as "common practice".
That's "malarkey".



Bob wrote:
A "spoiler" is delivering information to someone who doesn't want it.
This is important - Read it as many times as you need to because I know
you struggle - The instructions offered for SPOILER subject lines also
include a space in the body of the message in case someone's news reader
opens threads automatically. This clearly states that even the body of a
message is "supposed" to be protected from SPOILER information. >>


Mike replies:
Only one person has pointed to this particular statement of netiquette.
All that is really being asked is to keep spoilers out of the subject
line. It's hardly too much to ask. >


So the "common netiquette" practice as laid out is neither common nor fully
followed?



Bob wrote:
We can all agree that we all want to be polite and not "ruin" an outcome
for someone. However, in the example being argued and many others there is
simply no reasonable way for a poster to know if they have "released"
information that may be earlier than a reader wants it. >>


Mike replies:
Malarkey, Bob. Who in this modern world is unaware that live prime time
broadcast in Eastern and Central time zones are delayed for all time zones
West of Central? Certainly no participants in this thread suffer from
such lack of knowledge NOW. >


"NOW" being the absolute key word.
That's why I cannot find fault with the original post. There was no way to
determine that there was a malicious intent to ruin or harm or spoil things
for others. Even you pointed out after the post that you had needed
reminding of the time differences.
Was the OP also supposed to research broadcast times for all locations on
what is advertised as a LIVE broadcast?
That's malarkey.

Please note: I am not endorsing the OP's conduct after that initial post. I
think the public reply to Ed's private email was completely unnecessary. But
I will also add a "what if".
What if a million East Coast posters jumped on RAD immediately after the
show in question with similar subject lines and posts?


Bob wrote:
Since we are so diverse and we all have different wants and needs the ONLY
practical solution is for the reader to take some accountability. If the
reader has some "outcome" that is important for them to NOT know, and they
and only they know this, they and only they can control their own behavior
and avoid possible news sources. >>


Mike replies:
I'm all for readers taking some accountability but you seem to be
suggesting they take all the accountability, that there is no need for
anybody else to show consideration. That is the choice we are all free to
make and the kind of choice where when you have it, you tend to make very
well. There's no harm being done by suggesting others show some due
consideration. >


I agree.
But let's not call it "common netiquette rules".
Let's call it what it is.
A "special consideration" for a "special situation" for a "special interest"
news group.:>)



Bob Wheatley


.

Loading