I understand how easy it is. I'm simply stating that it's a bit silly. Do we REALLY need spoiler spaces when we're discussing a book that
A) was published 30 years ago And B) was written by an author who is the focus of this list. My point is that this is a dedicated Feist email list, visited by dedicated fans. I make the assumption that they are dedicated because who the heck looks up, joins, and reads an email list about an author they don't already have a deep appreciation of? I would guess that is a tiny minority of the readers of this list. "ahhhh!!!! Spoilers please! Not everyone has read Hamlet yet!" "but, this is an advanced class about Shakeapeare's most famous works" I'm not stating that I am rebelling against spoiler spaces. I'm simply pointing out that it's silly. And it IS silly. On Apr 4, 2012, at 6:44 AM, LAR <[email protected]> wrote: > You can REVEAL whatever you like, we just ask as a courtesy you hit > return about 10 - 12 times so that people who DON'T want to see a > spoiler can avoid it. It's not that difficult > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Jason Green <[email protected]> wrote: >> Have to say I sort of agree with Parks. It's hard to have a discussion about >> Ray's books if we can't reveal spoilers about any books. >> >> Magician has been out for about 30 years now. Maybe we need to have a list >> rule for new joiners that maybe they shouldn't read the list until they've >> ready at least the first series? >> >> Seriously, of you haven't read at least Magician, why are you reading the >> Feist list instead of Ray's actual books? >> >> I'd be shocked of the vast majority of this list hadn't read everything but >> he most recent book or two. >> >> Sometimes this list makes me want to go back to my English lit classes and >> tell "spoilers!" every time the prof tries to discuss Shakespeare. >> >> >> >> On Apr 4, 2012, at 1:19 AM, Parks White <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi all >>> >>> My auto correct error typo "pro army" instead of "primary" and subsequent >>> clarification to Johns pedantic question authorizes "Shells" to ramp up >>> the discussion to "defend " the many veterans and active duty service >>> personnel "fans" (as if real warriors need defending) moves the discussion >>> into the political too. A clear breach of the rules as well....Which I have >>> now read...( I'm a newbie here)... the rules prohibits humor, satire, >>> sarcasm, politics, race and religion.........perhaps we should write a new >>> rule to eliminate the banal, trivial, stupid, pedantic, irritating, >>> entertaining and tasteless contributions too.. There really is not much >>> interesting or literary in the contributions I have read over the last 6 >>> weeks..drinking shots in Newark Rhode Island included... perhaps the >>> publishing gaff and that fans in the USA have had to wait 6 or more weeks >>> for a book launch over the rest of the world should be discussed. A sign of >>> a declining Empire?.. Is the Kingdom (sic) under threat?.Could it be a good >>> reason for deploying more US troops?..also maybe too political and in such >>> a sycophantic forum ....another reason to curb your First amendment >>> Rights!.... Oh I forgot, the military have severely curtailed freedom of >>> speech rights for the troops anyway..... And keep politics out of Sports >>> too!...yeah right! ...Clearly the fan list was set up and managed by grey >>> (regardless of age) bureaucrats...where is your passion , energy and >>> creativity...I see none....Pathetic " spoilers" and other protocols >>> restrict real discussions about plot and character...I have seen no >>> interesting questions or contributions recently that add much value beyond >>> vague error ridden snippets...I can only assume there is none here.... I >>> will go and wait for the annual publication... I Hope it is better >>> proofread and I will stick to blogs and forums that have something to say >>> in future...... >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> Parks3 >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On 4/04/2012, at 1:22 PM, "James Young" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Seconded. >>>> >>>> -James >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> >>>> To: "feistfans-l" <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 7:52 PM >>>> Subject: Re: New book replacement thread response. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> This email is exactly why politics is not discussed here on the List. >>>>> Here it is about Ray's work, past and present, his likes and dislikes, >>>>> and whatever else he'd like to discuss. >>>>> >>>>> There are many Veterans here, and active duty service members, of many >>>>> countries whom love Rays work, which is why we are here. If you want to >>>>> talk about politics there are plenty of places you can go to speak your >>>>> mind on such matters, which is your right. >>>>> >>>>> There is a section on Crydee.com that speaks to the List rules if you are >>>>> interested. >>>>> >>>>> Shells >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry® >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Parks White <[email protected]> >>>>> Sender: [email protected] >>>>> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:35:54 >>>>> To: feistfans-l<[email protected]> >>>>> Reply-To: "feistfans-l" <[email protected]> >>>>> Subject: Re: New book replacement thread response. >>>>> >>>>> Hi John >>>>> >>>>> It suddenly also occurred to me that you might be serious.....if so, I >>>>> hope the following clarifies your query. >>>>> >>>>> 1. It was an auto correct error...I found it humorous after i had sent >>>>> the email and wanted to correct the typo quickly ( lesson here somewhere) >>>>> 2. It was mild political commentary on my part, an indulgence.....I >>>>> deplore militarism, military dictatorships, military >>>>> spending......definitely not Pro Army, air force, marines... Sorry for >>>>> laboring the point..... >>>>> 3. I never say "oops" in an email unless repeating someone else's "oops" >>>>> ...my 7 year old says oops (rarely) >>>>> >>>>> Good to see you comment on the most salient points made in my email. >>>>> >>>>> Parks3 >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>> On 4/04/2012, at 7:47 AM, John Buttimer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Why would you add that you aren't pro army? Why not just say oops meant >>>>>> primary? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > -- > If you want to take the island, then burn your boats. With absolute > commitment come the insights that create real victory. > -Tony Robbins > >
