Not quite. The significant amount of her questioning was based on an in-depth reading of a book that, in all likelihood, none of the audience has read. To get her questions, you would have had to read the book, and no one had done that, which meant that her questioning was out of the realm of the audience.
The credit (it was not a refund: ticketholders did not have an option to get cash back) seemed to be a proactive move by 92Y. This is merely a guess, but perhaps the ticket price was probably significantly higher than usual, and when it became obvious that the interviewer was clearly not inline with the expectations (and probably the significant reaction from the crowd when the interviewer read that first card), there was a sense of being proactive. On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: > > I still don't understand. The blogger's chief complaint (and the > comments in the NYT blog) seems to be that the interviewer revealed > events or characters in the book. I don't comprehend how doing so > would lead to refunds on tickets. Worst case scenario based on that > blog: the 92nd Y apologizes to Martin if the interviewer's questions > spoiled the book for those in attendance. > -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
