Bryan

What about taking something we wrote here, and later using it in discussion on another forum -- you going to punish people for doing that?

The eighth commandment is in reference to taking physical property (and in many traditional Jewish commentaries actually only in the context of kidnapping). Neither copyright infringement nor plagiarism qualify as stealing in this context. Theft requires loss of physical property -- something must be missing. If I take your physical notes from you, then I stole them.

That probably was all there was to it. The actor with he highest billing got the prime spot on the billboard. That she's such a bad-ass that she fights that monster in the movie is just a bonus. If anything, the Mystique character is guilty of excessive violence against men. https://youtu.be/FTL_kKSe8yQ

It absolutely could be avoided... don't go online. Also, it's pretty easy to avoid looking at the status updates way over on the side like that. I didn't even know they were there until very recently -- you have to intentionally look AT them.

Of course the context is provided. It says "X-MEN" in huge letters at the top of the ad. Then it shows pictures of CGI superheroes. The context is crystal clear.

The stigma exists for a reason. If anything we need to amplify it, not hide it.

Yes. The only reason to demand real names is to crush dissenting opinion.

It wasn't shouted in someone face where they could not avoid it. It was posted online where people have the choice to go or not go if they want to avoid a spoiler. Only an idiot would go online AT ALL and not expect to see a headline or a blurb revealing SOMETHING that happened just recently. If not knowing a current event story is important to you, stay off the internet. Kylo Ren though? I knew that 6 weeks before the movie was released. Most serious fans did, because they went on the internet LOOKING for spoilers. Spoiler-only sites make big money in all kinds of genres. It's a popular and very socially acceptable thing. It makes the experience more fun. Here's another example: Game three of the Stanley Cup Final ended about an hour ago. If I post a status about it, is that a "spoiler"? For some it might be, but it would absolutely be their own fault if they saw it when they had chosen not to watch it yet. The game is over, there is no grace period.

Excactly what I just said: telling many people who have a legitimate reason for keeping their names off the internet that they can't use a pseudonym is the same thing as saying that they can't speak.

The very reason for complaining about spoilers is to be a douchebag. If you don't want to know, stay off the internet entirely. Spoilers of all manner are on the front page of all kinds of sites every hour of the day.

The person who removed the status is the douchebag in this scenario. Fans of all kinds of shows live blog/tweet/etc during the shows all the time. People who are invested in the show are watching at the same time and it ENHANCES their enjoyment of it. Some shows have even set up their own sites and apps for this express purpose.

Lead by example and go first.

Many people have very legitimate reasons for not wanting their names posted online. Same reasons they might have unlisted numbers. Telling those people that they can't use a pseudonym is the same thing as saying they are not allowed to speak.

The douchebag is the one who expects others to keep secrets for you after the show has already aired. If it REALLY mattered to you, you would have already seen it.

Polite request. OK. And if he quietly disagreed with you, and just re-posted the spoiler -- then what? Would you let that go?

Maybe Canadians deal with spoilers differently. Where's the research on that?

That's nice.

Spoiler Alert: You're An Idiot

The real douchebags are the "no spoilers" people. The show aired already, it's not anyone else's responsibility to protect you just because you couldn't be bothered to watch it yet.

If there was demand for a change by the consumers of this product, why would that not be considered? Businesses change policies to reflect the wishes of their users all of the time.

Because liberals are easily swayed by the vapid and shiny? Come on.

Oh, I read it. Now cut that crap out. Thanks.

Which is incredibly stupid. Stop that. Rebooting the thread is even dumber. The conversation can just continue in another thread -- what is the difference? You're just causing interference, you're not actually providing a positive service to anyone.

Some do, some don't. And the contracts themselves can vary widely. Some will have republishing restrictions, but many will not. Many creators would never sign a contract like that -- they'll negotiate the terms to have those clauses removed.

Good thing he made some very realistic observations then.