Right. That’s all they said.
I think it is possible that Issac is the sole survivor of a luxury liner that crashed onto the island.
But they didn’t say it on the show. Many of us only watch the show. And a Lost podcast is not exactly ABC World News Tonight.
It’s an official ABC podcast with the directors and writers of the show, so I suspect it’s a pretty accurate source.
So let’s say you missed last week’s episode of the show. Are we not allowed to discuss it because it would be a spoiler for you? Same deal with the podcast. You missed it, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t exist or that the information was inaccurate.
Not the same deal at all. If I missed last week’s episode I would not read the thread about it until I got a chance to see it. I didn’t “miss” the podcast. I deliberately avoid things like that to further enhance my enjoyment of the show.
That’s exactly why it should be spoiler-boxed. If it was a rumor I wouldn’t care so much because there would be a good chance it wasn’t true.
It seems to me that the ABC podcast would fall under either of these categories. I’d also appreciate a spoiler box for information taken from the podcast.
–FCOD
-
It’s not information about “future episodes”.
-
It’s not speculation.
-
It doesn’t deal with upcoming episodes.
C’mon guys, this is silly. The producers, in an officially sanctioned and sponsored podcast confirmed something that was heavily, heavily implied in the show. This isn’t speculation or a spoiler… it’s a fact, so let’s move on. Good? Good.
You are, number eight fifteen.
Do you read English? This is exactly why we don’t want to hear it. What don’t you get?
I guess I don’t get why you’re so opposed to hearing a fact and continuing to speculate on something that’s already been answered?
I also don’t get why you chose a Lost thread to discuss albinos and correct people on “jibe” vs. “jive”. But that’s beside the point, I guess.
Presuming for the moment that the writers know what they’re doing…
Isn’t it possible that, by releasing such information publicly – and given that the podcast is freely available to anyone who wants to listen, that qualifies as public – the show’s creators have figured that knowing this information now will most likely not harm your enjoyment of the show? Given how stingy they are with answers, I should think that any answers they do give are quite deliberately timed.
I really think “His” name, alone and without context other than that already presented in the show, has very little impact on the show’s plot or one’s understanding of it. Otherwise they would not have A) released the name B) in an optional venue.
I realize some people desire to know absolutely nothing beyond what’s presented to them in the show no matter how little impact – I have a friend like that – but it’s not really something to freak out about.
Because some of us only watch the show and avoid facts that are revealed outside of it. How do you not get that? What you posted is the very definition of a spoiler and all I did was politely ask you to box those types of posts. The OP politely asks the same.
Oh, I don’t know. If I had to guess, though, it’d be because we’re on a message board dedicated to fighting ignorance. If that bothers you then why are you here?
Then you should understand the purpose of politely asking that people use spoiler boxes. They are really quite simple to employ.
I didn’t watch any of those “Behind Hobbiton” or “Journey into Middle-Earth” specials when the LotR movies were being released. They were “public information” but I felt that they would hinder my enjoyment of the films and therefore chose not to watch them. Due to the explicit statements in the OP, I didn’t feel like I was at risk for spoilers in this thread. Wasson decided to make that choice for me.
Wow dude, you’re blowing it way out of proportion. I certainly followed the rules of the thread and don’t consider what I posted to be a spoiler in any way, shape or form.
But since I’m a team player, I’ll humbly apologize. I assure you I’ll never post anything from a podcast without a spoiler box again, regardless as to how little impact it has on anything at all.
Enjoy tonight’s episode, kids. I’m sure it’ll be a good one. I hope that doesn’t need a spoiler box…
Actually, it is a spoiler likely pertaining to future episodes if it’s information from an inside source that hasn’t been 100% confirmed by already aired episodes of the show itself.
Yes, the show has implies that perhaps “Him” is somebody named Jacob. If I recall, this mostly comes from Pickett’s comment saying, “He wasn’t on Jacob’s list.” (I think it was Pickett that said it…)
But that statement doesn’t confirm or disconfirm the expression “Jacob == Him”. For all we know from the show itself, Jacob could be Him’s secretary – Keeper of the Magic List and Typer of HimMemos.
Just because something is a fact (from a producer podcast) doesn’t mean it isn’t a spoiler. A spoiler doesn’t have to be speculation – a spoiler is something that comes from an inside source. In fact, I’d care less about hearing speculations than about “facts” from inside sources. What if the producers did a podcast next week and said, “Hey, the smoke monster? It’s really Old Man Withers!!! HA!” It hasn’t aired on the show yet, so as far as these threads are concerned, it would be a spoiler. The show’s producers are the ultimate “inside source” – can’t get much more inside than that.
Didn’t look like anybody was freaking out to me. Just looked like some people were asking other people to please not post spoilers (i.e. knowledge from inside sources) in these threads, as per the thread rules. Not an unreasonable request, IMHO.
However, if people want to argue about albinos, they should definitely take it to another thread.
No, you didn’t. No matter what they imply in the show, if the producers say something is a fact before it’s fact on the show, it’s a spoiler.
Talk about blowing things out of proportion…
–FCOD
I think I was trying to get back on topic. This doesn’t belong in this thread, and the baiting and insulting is really not necessary. If it’s that important to you to show the SDMB that you’re smarter than me, go ahead. I really don’t care what you think.
So can you please just* let it go!*
I’m not baiting you and please point out where I insulted you? You posted false information on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance and got peeved when I corrected you. You’re obviously very concerned with getting the last word in so please feel free to start a new thread. I don’t think anyone else wants to hear it in this one.
I’m never going to bring up albinos again. I seem to end up saying that about a lot of SDMB discussion topics … if that’s what you could fucking call them half the time.
Ridiculous. :mad: I noted in the post you are responding too, parenthetically, that I think you are claiming albinos typically have blue eyes. I was, in that very post, giving you the opportunity to correct such a misunderstanding if a misunderstanding it was. There is no need for me to “prove” you said anything since I was, in effect, asking whether you in fact said what I was thinking you had said.
Don’t be an ass.
Now:
Someone said “All she needs is pink eyes and she’d be an albino.”
PerditaX said “Actually, albinos have blue eyes, not pink.”
As we all know that some albinos have pink eyes, it is fair to judge the meaning of this statement to be “Albinos typically have blue eyes.”
You then posted a picture of Edgar Winter, contextualized as though somehow to refute PerditaX’s statement. Since what PerditaX said was clearly meant to mean “Albinos typically have blue eyes,” it is a fair interpretation of your Winter post that you meant to say “Albinos in fact typically have pink eyes.”
PerditaX then responded, incidentally making it utterly clear that his meaning had been that albinos typically have blue eyes, by saying your picture did not do anything relevant to a refutation of his claim.
You continued to argue, however. You seemed to be arguing (based on the four cites you gave in one of your posts) either that Albinos typically have pink eyes, or always have pink eyes, or never have blue eyes. I could not tell which claim you were trying to argue for, though I took the first to be most likely. Otherwise it is difficult for me to understand why you continued to argue, and why you used the cites you did as support for your argument. Why give us cites associating pink eyes with Albinism, in a conversation where no one has denied that albinos sometimes have pink eyes, unless you’re trying to argue either that albinos typically rather than simply “sometimes” have pink eyes, or else that albinos always rather than simply “sometimes” have pink eyes.
-FrL-