In case anyone needs style tips: http://io9.com/5510040/design…

Knowing the contentious titles are unsupported by the content ("Everyone??? No one asked me!!!!") and thinly veiled clickbait...well, it keeps working for them, doesn't it?

Often when you spoil a work, you impact suspense and pacing, and it's not exactly surprising that might affect a story negatively.

You know, that's just a big part of spoilers—I like the most exciting version possible of most things, and that involves not knowing aforehand. Why would that be weird, or better yet, how can that be proven to be the wrong way to consume (io9 had an article about why it's scientifically better/we all really prefer if…

So you see no difference in discussing the ending of something that hasn't aired on the West Coast yet, versus a Shakespeare play? You have the same expectations?

I didn't know how Hamlet ended until I saw the Mel Gibson movie (I'm 45). Gaps happen. But, damn, did I get laughed at, since most of my friends were English or Theatre majors (mine is Comp Sci and we read different Shakespeare in high school, okay??).

Yeah, talking about books and movies with your friends is really weird.

If you really like Firefly and haven't seen it all yet, then you and I don't share the same definition of "really like", and I think the onus is on you to point out where you are in the timeline. If I told you I really liked Hamlet, wouldn't you assume I knew how it turned out, no matter what my smile looked like?

But what about the concept of enjoying it more? Perhaps getting all the impact of this nuanced work depends on the sequence—there's a difference between the story being spun and the events that happen in it. It can be the difference between literature and a bulleted list.

But you don't see everything along the way—you're skipping past the surprises.

What about the position that a great book is even better if you don't know how it's going to turn out? Seems unfair to put all the weight on the mediocre works.

People don't even really understand 200,00 of anything

Because you're the person upthread who likes animals and thinks there are too many people on the planet, probably.

The idea that muscle tone holds some insight into personality is just as sensible as "ugly people are boring."

Or maybe the things they are fulfilled by give them that—I've rarely managed to exercise for the pure health of it, but have put in scattered 40 hour weeks of martial arts with glee.

They hand you a short term plan to look buff, but apart from wedding prep, when is the expectation of beauty normal women are encouraged to live up to temporary?

Try Walgreens.

We take for granted that the actor playing Captain America will be able to look like he can handle himself in a fracas, but oddly fewer people seem to care that the Black Widow actress looks reasonably competent.

So you're saying 150 years ago there wasn't brutal fighting for audiences? Violence has been fetishised since forever—there wasn't a break of total harmony between the gladiators and the MMA. And mixed martial arts have never had anything to do with fighting philosophers. There have always been MA practicioners who…

I don't know anyone who wouldn't.