Bruce Willis

Where did Bruce Willis get all that hair from?

is this a new episode??!!

"TK Baltimore" wrote in message news:[email]...

Yes, in last night's episode and last week's episode, Bruce Willis had much more hair than I've seen in him with in recent years. Hair club for men? Rogain? Toupee? What do you think?

http://friends.tktv.net

In article , "*Little Miss Sunshine* a.k.a *Starburst*" wrote:

Should I not expect SPOILER SPACES then?

"TK Baltimore" wrote in message news:[email]...

His hair is lighter than I have ever seen it.

Shows you what losing your wife will make you do.

its hair... lets not overreact...

S P O I L E R

S P A C E

Yes but some don't know he is guest starring and wish not to yet.

~Act

Activia wrote:

I think we're getting a little carried away with the whole spoiler space thing. I understand that people don't want to have episodes spoiled, but this is a bit much. It has been all over the newspapers and entertainment shows that Bruce Willis is guest-starring. Plus, no plots were being given away at all so I really don't feel the spoiler space is necessary.

Jay

I guess it's a way of just being on the safe side. You never know who you're going to offend. I agree that some spoiler spaces are un-needed, but hey, everyone's happy then....AND you won't get pulled over by the dreaded SPOILER POLICE...

Vishal

LOL. The Spoiler Police are only here to make everyone happy. Some people want NO info at all. So we have to be extremely critical. I believe that some dont need space too but ALWAYS be on the safe side.

Hey just thankgod we don't charge you!

~Act

Activia, the only way to be entirely on the safe side, and make sure we never ever let anything slip to anybody is *never* to discuss *anything* without a spoiler space. But if you do that, eventually the idea of a spoiler space becomes so cheapened as to be almost meaningless.

In some parts of the world, C&M's current living situation is a spoiler.

In some parts of the world, C&M's romance is a spoiler.

Hell, in some parts of the world, I would not be surprised if R&R's breakup was a spoiler!

I am entirely in support of any endeavor to avoid allowing *plot* information about future episodes from slipping out. I am quite willing to cooperate with efforts to keep much of season six under wraps for the sake of Britain, since it is so heavily represented here. But there is a point when this Spoiler avoidance becomes obsessive and intrusive to free speech, and there must be *some* deference to common sense. If you enter a newsgroup for a TV show that is based in the country where the show is created, there's some danger that somebody is going to talk about current information. If you are *so* obsessive about avoiding spoilers that the mention of Bruce Willis' name ruins your day and you can't enjoy the show, then you shouldn't be reading the newsgroup, because there is *no* way to filter out information that small.

When this group was chartered, A Spoiler was defined as plot information about any episode that has never aired anywhere. This policy has evolved to handle current needs, and that is all right and good. But our policy, as it exists, is already among the most stringent of any I've seen on the Internet. I've frequented four American TV newsgroups and none have rules as strict as ours.

We are pretty good about keeping things under wraps. Maybe everybody should try to get a little perspective as to what is and is not worth fighting over.

I'll try to find the line a little better. I just happen to notice that someone didnt want to hear about Bruce Willis guest starring. I am trying to be lineant on other things. I mostly look for plot spoilers.

I try to go more by where the UK is concidering they have the most representation. I dont think anyone that is a regular here is as far behind as C&M's romance.

gotcha

There have been some plot spoilers that I have found also.

This was the only small thing that I think I have noticed. Sometimes the episode names for the guy posting the schedule are spoilers and sometimes not. I felt that this weeks was. Have you found anything else that you think I went too far on?

~Act

Yeah, actually, it was. But once again, Chris has been doing this for months and probably thought it was considered helpful.

I wasn't speaking to you in particular, Activia, so please don't feel like I've singled you out. I am suggesting that a little common sense would be a good idea for a number of people here. Bruce Willis is not a big spoiler. A certain person coming up really is, and mention must be avoided. As for Chris Bastian's Episode Preview, well, the syndicated reruns always come first because they are earlier in the week. It's easy enough to stop reading if you don't want Thursday titles. And he really provides a service. He shouldn't get grief for it.

No doubt for North America it is (it means nothing to us so I usually mark as read anyway). The only problem, as you are aware, is that if the Thursday title is visible at first glance (which it isn't as far as I can see) it *would* often be a spoiler. <g> "You'd think BKC would be more considerate when naming eps, wouldn't you?" <g>

a

Per se, no he's not. But I already know more than I want to about the next few episodes because mention has been made of *who* he plays, and what part in the upcoming plots that guest appearance takes. And unfortunately even careful reading doesn't get rid of spoilers in headers (which is usually by the less regular members of the group) and spoilers in posts on different threads (which is sometimes done by more seasoned posters). I've found myself nearly spoiling stuff on UMTF because it's so easy to forget that not everyone has seen the same eps I have. It's just about checking what you knew at the beginning of the series, and working out if what you're about to say alters that at all. So much mention has been made, in so many threads, of the current living arrangements that if I were still waiting for 601 I'd be pretty mad by now.

A certain person coming up really is, and mention must be

Unfortunately, again thanks to lack of spoiler space, I know what this refers to. I'd sooner not know. The minute I read it I marked the thread as read, tried to forget it. Not so easy to do... :(

As for Chris Bastian's Episode Preview, well, the syndicated

No one is actually giving him grief as far as I can see. It's a valid point that was raised, though, and I think so long as there are still reruns on Monday Tuesday and Wednesday it won't be too much of a problem. :)

What would be nice would be if we don't get too many more comments like Act's allusion to Ross's girlfriend's age. I know it wasn't specific, or intended to be, but remember, some people still think he and Rachel are 'just married', "so why is he dating?"

Jac

Well, there's that as well. It's a completely meaningless post to the UK.

Well, if people have been discussing plot developments without spoiler space, *that's* a problem. I was responding to posts suggesting that Bruce Willis as guest star was in and of itself a spoiler. That seemed extreme to me.

Jacqui, I'm sorry, but that's probably not going to change. It is an integral, completely essential part of the show as it now exists. It is almost impossibly to speak in any meaningful way about Chandler and Monica, who are the hottest topic on the board, without discussing the living arrangements. People who have criticisms with the show often can't discuss them without discussing C&M vs. Chandler's interaction with Joey. When the status quo has been around for six months, the secret begins to slip a bit, and that's likely to remain the case. It's the danger of the territory.

Well, if somebody puts Very Volatile Guest Star in the Header, or puts a header called "Guest Stars" and mention the name without spoiler space, then I'd say that was a problem. I'm over here just trying to avoid the gender designation!

I bet they could figure it out. Rachel's opinion was pretty well known.

In which case, any mention at all of *any* possible romances for Ross OR Rachel - even mere speculation - is a spoiler, too. That would mean that we would need spoiler space if we said, "Gee, wouldn't it be fun if we brought Nora Bing back to meet Mr. and Mrs. Geller, and she and Ross ended up in a clinch again?" or "Gee, do you think JA will ever get Brad Pitt to play a love interest for her?" I don't think people should have to be that afraid.

Oh Good Lord, people. . . Spoiler space and warnings are a courtesy, not a requirement. Besides, who here is reading ATF with a 25 line terminal emulation newsreader? Most are using Outlook or Netscape, which pretty much makes "Spoiler Space" obsolete)

I think Claire nailed it right on the head when she said that reading a newsgroup about a sitcom is inherently dangerous spoiler-wise. I mean, even TV Guide gives out "spoilers", if people want to define it that precisely.

What will happen when, oh, I don't know, the Republik of Blargon 7, starts showing Friends. Are we going to put spoiler space in front of Season 2 plot developments? Pretty soon we'd had a hundred countries all at various places in the Friends timeline. Then anything posted could be a potential spoiler.

The fact that we don't have that many countries at different points in the time line has allowed us to operate as we are. When this happens, either we'll have to have localized newsgroups, or people will have to get used to spoilers. I used to avoid spoilers at all costs, but it was too difficult, so I adapted. Now I enjoy them.

Just my opinion.

I heard Randy Hinds's cries on the wind...

Me, as it happens, since it's the only way I can without stooping to Deja.

How, exactly?

I still don't enjoy them, and it's always been customary to respect spoilers for the US, the UK with satellite systems, and the UK without. Whenever this comes up, I always point out that spoiler space just isn't hard to put in, and it's a simple common courtesy.

And mine.

Yes, how? I'm using OE, and what I first saw of this post was:

"I heard Randy Hinds's cries on the wind...

not a

Me, as it happens, since it's the only way I can without stooping to Deja.

I make that 11 lines, which in a lot of posts is more than enough to see the spoilers. Even if I didn't read further, it's enough to ruin some storylines for me, at least. And how many of us are using Outlook/OE? Even the "just don't read the thread" argument doesn't work because this was alphabetically the first thread, which means I saw those 11 lines the minute the headers/messages loaded.

A few lines of spoiler space isn't hard to insert, now is it?

Jac

Jacqui wrote:

Interesting.

When I select my post to read, I see the entire thing, plus about 6" of blank space below it.

The point being that you don't know what I'm using to read your post (and vice versa), so I don't know how many "spoiler lines" to add. If you tell me, that's fine, but is it the same as Claire, Activia, Tennant, James, Raven. . . probably not.

When the only thing available was 25x80 terminal mode, then I *knew* that's what you were using. That isn't the case anymore. It would be pointless for me to try to get everyone here to add 60 lines or so of spoiler space to every post just for me.

No it's not. But for someone like me who has a 100 lines of post displayed, it's pointless. All it does is make the content start 1/8 of the way down the page intead of at the top. Rather annoying to me personally. . . If/when we all get to graphical readers and 25x80 term windows go the way of the punch card, then no one will know how many lines to reserve to "spoiler space".

The "Just don't read the thread" argument won't work because you won't know it's a thread you're not supposed to read (to avoid spoilers) until it's too late.

However, the "Just don't read ATF" argument still works. . . =)

If you see the space you probably won't look down. If you see a huge blank area. Where do your eyes first go when you look at the post? Usually the top, if there is a warning at the top than you can stop immediatily, and still have 60 lines to realize it.

~Act

Raven wrote:

Didn't know that.

Because I can resize the viewer portion of my newsreader to display any number of lines I wanted. And I can change my video resolution to something ungodly small, like oh, 2048x1536 on my 24" monitor and see over two hundred lines of someone's newsgroup post. Spoiler space was only useful when EVERYBODY was using 25x80 terminal emulation. You only needed to put in 25 blank lines to be safe. And everyone knew that the content of the post started on the 26th line. With new graphical software like what we have now, you don't know how many spoiler lines to put in. Just for an example, the way I usually run my newsreader (and 1600x1200 resolution), one would need to put in over 60 lines of spoiler space to get the spoiler content "on the next page" so-to-speak. And I could crank up my resolution to easily get the requirement up to 100 lines of spoiler space if I wanted. . .

But that's getting totally rediculous.

I agree. But, like all things distributed, what is one person's central topic of discussion is another's spoiler. And getting all over someone because they didn't put spoiler warnings or (especially) space is absurd (not accusing anyone of this. . . ). Eventually, with more and more countries coming on line, we are bound to run into time-line problems so pervase that somebody is bound to spoil something for someone else with just about every post. It may not be during Friends' tenure, but it will happen eventually. . .

Aw c'mon, his name's been in enough headers!

Activia wrote in message news:[email]...

"Mark Hunter" wrote in message news:PuUQ4.219$[email]...

I'm not bothered about knowing whether or not he's on the show but it would be nice to have spoiler spaces anyway. And it hasn't actually been said in anything that I've read over here that he was guest starring at all. All I'm asking is a bit of common decency where us brits are concerned.

I'd like to point out a logical inconsistency here. Sunshine wants spoiler space as common decency toward the British. She states this in a thread that is LABELED "Bruce Willis", and does not change the heading.

Look, I think this secret has pretty much been sprung. Genie's out of the bottle. As long as nobody mentions what he actually did in the episode, I don't think anybody is really going to have their enjoyment spoiled. It isn't like Sarah Ferguson's cameo, where the fact that she was on the show WAS the joke. And anybody who talks about anything having to do with the finale without spoiler space deserves a spanking.

claire abraham wrote

SPOILER SPACE

LEFT IN SO AS NOT TO ANNOY ANYONE

Seconded. I know *who* he plays, I don't know what role that fulfills within the plot. I don't want to know. Just knowing that he's in it isn't as much of a spoiler as Activia's inadvertent "Ross's girlfriend/nursery class" line was (although, again, I knew about that, but it could have been a spoiler if I didn't). If someone tells me WHAT he does, THAT's a spoiler.

Jac (hey, it's only 2 or 3 weeks until we find out, I can live that long without knowing)

I thought it was ok because the thread was about season 7, so it could have had nothing to do with season 6.

But next time I'll add it.

~Act

STILL - s6 discussed

in

of

enjoyment

she

spanking.

fulfills

that,

WHAT

That's the nature of spoilers, they creep in even when you don't realise. There is a likelihood that people discussing s7 will mention Chandler and Monica cohabiting, and that's a spoiler for a large percentage of the UK and most of Europe. You won't even realise it's happened, but it does ruin it for anyone who is still stuck on s5 and avoiding spoilers. Saying "they shouldn't read the thread" is not much help, since these things do get into headers (shame on those who do it!) and the visible tops of messages (some newsreaders' layout mean you see these without warning). Or a thread about something else entirely will mutate without warning...

Thanks, hon.

Jac

Yea I know. It's hard because things pop into my mind and I dont think of when they have happened. I am more aware now. But just to defend myself on this one. I didnt' say that he was dating anyone younger this season. But more that he might next.

That even happens to me sometimes people will sneak in a spoiler after they have read spoilers from people that went to the taping.

We can try our best to prevent and protect.

~Act

Activia wrote:

I'm an Australian spoiler addict, so I don't mind knowing every tiny detail, but... umm... I think by all the "Bruce Willis" titled threads everyone can tell he's guest starring. They may not know how or why, but it's fairly obvious he's on the show :^)

But I do agree that there should be spoiler warnings. Whole-heartedly.

yea thats all I'm saying.

As an American I'm lucky..the only spoilers out there are people that go to the tapings, yet sometimes I still even get small spoilers, while I'm trying to avoid them.

~Act

Isn't anyone going to mention how horrible he was on the show?

I thought he was great, and I haven't seen him in it yet.

Spoiler for 621-623 after my sig...

Adeline. aka SWS cop +ACM-002 +AD0APQA9AD0APQ- +ACI-Your timing couldn't be better, I'm puttin' out fires all over the place.+ACI- +AH4-Joey Tribbiani, +ACI-Friends+ACI-

+ACI-I'm right+ACE- I'm right+ACE- Am...I...right??+ACI- +AH4-Chandler Bing, +ACI-Friends+ACI-

A little more space just in case...

+AD4-Isn't anyone going to mention how horrible he was on the show?

s p o i l e r

s p a c e

s p o i l e r

s p a c e

Who?

~Act

Activia wrote...

place.+ACI-

BW

Adeline. aka SWS cop #002 ===== "Your timing couldn't be better, I'm puttin' out fires all over the place." ~Joey Tribbiani, "Friends"

"I'm right! I'm right! Am...I...right??" ~Chandler Bing, "Friends"

' I liked him better in the other 2 episodes, but I really didnt mind him I didnt think he was horrible. He was OK in the last one, but better in the other 2. hey Adeline read my fanfic yet? the second part is up!

~Act

Activia wrote...

Yup! Fantastic, I was LOL the whole time! And I'm already looking forward to next week's! It was so, so, sooo funny. Great work, thank you! Btw, sorry I couldn't reply on AIM yesterday. I had very little time and was just checking my mail. I tried to put you on my buddy list but couldn't. Maybe emailing me your last name would help? I don't know, it's weird. TTYL,

Adeline. aka SWS cop #002 ===== "Your timing couldn't be better, I'm puttin' out fires all over the place." ~Joey Tribbiani, "Friends"

"I'm right! I'm right! Am...I...right??" ~Chandler Bing, "Friends"

Yahoo!!! OH boy, I still have to think of the storyline! Those fanfics are REALLLLY TIME CONSUMING! Hey pass the word out. I am disappointed by the traffic on the fanfics..

I was wondering why you didn't IM me back. Ok I'll try that..

~Act

Activia wrote...

traffic on the fanfics..

I got an email from a webmaster who wanted links to tv shows' sites, I can give him your URL!

Maybe

Okay. I tried with your email addie today. Didn't work either. You have to click when you're online, My AIM, Edit profile, and follow the leads so that I can add you to my buddy list.

Till soon,

Adeline. aka SWS cop #002 ===== "Your timing couldn't be better, I'm puttin' out fires all over the place." ~Joey Tribbiani, "Friends"

"I'm right! I'm right! Am...I...right??" ~Chandler Bing, "Friends"

You are confusing me with Roml

THAT WOULD BE GREAT!!

My AIM Screan Name is Activia

When I IM you just click on add to buddy list. I dont even know if I have a profile on AIM lol never bothered.

I'll put something in it

~Act

Nah. That's my brother's screen name and I forgot to switch it back to mine before posting.

the

give

OKAY!!

was

click

add

Alright, I'll try again tonight or tomorrow.

Adeline. aka SWS cop #002 ===== "Your timing couldn't be better, I'm puttin' out fires all over the place." ~Joey Tribbiani, "Friends"

"I'm right! I'm right! Am...I...right??" ~Chandler Bing, "Friends"

I thought he was pretty good.