Talk: Spoiler

Latest revision as of 02:51, 12 July 2010

Unspoiled ascension[]

Does anyone else think it's a good idea if this article merely comments on the possibility of an unspoiled ascension, without reference to the notion of a "documented unspoiled ascension"? There's no way to prove such a thing, and it's very difficult to disprove it as well. And I don't think it's a good idea to have anything in the article about "claimed unspoiled ascensions" either, as that is annoyingly legalistic. -Ion frigate 01:53, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the link. It's interesting even if we can't prove or disprove it. --Slandor 02:51, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==Unspoiled ascension==
-Does anyone else think it's a good idea if this article merely comments on the possibility of an unspoiled ascension, without reference to the notion of a "documented unspoiled ascension"?  There's no way to prove such a thing, and it's very difficult to disprove it as well.  And I don't think it's a good idea to have anything in the article about "claimed unspoiled ascensions" either, as that is annoyingly legalistic. -[[User:Ion frigate|Ion frigate]] 01:53, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
+Does anyone else think it's a good idea if this article merely comments on the possibility of an unspoiled ascension, without reference to the notion of a "documented unspoiled ascension"? There's no way to prove such a thing, and it's very difficult to disprove it as well. And I don't think it's a good idea to have anything in the article about "claimed unspoiled ascensions" either, as that is annoyingly legalistic. -[[User:Ion frigate|Ion frigate]] 01:53, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
+: I'd like to keep the link. It's interesting even if we can't prove or disprove it. --[[User:Slandor|Slandor]] 02:51, July 12, 2010 (UTC)