superhunnybear wrote:
(I don’t think this really qualifies as ‘spec’…)
Given the timeline (and location) of the current comics, I suspect we may soon [have some possible spec appear] (and likely led to [some more spec as well -Z])
I posted this over in Reactions for Nov. 24, 2021, and, well, apparently Z ruled that it WAS spec, and blocked out some parts.
This its what followed...
If you couldn't care less (which is perfectly understandable), feel free to move on to the next post - nothing more to see here.
If you need some help in falling asleep, this may be just the thing! (No medical claims are inferred or implied...)
**** PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! ****
So...
I replied as follows:
(But please understand that I meant most of it to be a bit of silly ranting, not angry ranting.... even as I was tilting at windmills...)
superhunnybear wrote:
Short answer: Whatever... seems pedantic in this case...
TLDR answer:
Considering that the two 'spec' blocks above are obscuring are actually only referring to time periods, events and characters that we already know about from past strips, I am surprised it was actually blocked!
Is it really spec to say that some details or answers that we had hoped to see more info - without actually describing a speculative 'this is the detail I think will be revealed', but instead saying 'Pete has brought us (via a look back in time that we know only spotty details about so far, and boy oh boy, doesn't it look like we should know more very soon?!?
(I'm being especially vague on purpose, but by the same standard, perhaps even this gripe is likely considered spec, as would posting [word for word] 'soon we will see the characters we like in another installment of the strip doing things that we like to see them do'...
Ok, in reality, not really upset, just bemused that the original was marked as spec and spec.
And, thinking that the discussion about what should be considered spec could use a bright and clear definition that is easily accessible, or better, a review about how strict things should be when it comes to avoiding spec here.
To that end (and as an experiment in finding out what happens to the post here in Reactions), I am going to copy this post and repost it in the Megaspec, (before it can possibly be marked as spec and neutered here ...) and see if it prompts meaningful response, debate, or just sinks like a lead balloon (and not the one on Mythbusters... oops! should have posted a spoiler warning for late-arriving fans of Mythbusters!)
After doing that, I am heading to bed, because I suspect that the (spec about an astronomical object) will (spec about an event that hasn't happened yet, even though it has occured daily since time memorial) to start a new day.
PS: I actually do appreciate your efforts, Z! This situation just struck me as very silly, but it at least prompted me to think about what spec is or isn't (or should be or not...)
*******************
If you are still reading this, I salute you, give yourself a pat on the back!
(Alternatively, I pity you the headache you must now have. Give yourself some painkillers...)
Now, the challenge is to make it to the end, without falling asleep or going insane! Best of luck!*******************
Turns out I didn't 'head to bed' so soon. Instead I edited and re-edited THIS post. Wasn't even making sense to me...
Oh, before I forget, the spoof spec is [sun], [rise] if it wasn't blatantly obvious. It is no longer spec. It rose...
***********************************************************************
To be very clear, I had NO desire or intention to bash Zillitain, and that remains true here.
***********************************************************************
But perhaps this will generate more discussion - here or elsewhere - about what the current standards of 'spec/not spec' are in the Reactions thread, and whether they are worth revising or not. Maybe sometimes Ref Zillitain might consider 'upon review' to just pick up the flag without applying the penalty (American Football reference, in case some are not familiar...)
Or, maybe others can show me the errors of my ways.
(Maybe this is interesting just to me and the other voices in my head...)***********************
As best I can paraphrase, the two blocked 'specs' (which I can no longer see to copy and paste, either) were:
1) Given that the last few strips are obviously focusing on the events just prior to the accident that claimed Tombsy the elder's life, we are likely to learn more details about that event.
2) We will likely soon know whether it was an accident or not.
I still don't think the point 1 is speculation, and I certainly didn't mean it as speculation.
But, I obviously I did say 'I suspect' that we will learn more information about that event soon. And 'suspect' and 'speculation' can go hand in hand. In fact, that is actually why I said "I don’t think this really QUALIFIES as spec".
My intention was to share my own REACTION to the realization of the who, the what and the where in this and the previous strip. Something along the lines of this: We know the 'accident' event happened, and we know just a little bit of detail about it, but, I recognize something! Pete has brought the right characters to the perfect place and time to reveal more about the 'accident'. In fact, if the story were to move on without revealing at least some little tidbit of information, that would truly be surprising.
And since that was my reaction, and I wasn't making any guess on what specifically we would learn (well, at this point, but see below) I posted in Reactions.
Certainly, Pete may merely be setting up a tease, and he could intend to withhold the bulk of details for longer (or even forever.) Obviously he has frequently teased us before by revisiting a subject/event/character without giving us all of the information at that time (will we ever learn more about Bun Bun's mother?), but we always get something.
There are obvious exceptions, like the old 'No Content Sundays', Harry Potter spoofs, and guest artist runs. And then there are the R.E.C.A.P.s...
But most R.E.C.A.P.s confirm various facts and connections that were previously just implied, or hard to confirm, or even to grasp without archive diving in various places.
And while we have traveled back in time at this point of the story, there is so far no indication that this is part of any ongoing recap. These are new (to us) points of view and even settings and situations, whereas any recap would be limited to facts already known. From the start of this backward time jump, new info was been revealed. I merely was struck (reacted to) the opportunity that was being unrolling. And that maybe this is the time that we get to learn more about one of the biggest events from this time period.
We already know:
- The event referred to as the 'accident' involved the group of Wilcott, Tombsy the elder, and Quaboos (not sure of spelling), although we have only spotty details.
- Current scenes are clearly set in the time frame as that event. Even though we didn't previously know the year there have been enough recent reveals that we should be able to safely say that the current scenes are within days of the event. I think it is probably still unclear if we are already witnessing events on the exact same DAY, but that doesn't change my point.)
- They are also clearly portrayed as set in the same location as that event (The sinkhole on the other side of Vesuvius from Pompeii.)
Given all of that, it stood to reason that the story had been positioned to reveal at least some kind of additional details related to the 'accident', no? Maybe not any particular details we might want most, but something.
Anyone agree so far?
On to the 2nd point.
Well... in retrospect, I realized later that the 2nd point (i.e. was the 'accident' really an accident) sure seems to be speculation, at least much more obviously - and to a greater degree - than point #1.
In the absence of any indications that the 'accident' was anything OTHER THAN truly an accident, it is appropriate to spec-block the question 'is it really an accident' in a spec-free REACTIONS forum. In contrast, such questioning is obviously completely fair play here in the Megaspec thread.
When I posted in Reactions, I was sure that this HAD been questioned in the strip itself.
So I didn't even consider that it was speculation.
But Z blocked this, too, so I had to consider why, if I wanted to make any rebuttal. If I wanted to do that, I would need more than my own recollections as proof.
Alas, it turns out that I can't find any evidence that any character or Pete's narration has ever questioned that 'narrative' of it being truly an accident.
Mea culpa...
So, if Z had spec blocked ONLY that 2nd part ('we should soon know accident/not an accident'), would I have let it go without comment?
Well, the fact remains that I DID question both points at the time. But since them, I have done a fairly good job of convincing myself that I messed up in doing so.
I do still hold out a tiny sliver of hope that my recollection was actually fairly correct, and that the proof is still out there. But as of now, it seems highly likely that I intermingled speculative discussions with my memory of facts in canon.
******************
By the way, since this IS the Megaspec thread...
The accident/not accident also immediately preceded Wilcott's disappearance (but not Wilcott's death, as Riff used to believe.) I foresee more details soon regarding that, too! I am not prepared to speculate on what those details will be.
******************
In any case, all of this diatribe was about making some points about degrees of speculation and is it worth reconsidering any of it. Plus a little humor to make at least myself smile or giggle.
But it was not about any attempt at fighting to the end about all of this silliness in order to 'win'...
So I shall now sign off, to sleep, perchance to dream...
Plus, my computer must be running low on screen ink by this point... better save some!
So again, my bad, and my apologies if Z or anyone has been offended, or if anyone now needs a lobotomy or counseling for reading thru this. (But I can't cover those expenses, so sorry for a 3rd time!)