It's safe to read my earlier post

[justcarol67]

The list seems to have automatically hidden the blurb from my post to
the "Spoiler Warning" thread. Just to let you know, it's a reaction
the the NY Times's and Baltimore Sun's premature review.

The original post follows for the benefit of anyone who skipped it but
now wants to read it. (If you've already read it, thanks for trusting
me and ignore this post.)

Carol earlier:
> Since the title is "Deathly Hallows" and we don't find out what they
are for quite some time, I'd say that it qualifies as a significant
though not a major spoiler. Releasing the review at a time when the
rest of us were waiting with anxiety and trepidation for the book to
appear, it was unethical and irresponsible, especially in a newspaper
known for its integrity, to print a review two days before the book
came out in opposition to the author's own frequently and vehemently
expressed wishes. (As for the store that sold the reviewer the copy!)
At least the Baltimore Sun, which also published a review with a
supposedly legally obtained copy of the book (how was that possible?)
prefaced the article with a spoiler warning. The New York Times didn't
even have the courtesy to do that.
> 
> BTW, I didn't see the photos of the epilogue (an even worse
violation, IMO, since it reveals at least some names of characters who
survive), does anyone know whether it was authentic? (I saw the photo
of the first page and someone's hand. That one was definitely the real
thing.)
> 
> Even the most minor spoiler for a book which most readers want to
read unspoiled, and which the author and her publishers have worked so
hard to protect against leaks, is IMO reprehensible.
> 
> Carol, grateful that her pleasure and pain were unspoiled (except
for her own single peek ahead, which was her own choice and no one else's)
>
Carol, who would never, never spoil anyone's pleasure in reading a
book or watching a film for the first time