(TBAY In Hypothetic Alley) Re: Request for contributions and other stuff

[Tom Wall]

On the TBAY note, I have a question: 

Someone told me that Hypothetic Alley is comprised mostly of posts in 
the TBAY format as a matter of choice. Is this accurate? There are 
many theories in there that got their start outside of the TBAY 
format; Magic Dishwasher, one of the most prestigious, comes to mind 
in this respect. Granted, many of them have been further discussed in 
that format, but, well, how are we going to handle that stuff now?

I ask 'cause there has been such a flurry of new theories and 
additions to old ones... should we be using the 'TBAY' format as a 
criterion, or not? IMHO, if it's a good Hypothesis and well-defended, 
it should be there no matter what stylistic approach the author used.

Oh, and related to my previous question on this, in what order did we 
want to tackle Hypothetic Alley in our efforts to revise everything?

-Tom

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at c...> 
wrote:
> Quickly . . . 
>  
> We have to remember that this group maintains HA.  So TBAYs should 
be
> nominated for the reasons Heidi suggests, but also if they 
represent a
> theory that will be confusing in its usage later on.  Also, a TBAY 
can't
> be on the list if it isn't canon-based.
>  
> Er, was that clear?
>  
> JMHO.
>  
> Cindy
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heidi Tandy [mailto:heidit at n...] 
> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 8:31 AM
> To: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Request for contributions and other 
stuff
>  
> Imho, if a filk is merely well written,  well rhymed, funny or 
clever, 
> it's not exactly what we need, but if it says something 
particularly 
> unique or insightful about a character, concept or something else 
we do 
> filks on, then it would qualify as an fp, the same way a post 
written in
> 
> fanfic style would. A tbay shouldn't be nominated just because the 
carp 
> is particularly well done, if it doesn't add anything to the 
> canon-focused topic discussion. If it's got a new acronym or theory 
> that'll be listed elsewhere anyway.
> 
> Heidi
> 
> 
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 8:14AM -0500, Cindy C. wrote:
> > Real-To:  "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...>
> >
> > Amanda:
> >
> >>  Couldn't we just link to Caius' archive? He's got it sorted and
> >> all. I haven't been there in ages, but I know he keeps it up.
> >
> > Actually, I was making a different point.
> >
> > If we do not want FILKs (because they are in Caius' archive or for
> > any other reasson), perhaps we should say that in our instructions
> > to the list.  No sense having people use their time and energy to
> > give us something we don't want.  Assuming we don't want them.
> >
> > That's all.
> >
> > Cindy