More Background on HA (WAS Two Responses to Tom and other stuff)

[Cindy C.]

Abigail wrote:

> Alright, I stand corrected.  But I do think that it's important 
>that we stress that a theory doesn't have to be created or used in 
>TBAY in order to belong in HA.  

Fair enough.  IIRC, MD is the only HA theory I can think of that is 
discussed quite often in a narrative format rather than CARP 
(er, "CARP" is the type of post where people have these elaborate 
settings and dialogue and such).  There may be another someday, 
true. 



>George, for example, was created outside of TBAY, and referenced 
> quite frequently outside of TBAY before TBAY became what it is 
>today and sort of kidnapped him.  

Well, he is a cutie!  Who can blame us for kidnapping him?  ;-)

Seriously, it isn't quite accurate to say that George orginated 
outside TBAY.  See, Marina's Snape theory (which she named "George") 
came about before Theory Bay existed.  So did Fourth Man.  So did 
Toadkeeper. 

A bit of history is required here, I think.  Before April 2001, some 
posters began doing their posts with short prologues or epilogues, 
and Tabouli did a fabulous LOLLIPOPS post in CARP (the one where she 
tossed Elkins onto a pile of lifejackets -- a personal favorite of 
mine).  This was great fun for the participants, but some people 
felt left out and couldn't understand some of the in-jokes.  Others 
just plain didn't like that style of posting.

There was an extremely contentious debate on MEG, and the result was 
the TBAY prefix and Hypothetic Alley.  The authors of HA included 
ideas and theories that were frequently referenced by a nickname or 
acronym.  So George didn't originate in the Bay because the Bay 
didn't exist.  

Also, there are many theories that come up in the Bay that don't 
make it into HA.  The test in my own mind was whether the theory was 
popping up so often in a shorthand form that newcomers might need 
some help.  Similarly, if term of art becomes so commonplace that it 
tends to leak out onto the main list without explanation (bangy, 
ESE, etc.), then it also is a candidate for HA.


>The only difference is that it's a lot 
> easier to briefly explain any weird name theory in a non-TBAY post 
>then it is in a TBAY post.

Perhaps.  But the test IMHO is whether people actually *do* explain 
the theory.  

There was an ADMIN on the usage of the TBAY prefix a while back, but 
it is not linked in what was once known as the "Humongous Bigfile."  
That might be helpful to reference in this discussion, but I don't 
have a copy available to me.  Many people think the prefix is 
required if the post is written in CARP, but that isn't the test, 
really.  

> I agree, but the fact remains that TBAY is imposing to a lot of 
>members, and not just newbies.  I've seen more then once the 
>mention that people are afraid to respond to a TBAY post or even 
>that they don't read them.  

Oh, sure.  Some folks absolutely cannot stand TBAY posts and will 
tell you so at the slightest provocation.  Some people are afraid to 
respond, concerned that they must CARP to join in and feeling much 
too bashful.

Thankfully, many people have worked out that it is possible to 
participate on a TBAY thread in an essay format, and there's 
actually quite a lot of that.  Or there was, anyway -- I'm rather 
behind on the main list.

Cindy