Defining FPs

[a_reader2003]

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "jdr0918" <jdr0918 at h...> 
wrote:
> Barry Arrowsmith wrote:
> If you don't object, I'd like to notify the group about any post I 
> come across that gets close to FPdom  and see if there's a 
consensus -

> Jayne:
> I've coded a couple of FPs, but I was sort of assuming that they 
> would be subjected to further scrutiny, like a star chamber of 
> ubercoders or something, before they were officially 
> branded "fantastic".

Carolyn:
Out of curiosity, since I notice Hans is posting again...what is our 
consensus on his Alchemical Wedding contribution? The thing is, 
although I think a couple of us think the theory is pretty far-
fetched, to the point of nuts, that isn't actually a valid reason for 
not considering it for FP-dom. Heck, plenty of other theories are 
probably nuts as well, but that never stopped anyone.

In reality, it is a very-carefully argued, long, consistent and 
intellectually-wide-ranging contribution, expressed in fairly clear 
English. It takes careful account of canon, and relentlessly examines 
every last detail to support the argument.

If I were pulling all our contributions together to present to JKR, 
actually, I think I would want to include it. Its extreme, but not 
necessarily any more wrong than anything else..

Thoughts?