[HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Defining FPs

[Barry Arrowsmith]

>


I can only repeat: I feel very, very strongly about this.


Barry




>  Carolyn:
>  Well, I agree with you mostly, as you know. Its just that, looking at
>  it dispassionately as an editor, it is difficult to distinguish
>  between what he is doing, and what other posts are doing. Erm, he
>  wouldn't be the first person to selectively quote from canon to
>  support his argument. Nor the first to see support for his theory at
>  every twist and turn of the book [coughs, ESE!Lupin].
>
>  And, looking back at my own self-imposed criteria, I have to say his
>  posts have made me think, if only to conclude that I don't agree.
>
>  There is no doubt, though, that he is coming at HP from a
>  particularly personal evangelical viewpoint. However, plenty of other
>  people on the list have strongly-held religious beliefs, and insist
>  on reading HP through those lenses, and allow no real argument about
>  the fundamentals of those beliefs.
>
>  The strongest argument I can think of for not considering him for FP
>  status is that his posts generate almost no responses. Clearly there
>  is a silent consensus that he is too batty to debate with. But that
>  introduces another criteria - should Fantastic Posts be characterised
>  by the amount of response they get?
>
>  It is noticeable that Peg Kerr's essays get very few responses, yet
>  they are generally considered FP's. And I would consider Iris_ft's
>  recent thoughts on HP & Cain worthy of FP-dom, yet almost no one has
>  responded to her.
>
>  Thoughts anyone?
>  Carolyn
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1968 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040609/3adf48cd/attachment.bin>