Defining FPs

[bluesqueak]

Carolyn wrote:
> 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.

That's a side effect of not allowing any 'I agree' posts, I think. 
If a post is fantastic, and you agree with every word, what can you 
say that isn't 'I agree'?

So FP's can't really be judged by the amount of response. Ten 
thousand lurkers nodding in agreement won't show up on the list.

I agree that Ivan's posts should be kept, but would hesitate to 
class them as 'Fantastic'. I'm like Barry, I think, in that this is 
being influenced by my knowledge of Ivan. If we ever publically 
announce that his post is considered 'fantastic', I'm sure he'll use 
that on-list and I'm sure he'll use it elsewhere. To add weight to 
his arguments. 

Other people will just enjoy the accolade without seeing it as 
agreement with the views expressed, but I think Ivan will see it as 
*agreement*. 

So I dunno. Perhaps we should invent a subcategory/new category 
of 'Unforgettable posts', which could include ones remembered for 
all the wrong reasons {g}.

Incidentally, I've emailed Paul from the Word doc in Files, as per 
instructions, but haven't had a reply yet. Is there something wrong 
with the link, or am I just halfway down Paul's e-mail pile? Which, 
as someone who often doesn't reply to emails for weeks and then 
can't find them at all, I would entirely understand?

Pip