Coding TBAYs

[Jen Reese]

Sean:
> As a Listee I've never seen TBAY as anything else but its own 
thing and I can bet you most Listees (except perhaps the TBAYers 
themselves) take one look at a TBAY heading and move on, deciding 
it's a game specific to TBAYers.  Now you can beg to differ, but I'm 
merely expressing in code my attitude in the List world, and have to 
draw the line somewhere.

Jen: Oh no! I hope that's not how most listees react to TBAY, 'cause 
most of the ones I've coded up so far are chock full of canon 
discussion. There are a few throwaways of course, just as there are 
in any thread. Some with in-jokes and the like. But the most 
prolific Tbay'ers were also some of the most insightful & analytical 
writers. 

I don't think we can code based on our own generalizations about the 
list. We've all got 'em. It's being a detached observer and coding 
for content. We may never agree on style of writing, that's for sure.

Carolyn:
IMO, TBAY is an interesting way of continuing discussions in another 
style, and certainly it would make a large hole in the development 
of some theories to leave them out of a run of posts on a particular 
theme. However, the header code is there for those who want to hop 
skip and jump past them if they want. 
 
I'm sorry you don't like them, but cataloguing is about dealing with 
all the stuff on the list, not taking sides. I dutifully code up 
SHIPping, and worse...

Jen: 
Lots worse. The theory on Peter and Bertha's love child--can't even 
remember the plotline but there was some canon analysis going on. 
The proselytizers, the child-abuse zealots (won't name names here), 
the alchemy aficionados (that's me!)--unless the point of the post 
has been said a million different ways prior, or it is totally based 
on personal opinion, or full of mistakes, then it has a right to be 
coded up for content.

Of course, all this is personal opinion. In the end, Miss Havisham 
has the final say, no?