More questions/about TBAY & psychology

[carolynwhite2]

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" 
<willsonkmom at m...> wrote:
> 
> As much as I wanted to post T-BAY style, I have too many questions 
> to make it work.

It can get too much of a good thing...

> I'm coming across a number of posts (here and on main list) that 
use psychological theories to discuss HP.  I've seen Freud, Maslov, 
> Erikson...where should we put that sort of post?  It's not really 
> the same as "I think so-and-so is depressed."

Well, I would code to 1.4.8 quite a lot (it isn't just for PTSD), but 
also use categories such as 2.17.4 Sex in the WW, 1.1.6 Parenting & 
child development etc etc, as seemed appropriate.


> 
> Does the heading for T-BAY only apply if the style is T-BAY or also 
> if the topics have to do with the theories?  (I think we've touched 
> on that before?)I've seen posts that are straight discussion but 
use the T-BAY acronyms.

Theories don't necessarily = TBAY. The prefix TBAY refers more to the 
style in which they are written, when it (arguably) becomes ficcy - 
memorably discussed, I believe, in a row that became known as TBacle 
1. Many opposed the writing style and wanted to keep to straight 
analysis, and it was then that the prefix was first introduced, so 
that the squeamish could avert their eyes (but everyone else could 
make a beeline for them).

Someone who was there at the time might care to elaborate further.


> 
> Also, I came across a pretty good T-BAY post that sort of explained 
> some of the theories, but had more to do with T-BAY than with HP. I 
> wasn't sure whether to keep it since a person looking into T-BAY 
> might want to read it, or to reject it as OT.  I made a decision 
> (just don't ask me what it was.) but I was wondering if we should 
> code those type of posts in the same way we do FILKS?

This sounds like something that should be kept - can you possibly dig 
out the post number and let me take a look?


> 
> Carolyn, would you double check the rejected posts to be double 
> checked? I don't show 36529 as rejected.

Yes, this seems to be fine (ironically, someone else confused by pink 
flamingoes!). Sorry about that, maybe misread a number..(cats got my 
glasses..).


> 
> Also please send me a new batch quickly, before I get caught up in 
> yet another "Snape is good, no he isn't" thread on the Main List.
> Kathy (Potioncat)

Remember what they taught you at school: just say no. 

Hastily: 37451 -37550.