ADMIN: We'd Like to Pick Your Brains About TBAY

[lucky_kari]

--- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" <drednort at a...>
wrote:
> TBAY posts may and often do contain material about canon based
theories. So 
> do some MOVIES and some OT posts (certainly nowhere near as many as
TBAY 
> does, I grant you).
> 
> But, frankly. my perception is that a significant number of TBAY
posts are 
> primarily about people 'roleplaying' and whatever canon points are
being made 
> are secondary to that roleplaying, giggle giggle injoke purpose.

No! The role-playing and the in-jokes are *part* of the point being
made in a TBAY post! I'll give you an example that I used when the
topic came up more than a year ago. 

"Elkins' latest attack
on Cindy is a clever spin on her T.S. Eliot-Neville post. As an
English student, I enjoy this sort of cleverness, the moments when
one goes - "Oh, that's what the author's up to!" The worm who hopes
not to turn, but is forced to, a concept Elkins was discussing, is
here made concrete."

And well I must admit here that TBAY is... well, clever. And I'm
afraid some people don't like cleverness. They find it somehow less
than honest, less real.

But well, that's a matter of personal preference, isn't it? That's why
we have a TBAY header. 

> That's my perception, and it may be wrong - but I don't believe that
the idea that 
> TBAY posts are about canon-based theories is unassailable.

Well, I rather think it is. I mean, you can assail anything, but
there's really no doubt that the TBAY posts stand up to the HPFGU
rules for canon based discussion, while the Movie and OT posts don't.
At all. If you think that standard should be changed, that's really a
different matter. 

Eileen