Long posts, was Re: ADMIN: We'd Like to Pick Your Brains About TBAY

[gulplum]

I'm replying to this post rather than any other in this thread 
because it includes a peripheral question I'd like to take a stab at 
answering (with which I'll start this; I'll get back on topic fairly 
swiftly, I promise). :-) 

Amanda asked Shaun:
> P.S.--Can you tell me what "Yours Without Wax" means? I wonder 
> about it Every Single Time and I'm finally remembering to ask.

I used to use that phrase myself many years ago (when I was around 
Shaun's age, I think). ;-) 

A common game in philological and lexicographical circles is to 
invent plausible yet spurious etymologies. 

Whilst English "sincere" (or French "sincère") has a well-documented 
direct root in Latin "sincerus" (same meaning), a long-standing fake 
etymology posits that it comes from a Roman practice in the trading 
of sculptures and statues, of certifying that objects were "sine 
sera" ("without wax", i.e., that they weren't damaged or incorrect 
castings which had been filled in or corrected with wax). 
Metaphorically, therefore, the seller was being "sincere", hence the 
contraction's meaning.

Thus, "yours without wax" = "yours sincerely".

To my knowledge, no such certification was ever prevalent in Roman 
times, but to a certain class of people, it's an amusing piece of 
pseudo-science.

It's not even the origin of the Latin word "sincerus", which is 
generally accepted as coming from Indo-European roots: 

sin- in e.g. singuli ("single") + 
-cern in e.g. cernere ("to separate"; hence "discern")

i.e. "complete", "unblemished".

Anyway, back to the topic.

I think there's a basic misunderstanding between Shaun and Eileen. 
The issue was about how TBAY (and TBAY posts) are *perceived*. Shaun 
(and others, including myself) has explained his perception. It's 
ever so slightly incorrect for Eileen to state that his perception is 
wrong. 

For one thing, "perception" is not about facts, but their 
interpretation. Furthermore, several other people have said that 
their perception of TBAY is along the same lines, which means that 
whether or not Eileen agrees with it, several people's  *perception* 
of TBAY does not agree with hers. 

Of course, TBAYers' *intent* might have nothing to do with the way 
their efforts are perceived by some list members, and so whilst  
Eileen (and others) is free to defend her/their intentions, it is out 
of place to claim that the perception is incorrect.

A couple of active TBAYers have themselves admitted that some TBAY 
posts are high on "fluff" (thank you, Amanda - a much less 
confrontational word than "waffle", which I used in an earlier 
post) :-) and low on content; as far as I'm concerned, whilst I can 
appreciate the cleverness of TBAY and admire the effort which goes 
into creating those posts, I still consider the effort *I* have to 
put in to wading through the superfluous padding to get to the point 
that is being made is, frankly, generally not worth it, and thus I 
tend not to read TBAY posts. 

I fully appreciate that some people consider that the standard 
argument-counterargument format is too dry for their taste, but at 
the same time, there are those of us who consider TBAY too "fluffy".

Incidentally, and this is just an observation and I leave everyone to 
draw their own conclusions, but I find it... interesting... that all 
the comments on this issue over the last couple of days fall into two 
discrete camps: the ladies are pro-TBAY and we blokes are less 
favourably inclined...

I've just realised that in my previous post, I didn't deal with how I 
think TBAY should be dealt with, and how to get more members involved.

As I said before, I think the TBAY prefix works fine, and for those 
of us who wish to avoid this style of posting, it's sufficient. I 
also don't feel that TBAY should be given its own list. For one 
thing, the number of TBAY posts simply doesn't warrant it. For 
another, very frequently TBAY threads arise out of other "standard" 
conversations, and in some cases revert back to the usual format. 
Splitting TBAY off would therefore limit some people's opportunity to 
express themselves, and would potentially prevent non-TBAYers from 
seeing replies to their own posts.

It should, however, be underlined that TBAY posts should continue to 
be about canon points, and not just be an excuse for fanciful fluff. 

Which brings me on to what, if anything, should be done to explain 
TBAY to newcomers and enable them to use that format. I feel that 
this is going to be controversial (and some people are likely to be 
offended), but I'll say it anyway...

I don't think that TBAY should be "explained", FAQed or simplified in 
any way. As many people have said (or implied), TBAY is an HPFGU in-
joke. There is no escaping that. 

All communities have special characteristics or quirks which cannot 
be explained but can only be understood by participating. I therefore 
feel that until people comprehend the in-jokes and pick up on the 
subtleties, both of which can ONLY be achieved by reading other 
people's posts intelligently and perceptively over a period of time, 
they have absolutely no business attempting TBAY posts. Someone with 
the intelligence, wit and experience to understand those subtleties 
will probably "get" them pretty quickly. Someone who needs to have 
those subtleties explained to them in any detail probably doesn't 
have the experience or wit required to participate, and therefore 
quite simply should refrain from doing so. 

I suppose the short way of putting all of that is "if you have to ask 
questions about how TBAY works, you have no reason to be there. If 
the format appeals to you, you'll know when you're ready to 
participate".

I feel that opening the TBAY floodgates (argh! I'm going into TBAY 
language!) :-) will have the effect of cheapening the very concept of 
TBAY, and for it to degenerate into nothing but fluff, with nothing 
of canon interest being included.

Whilst it's true that the best TBAY posts can be entertaining, and 
the imaginative use of metaphor can make some points more vivid, I 
must say that in MY opinion (and perception, to return to where I 
started) these posts are VERY, VERY, VERY rare. The remainder could 
pesent their canon points far more succinctly (and legibly) in the 
standard format. 

Incidentally, and to end this on a lighter tone, something I've 
always wondered is why TBAY, given its marine setting, doesn't 
include Herrings (be they red, or any other colour). :-)