TBAY as an Intro only

[gulplum]

Laurasia wrote:

<SNIP>

> So, what does everyone think of the idea of having TBAY as an Intro 
> only? That way we still have all the fun of TBAY, but in a clearly 
> separate section of the post as the rest of the argument. You can 
> read it for the drama, or skip it for the facts...

It's a huge pity that I didn't see that message before I posted my 
most recent comments. I now have to go back on my promise (mainly to 
myself!) not to return to discussing TBAY, and also to expand on 
something I said in that post (which is not something I ever like 
doing). :-)

Laurasia has above highlighted the one thing she likes most about 
TBAY which is the one thing about it for which I have the least 
patience, and the one thing that hasn't featured in this debate. It 
seems that what the debate HAS been about up to now is what Laurasia 
dislikes about TBAY!

Namely, she likes the (IMO) long-winded and detailed introductions to 
TBAY which, from my perspective, are completely irrelevant to the 
format and are not what TBAYers have been defending. What TBAYers 
(including myself, which is scary!) have been defending is the 
discussion of theories by the use of extended metaphors. 

What Laurasia is defending is the fluff which I (and, from what I can 
tell, Shaun) would prefer TBAY posts to cut down.

So before this discussion goes completely off the rails, let's make 
sure that we're talking about the same thing here (because it seems 
as if we are not). This is what I understand to be the position:

What typifies a "true" (and IMO useful) TBAY post is the use of the 
extended metaphors of the Bay to confront two or more conflicting 
theories. 

A post along the lines of 

"GulPlum walked into the pub [blah, blah, blah for three or more 
paragraphs] and said: [standard discursive post, quoting canon where 
required, etc]" and ends with three paragraphs about drunkenly 
walking out of the pub or equivalent 

is NOT a TBAY post. It is a standard discursive post with loads and 
loads of fluff (on this occasion, I shall revert to my original term 
of "waffle") which is only nominally a TBAY post, but actually 
undermines what TBAY is all about and what makes it special.

That waffle has no place on the list. It is the equivalent of 
excessive quoting or irrelevant rambling. 

Unless, of course, I have COMPLETELY misunderstood this list for the 
last two years and the TBAY proponents' talk of extended metaphors 
and comparing themselves to great classical writers and philosophers 
is just so much hot air?

So can we please make sure that when we say "TBAY" we're actually 
talking about the same thing before we continue this debate?

-- 
GulPlum AKA Richard, who likes to establish that he's using the same 
language as his collocutors when it's necessary