[HPFGU-Feedback] Re: More About TBAY

[Shaun Hately]

On 4 Dec 2003 at 23:58, msbeadsley wrote:

> You went from discussing posts to discussing *lines* in posts (yeah, 
> I noticed); so what you want is not just an analysis of *posts*, but 
> a line-by-line examination? And who is going to set up the criteria 
> for whether or not any individual line of any individual post 
> is "fluffy" or "canon-based," anyway? (This concern with "facts" just 
> gets better and better.)

No, I don't want a line by line examination. Because I think that would be 
incredibly to carry out and would involve the criteria you mention.

What I object to though is people claiming their position is simple fact in the 
absence of that type of evidence.

My view is that the differences here relate to different people's perceptions - I 
don't think they relate to facts.

Yet, I'm having to deal with people who insist that the canonicity of TBAY posts is 
a proven fact. I don't think it is. And I don't think it easily can be shown to be one.

I'm seeing an attitude from some people that their opinions are facts - and 
therefore are somehow more important than other people's opinions. Well, I 
happen to think everybody's opinion and perception is just as important as 
everyone elses.

The number of lines concerns me only because I don't think a post that takes 40 
lines as a lead up to a 2 line piece of canon is particularly canon based. And I 
personally think that quite a number of TBAY posts fall into that type of category - 
yes, they may contain canon - but 95% of what they contain has nothing to do 
with canon.

That's not just TBAY - it happens with other posts as well. It's just that I don't see 
anyone defending the practice when it comes to other posts.

Some TBAYers seem to take the view that if a TBAY post contains even the most 
minute piece of canon, that makes it acceptable.

Well, by that criteria, I suspect virtually every single MOVIE post contains at least 
a tiny piece of canon.

Yet, movie posts have been moved to another list. 

So I don't think the standard of just containing some canon is enough. I think 
posts need to be viewed as a whole.

> It might be useful to remember that basic emotional needs generally 
> concern a need or desire one has for oneself to be *included*; I 
> think a desire to *exclude* other persons or things must be somewhat 
> more complicated. Those wanting to exclude/partition off TBAY, 
> granted, probably are somewhat concerned with wanting to devote more 
> bytes/seconds on those things they're more interested in; they don't 
> want to "waste" time or computer resources. But I *suspect* that a 
> large part of what bothers some people about TBAY is that it *is* 
> whimsical. As in, maybe, it's bad enough to be so involved in a 
> series of *children's books* without also having the added 
> embarrassment of admitting (even to oneself) that one is spending 
> large chunks of time somewhere people dare to be *silly* in their fun 
> with it. (Ring any bells, anyone?)

The point is, the presence of TBAY posts on the main list IMHO, do *exlude* 
people. Injokes (and TBAY is, IMHO, full of injokes) serve to exclude anyone who 
isn't in on the joke.

Are some people against TBAY because it's whimsical? Maybe. But I'm not. 
That's got nothing to do with my problems with it.

> The difference, again, is inclusion vs. exclusion. Those who like 
> TBAY are not asking for anything (press "delete" or "next" is closer 
> to nothing than anything, IMO) from those who don't other than to be 
> ignored; (some of) those who don't are after *a change in the status 
> quo*, based on *their* idiosyncrasies.


Actually those who like TBAY are asking for something. They are asking people 
who receive their messages via e-mail to download mail they are not interested in. 
They are asking people who prefer to discuss matters in a straightforward fashion 
to accept that at any moment, somebody might decided to take one of their 
messages and fork the thread into one they don't feel comfortable with.

What they are asking may be totally reasonable - but the suggestion that that they 
don't ask anything is simply wrong, in my opinion.

Am I after a change in the status quo? Not particularly. What I am asking for is 
that people don't just assume that the status quo is automatically a good thing. 
Just because things have been done a particular way in the past is not a reason 
they have to continue that way. I'm not asking that the status quo be changed - I'm 
merely asking that the possibility of change not be automatically dismissed.

If TBAY remains on the list, that will be fine with me. I'll accept that a decision has 
been taken by those in authority on the list that it should remain.

What I object to, though, is what seems to me to be a belief by some who like 
TBAY that those of us who don't should simply shut up and not make our views 
known.

I've no problem with people disagreeing with me on this - but I have a serious 
problem when they try to claim their opinions are somehow more factual than 
mine.

> Do you honestly think anyone is trying to change your mind? I don't. 
> I think they *are* trying to make sure that your opinion and those of 
> like-minded folks are not the ones which prevail.

And I have no problem with that - if that is all they are doing. But I am not going to 
accept them saying something is a fact if I do not believe it is a fact.

They are entitled to their opinions. They should not, however, in my opinion, claim 
their opinions are proven facts.

Doing so, to me, looks like an attempt to stifle discussion by claiming some 
people have facts, and some only have opinions.

> Absent the analysis we know is not going to happen regarding whether 
> or not TBAY posts are disproportionately lacking in canon, your 
> opinion is just that (and has no more and no little weight than 
> those, like mine, which oppose yours). Anyway, what "belongs on a 
> discussion list" is what membership consensus (or majority) says 
> belongs (with a little input from ADMIN, of course <g>).

Actually I think what belongs on a discussion list is what those running the list say 
belongs. And I'll be satisifed with whatever their decision is because by asking the 
question and giving us this forum to discuss it on, they are showing they are 
willing to consider what the list membership wants.

My point *IS* that my opinion is just my opinion - and has no more and no little 
weight than anyone else. And because I am aware of that, I have explicitly stated 
that my posts are based on my opinions and my perceptions. It seems to me that 
my being open about this has been used by at least one poster as an excuse to 
dismiss what I have to say - by simply claiming that there is 'really no doubt' that 
their opinions are correct, no matter what I think.

And that annoys me.

> > I'm as entitled to my opinion as anyone else. But it seems to me 
> > that some people on the list believe their opinions are facts - and 
> > anybody elses opinions are only opinions.
> 
> Yep, you are. And it seems to me that you, and I, and most everyone, 
> generally state(s) their opinion(s) pretty flatly (as if they were 
> fact).

Actually, I don't think I do.

Virtually every post I have made in this thread has included phrases like 'I think'. 
'That's my opinion', 'And personally I think', 'My personal view',
'That's not my perception.', 'That's my perception, and it 
may be wrong', and the ubiquitous 'IMHO'.

I actually tend to be very careful to make the difference between what I believe to 
be fact and what I believe to be my opinion, very clear in most of my posts. That 
comes from my job where the difference is considered absolutely critical at times, 
and I don't expect others to be as obsessive about it as I am.

But when people start explicitly claiming things to be fact, and to me they seem to 
be simply their own unproven opinions, I don't think it's obsessive to react to that.

> > My post was CANON DISCUSSION. My post took 12 solid hours of 
> > research to do. I put a lot of work into it, and I was extremely 
> > annoyed to be told to move related explicitly to a canon point. Yet 
> > I was told to move it because it was too long.
> <snip>
> 
> You are *really* stuck on this, aren't you?

I'm annoyed about it yes. I don't see why my posts should be censored and TBAY 
be allowed to get away with far more egregious behaviour.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect TBAYers to be held to the same standard 
I've been held to.

One fair standard is what I want to see - and I don't think TBAY posts are held to 
the same standard I have been.

> So...one elf may have (we have not seen evidence and are being asked 
> to rely on your ah, perception? memory?) judged a perfectly 
> acceptable post of yours as not. Once. One stipulated and anonymous 
> (as you not only don't have the message, but haven't identified an 
> individual) elf. And you are basing your philosophy about all past 
> and future TBAY posts and posters on that one experience. (Okay. Just 
> so we're clear here.) And others here are supposed to be convinced by 
> that. (BTW: didn't work for me.)

No, not once. It's happened more than once (four times, I think) - that incident is 
just the one that most annoys me because I spent a great deal of time on that 
post, and explicitly read through all the administrivia I could find to make sure it 
was acceptable before I posted it, and I still got called on it.

The others were posts I'd spent a few minutes on, and I wasn't really that worried 
about them. But that post is the one that most annoyed me. 

Secondly, this list is not the place for me to post those messages. But I have been 
asked today by one of the list elves to forward the message in question to her and 
I have done so.

It's not one experience I'm talking about here - just because I use one post as an 
example, doesn't mean it's the only thing that irritates me.
 
> Do you still have that post? How 'bout if you were invited to 
> resubmit it? At least provisionally? (Or is that a *really bad* idea?)

I still have the post and I have today forwarded it to a list elf who asked to see it.

I'm not really that interested in resubmitting it. I don't really care if it's allowed on 
the list or not. What concerns me is that all messages be held to the same 
standard. There should be, as much as possible, one standard for all messages 
on the list. I was told I shouldn't have posted a particular message for reasons 
that I have no problem with - provided those reasons are also applied to other 
posters to the list including TBAY posters.

Now, is it possible my post was rejected by mistake? Sure - maybe it was. And if I 
am told that was the case, my position on TBAY would change considerably.

But e-mails I sent to the list owner address asking for clarification of the list 
policies went unanswered. So until I hear otherwise, I assume that there is a list 
standard and my post violated it. Which is fine. Provided other posters are also 
being held to that standard.

> Of course it should. I think it's obvious to everyone (?) that the 
> facts as you present them indicate that one elf once made one bad 
> call. I confess I forget if you mentioned this: did you ask for 
> clarification?

Yes, I did. And received no answer. Now, maybe that is going to change now - if 
so I, for one, will consider this thread to have been worthwhile.

Now maybe there was a mistake made in my case - with the volume of messages 
sent to the list, I could certainly understand the occasional mistake being made.

But I can't assume a mistake was made simply because I don't agree with the 
decision.

> You have a right to that opinion. Not only do I not agree with it, my 
> meta-opinion is that you will not prevail. (All posts are of limited 
> interest, since we are all interested in difference things to some 
> degree or other; it's just that not all of them are as easy to "lump 
> together" (or acknowledge) as, for instance, TBAY. Me, if I see one 
> more "fill-in-the-blank," I'm gonna take an axe to my keyboard!)

I don't think I'll prevail either - but that's not going to stop me saying it if I want to 
(unless of course, the list administrators tell us all to shut up, in which case I will 
comply)

> IMO, it is entirely relevant to bring the other prefixed sorts of 
> messages into this discussion as it relates to ghetto-izing (ouch; 
> sorry) any one sort of prefixed messages. (If you don't think so, go 
> google "First they came for the Jews." Apologies to anyone who might 
> be offended by my choice of analogies; I do not mean in any way to 
> trivialize anything related to the Pastor's very evocative prose.) 
> This isn't just about TBAY, per se. For me, it boils down to: Does 
> the value TBAY (FILK, FF) has to those who value it outweigh the 
> antipathy of those who don't? As far as I can tell, leaving it in 
> penalizes fewer people to a far lesser degree than kicking it out 
> would.

And I agree that's perfectly possible. But that's a decision for the list 
administration to make after they've seen all opinions. I'm giving mine.

 
Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at ... | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia