More About TBAY

[msbeadsley]

> <msbeadsley at y... writes:
> <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?)

> Umm, no offense, but why would anyone even think that. Most people 
> that self concious would never pick up a Harry Potter book in the 
> first place, let alone join an internet group devoted entirely to 
> it.

Uh, it seems to me that you are making several *major* assumptions 
here. I never said that those reacting in that way knew it; I think 
it's likelier they don't. Many (probably most) people aren't 
conscious of being self-conscious, or what they're that way about.

> That has nothing to do with being annoyed with TBAY. I bet half the 
> people on this list still watch Saturday morning cartoons and read 
> other fantasy books.

I can only speak for myself, and the answers are "never," and "all 
the time."

> Its just the genre that we are annoyed with. Just like some people 
> cannot watch horror films and others can't stand romance. Its just 
> a personal preference.

Probably, for those who say, "Oh, when I see the TBAY prefix I just 
hit "next" or "delete." It's anyone who might seem very anxious to 
get TBAY off the main list (and I'm not even *sure* any such exist) I 
suspect of deeper stuff.

> Honestly, if these people were that self conscious, they would have 
> been offended by JK's description of a muggle, and would have put 
> the book down then and there. 

More assumptions here, IMO. And I cannot imagine anyone reading JKR's 
depiction of Muggles and thinking "Hey, she means me." JKR writes 
Muggles as "THEM" (as opposed to "US") from (literally) the first 
word of the first book.

> TBAY just makes some people gag, and they cannot help it, that's 
> just the way they are. I also feel that if a person who has too 
> long of a post containing only canon is not allowed to post, or 
> that it should be moved elsewhere, then so should TBAY.

How did we get from "annoyed with TBAY," to "makes <some> people 
gag"? That's a pretty strong indictment (especially since you just 
suggested that the very carefully and lovingly crafted efforts of 
some of your fellow list members make some other list members all but 
throw up).

You took an account of how and why a non-TBAY post was rejected at 
face value because it suited you, whereas what I said (which included 
an "I suspect" and a "maybe") warrants that you state, "that is not 
called for." What is it that isn't called for? My opinion, consisting 
of a *theory* about what may be going on behind the scenes with 
generic anti-TBAY someones? My stating of same?

I meant to be *thought*-provoking, honest...

Sandy