its just that, for instance, five seconds after reading MS saying 'we' i said 'gaia'. i also declared wizards to have fae blood, without reading any threads about it. its cool an all i'm not a glory hog, i just wanted to point it out.
This is why I think that many of these indexed theories shouldn't be cited to a "single" theorizer. Another example is that probably a majority of people who heard the WoJ about both Lasciel and Lash being in GS by other names immediately thought of the shadow for Lasciel, then vascillated between proxies in the graveyard and the Parasite for Lash. IMO nobody owns/originated those theories because they are pratically self evident, however they do belong in the "Index" and it is nice to have a "reference" thread to associate with them that discusses all the merrits and evidence behind them since the index should be as brief as possible.
As someone who has built a few reference threads, there are a few grey areas for this concept for me. The theory about something being fishy with Mort's hair and domicile is something that I find rather self evident, but I'm rather confident that I am the first person to point it out publically. However, in the reference/source I most recently built to cover it, I acknoledged (Probably obliquely, I haven't reviewed it lately though) that the Beta's were aware of it before I was, and thus it isn't origional to me. This is the best way I know of to deal with these grey areas. That is, to have a "Reference"/"Source" link in the index that also acknoledges the other contributions to the theory.
This also goes a long ways towards furthering the forum policy Elegast pointed out earlier:
--Acknowledge other people, assume good will, be quick to praise and slow to criticize, add knowledge, offer help, be slow to anger, apologize when wrong, politely ask for clarification, and exercise patience when your temper flares.
The application of which is one of the reasons why these boards are such a great corner of the interwebs.
