breathes down newcomers' necks

[Cindy C.]

Amy wrote:

>Here you will languish for months, counting
> the drips from the stone dungeon ceiling, 

Hey, now!  The ceiling does *not* drip!  The prisoners are not 
allowed any water, for heaven't sake.  Didn't you get the memo?

>I just have a wee little suggestion.  Can
> we do the old messages as well?  

<Cindy pauses, considering the very best response that will squeeze 
the maximum amount of mind-numbing work out of the team>

Hey, sure!  Let's do this.  Let's do the most recent 20,000 posts.  
Then, if we are not a twitching, heaving, sobbing wreck of a group 
and if we are still speaking to each other, we can revisit the issue 
of the first 25,000 posts.  

So, you see, if we all work really quickly, why, there will be 
plenty of time to do a complete and comprehensive catalogue! ;-)


 >what about those who are currently slogging
> through older posts, like me?  

Hmmm.  How far have you made it, Amy?  Would it make sense for you 
and Elkins to team up on the last 20,000 or something, just to 
finish the FAQ ASAP, at which point you can both begin to catalogue 
if you can bear the idea?  

Elkins?

>I suggest that any
> post that would be ruled OT today gets ignored in the
> indexing process.  

Absolutely!

> Back to the Word table.  I think we need a feedback
> process so that we start to agree on common language. 

Not a bad idea.  We can certainly have a convention to call 
characters by last names except in instances where doing so would 
create confusion (Weasleys).  But should we use summoning charm or 
Accio?  Er.  Any ideas?


Cindy