From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Sun Jun  6 14:21:24 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt)
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:21:24 -0000
Subject: Out in the cold
Message-ID: <c9v994+pc3i@eGroups.com>


Tried yesterday, tried today, but I keep getting
a message that the server for the site can't be accessed.

What's happened?

Barry




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Jun  6 15:21:36 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 15:21:36 -0000
Subject: Me too - Re: Out in the cold
In-Reply-To: <c9v994+pc3i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <c9vcq0+u9lq@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> 
> Tried yesterday, tried today, but I keep getting
> a message that the server for the site can't be accessed.
> 
> What's happened?
> 
> Barry

Carolyn:
I have been locked out since Friday..have sent Paul several emails, 
but no response as yet. Presumably something is being 
fixed ...dunno..but slightly relieved you have the same problem too, 
I thought it might just be my computer. 




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Sun Jun  6 15:30:19 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 16:30:19 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Me too - Re: Out in the cold
In-Reply-To: <c9vcq0+u9lq@eGroups.com>
References: <c9vcq0+u9lq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <6B0D4018-B7CE-11D8-AA0A-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>


On 6 Jun 2004, at 16:21, a_reader2003 wrote:

> --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt"
>  <arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
>  >
>  > Tried yesterday, tried today, but I keep getting
>  > a message that the server for the site can't be accessed.
>  >
>  > What's happened?
>  >
>  > Barry
>
>  Carolyn:
>  I have been locked out since Friday..have sent Paul several emails,
>  but no response as yet. Presumably something is being
>  fixed ...dunno..but slightly relieved you have the same problem too,
>  I thought it might just be my computer.



Hmm. Still, it hasn't been a complete waste of time, I've been able to 
throw brickbats at SHIPpers instead.

More  fun, really.

Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 920 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040606/dc4a329f/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Jun  6 17:35:09 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 17:35:09 -0000
Subject: Me too - Re: Out in the cold
In-Reply-To: <6B0D4018-B7CE-11D8-AA0A-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <c9vkkd+nksp@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> 
> >  > What's happened?

> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. Still, it hasn't been a complete waste of time, I've been able 
to 
> throw brickbats at SHIPpers instead.
> 
> More  fun, really.
> 
> Barry

Carolyn:
Site is now back up and working - Paul says a power fault or 
something. Whatever..back to the grindstone with you. Sadly, I 
noticed you didn't catch any ickle newbies this time round, just the 
attentions of Headmistress!Amanda, alas.. 

BTW, if you take a decco in the members section, you will 
notice...Pip!Squeak, who is taking a look round after a blatant 
recruitment drive by me at last night's POA screening. A bit of extra 
discipline for our ramblings, I hope.




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Jun  6 20:18:49 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 20:18:49 -0000
Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 6th June
Message-ID: <c9vu79+u2ct@eGroups.com>

PROGRESS
A total of 9815 posts have now been allocated or coded. Of the 9815, 
8426 have actually been coded, and of the 8426, 5866 have been 
rejected - a rate of 69%.

A couple of hundred of the Yahoo club posts still need to be 
finished - it would be great to get these done, so we can all move 
forward on the main list together.

Please note that there will be some big gaps showing as uncoded which 
represent the posts Kelly is doing on a duplicate database whilst 
away. The two databases will get merged on her return. Currently, 
this affects posts 5250-5500 & 1601-2000.

Kelly: please could you let me know next Saturday (a) how many you 
have actually coded, and (b) how many you have rejected out of those 
coded ? Then I can add them to my figures. Thanks !


NEW CATEGORIES
The following categories have been added during the week:

2.8.18 (ID:1014) Stan Shunpike
2.10.8 (ID:1023) Piers Polkiss

2.12.9   (ID:1018) Hippogriffs
2.12.9.1 (ID:1019) Buckbeak

3.7.8.1 (ID:1021) The Fat Lady

3.8.4.8 (ID:1020) Fidelius Charm
3.8.4.9 (ID:1021) Homorphus Charm

3.9.2.1 (ID:1015) Crucio
3.9.2.2 (ID:1016) Imperius
3.9.2.3 (ID:1017) Avada Kedavra

NB On (The Fat Lady) I have put this under portraits and photographs. 
Should it be under Gryffindor in Hogwarts?








From pip at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Sun Jun  6 20:51:43 2004
From: pip at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak)
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 20:51:43 -0000
Subject: Hello and Hi WAS:Me too - Re: Out in the cold
In-Reply-To: <c9vkkd+nksp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ca004v+gp12@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" 
<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:

> 
> BTW, if you take a decco in the members section, you will 
> notice...Pip!Squeak, who is taking a look round after a blatant 
> recruitment drive by me at last night's POA screening. A bit of 
> extra discipline for our ramblings, I hope.

Discipline? I *knew* I shouldn't wear the black leather number with 
the whip just because we were eating in Soho! :-)

Hello, all. For those who don't know me, my name's Pip and I'm an HP-
oholic ... sorry, wrong group. Ahem. Sorry. Anyway, I've been a 
member of HPfGU for about two years, have made one or two posts, and 
was on the previous cataloguing team. I was also on the MEG team for 
about a year, but am currently wearing clothes. With properly 
clashing colours, of course!

Right now I've valiantly sent off my e-mail to Paul to get on the 
website. Until then, I'm reading back-messages on the Yahoo list. 

You have been warned {g}.

Pip!Squeak













From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Mon Jun  7 07:58:57 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 07:58:57 -0000
Subject: Hello and Hi WAS:Me too - Re: Out in the cold
In-Reply-To: <ca004v+gp12@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ca1781+5rhb@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pip at e...> wrote:

 Anyway, I've been a 
> member of HPfGU for about two years, have made one or two posts, 
and 
> was on the previous cataloguing team. I was also on the MEG team 
for 
> about a year, 
> 
> You have been warned {g}.
> 
> Pip!Squeak

Carolyn:
..erm..yes, one or two posts..Spying Game anyone? Yesterday, I felt 
like I was looking over the side of our fragile little boat at all 
the pretty fish we were cataloguing, and suddenly this menacing great 
shark hove into view up from the depths..gulp. Some version of 
poacher turned gamekeeper, I think..she stuttered nervously.




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Mon Jun  7 10:57:32 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:57:32 +0100
Subject: Opinions, anyone?
In-Reply-To: <ca1781+5rhb@eGroups.com>
References: <ca1781+5rhb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <79E6425C-B871-11D8-87AD-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>


I've been thinking, er, no; rephrase that. I've been wondering - what 
makes a Fantastic Post? Have any been so categorised in the first 
10,000 reviewed?

We have the category in the list, but so far as I'm aware there's no 
guide on what's likely to fit. Subjectivity looks like it will  be the 
name of the game and that makes me slightly uncomfortable.

We each favour certain styles, subject matter, even length - and 
possibly prejudices against others. I freely admit that I'd be biased 
against a SHIPping post, no matter how well conceived and written. A 
sense of humour can be a very individual thing, too. Kneasy certainly 
gets mails about his.

And how fantastic is Fantastic? A perfect 100%, or will 95% suffice?
Or should it be looked at another way - maybe estimate that FPs turn up 
on average once every say, 5,000 posts and so that means the best 20 
-25 on the list get the accolade?

Any ideas on how we sort the sheep from the goats?

Barry

  




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Mon Jun  7 11:51:34 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:51:34 -0000
Subject: Definitions of categories (wasRe: Opinions, anyone?)
In-Reply-To: <79E6425C-B871-11D8-87AD-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <ca1ks6+g4mi@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> 
> I've been thinking, er, no; rephrase that. I've been wondering - 
what 
> makes a Fantastic Post? Have any been so categorised in the first 
> 10,000 reviewed?
> 
>

Carolyn:
If you click the 's' after any of the categories, you will see what 
has been coded there already.

So far, there have been relatively few FPs, which is as it should be. 
I think I have marked Peg Kerr's essays as such, not much else yet.

Agree, the definition will always be highly personal. My own criteria 
are mainly 'did it make me think?'; probably depth of 
thinking/intellectual reference, care in explaining analysis, 
literacy etc are also factors. Admittedly it would be tough for a 
SHIPPER to get past these barriers, but if such a post was based on a 
thoughtful character analysis, it is possible <g>. (Iris_ft writes 
some very beautiful philosophical ones for example, quite out of the 
normal shipping league).

More broadly, I have asked Paul whether the text box which currently 
resides in the 'manage categories' part of the site next to each 
category could be made to show on the 'categorise' part, which we are 
using all the time. I have suggested we would click 'd' 
for 'definition', in the same way as we are clicking 's' for 'show'.

This text box is designed to capture definitions of each category. 
Currently there are none written in, but it would be good to do this, 
so we are all clear what things are meant to go where. It would help 
new cataloguers as they join us, and help us debate any anomalies 
right now.

PAUL: is it possible to do this (see my email, last Friday)??

Carolyn




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Mon Jun  7 13:29:53 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:29:53 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Definitions of categories (wasRe: Opinions, anyone?)
In-Reply-To: <ca1ks6+g4mi@eGroups.com>
References: <ca1ks6+g4mi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <C27D3023-B886-11D8-87AD-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>

>
>  Carolyn:
>  If you click the 's' after any of the categories, you will see what
>  has been coded there already.
>
>  So far, there have been relatively few FPs, which is as it should be.
>  I think I have marked Peg Kerr's essays as such, not much else yet.
>
>  Agree, the definition will always be highly personal. My own criteria
>  are mainly 'did it make me think?'; probably depth of
>  thinking/intellectual reference, care in explaining analysis,
>  literacy etc are also factors. Admittedly it would be tough for a
>  SHIPPER to get past these barriers, but if such a post was based on a
>  thoughtful character analysis, it is possible <g>. (Iris_ft writes
>  some very beautiful philosophical ones for example, quite out of the
>  normal shipping league).
>

That's roughly what I thought the situation was.

If you don't object, I'd like to notify the group about any post I come 
across that gets close to FPdom  and see if there's a consensus - that 
way my own personal idiosyncrasies get  diluted somewhat. Of course I 
won't bother doing so when we eventually get to my posts - priceless 
gems of deathless prose, every one of 'em.

Beavering through my allotted posts and there's a thread that's spun 
off from  sex education -  couples, partners, spouses, known and 
unknown etc. Not really SHIPping, it's more a 'family' line - including 
the possibility of Hogwarts staff having unknown partners.
Suggestions?

Barry


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1656 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040607/a696f973/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Mon Jun  7 14:53:44 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 14:53:44 -0000
Subject: Teacher's families (was Definitions of categories)
In-Reply-To: <C27D3023-B886-11D8-87AD-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <ca1vho+5ri3@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> Beavering through my allotted posts and there's a thread that's 
spun 
> off from  sex education -  couples, partners, spouses, known and 
> unknown etc. Not really SHIPping, it's more a 'family' line - 
including 
> the possibility of Hogwarts staff having unknown partners.
> Suggestions?
> 
> Barry

Carolyn:
Yes, I've come across several of the same sort. I've kind of cheated 
up to now and ticked the main heading 'Hogwart's staff' in section 2, 
plus any relevant characters. 

However, this probably isn't satisfactory - do people want some extra 
codes under Hogwart's in section 4 for the teacher ones ? If so, I am 
happy to re-code what I have done. Suggest some headings...

For non-teacher family discussions, hopefully just adding more 
characters as required will solve it? Or not?




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Mon Jun  7 15:58:08 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:58:08 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Teacher's families (was Definitions of categories)
In-Reply-To: <ca1vho+5ri3@eGroups.com>
References: <ca1vho+5ri3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <78154A3A-B89B-11D8-97F1-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>

>
>  Carolyn:
>  Yes, I've come across several of the same sort. I've kind of cheated
>  up to now and ticked the main heading 'Hogwart's staff' in section 2,
>  plus any relevant characters.
>
>  However, this probably isn't satisfactory - do people want some extra
>  codes under Hogwart's in section 4 for the teacher ones ? If so, I am
>  happy to re-code what I have done. Suggest some headings...
>
>  For non-teacher family discussions, hopefully just adding more
>  characters as required will solve it? Or not?
>


Probably not - for example one posts  talks about Seamus's parents and 
possible siblings and goes on about the number of 'couples' we've come 
across in the series. Something that's a bit more of a grab-bag 
category might be more useful, both now and for later posts around the 
same sort of area.

The trouble is, 'relationships' tends to have a very specific meaning 
on site and "Family links" suggests links by blood inheritance.  How 
about something like "Households " or "Family composition"? Nice and 
general; we could lose  an awful lot of awkward stuff in a category 
like that.

Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1266 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040607/a32275a3/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Mon Jun  7 20:24:07 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:24:07 -0000
Subject: Teacher's families (was Definitions of categories)
In-Reply-To: <78154A3A-B89B-11D8-97F1-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <ca2it7+m1l6@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> >
> >  Carolyn:

> >  For non-teacher family discussions, hopefully just adding more
> >  characters as required will solve it? Or not?
> >
> 
> 
> Probably not - for example one posts  talks about Seamus's parents 
and 
> possible siblings and goes on about the number of 'couples' we've 
come 
> across in the series. Something that's a bit more of a grab-bag 
> category might be more useful, both now and for later posts around 
the 
> same sort of area.
> 
> The trouble is, 'relationships' tends to have a very specific 
meaning 
> on site and "Family links" suggests links by blood inheritance.  
How 
> about something like "Households " or "Family composition"? Nice 
and 
> general; we could lose  an awful lot of awkward stuff in a category 
> like that.
> 

Carolyn:
Could go with 'Households & families', and see how that works - 
within section 3.5? If a thread wanders off into population estimates 
based on numbers of couples/children, we already have a code for that 
elsewhere. 




From jdr0918 at hotmail.com  Mon Jun  7 20:51:02 2004
From: jdr0918 at hotmail.com (jdr0918)
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 20:51:02 -0000
Subject: Definitions of categories (wasRe: Opinions, anyone?)
In-Reply-To: <C27D3023-B886-11D8-87AD-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <ca2kfm+q85k@eGroups.com>

Barry Arrowsmith wrote:
If you don't object, I'd like to notify the group about any post I 
come across that gets close to FPdom  and see if there's a consensus -
 that way my own personal idiosyncrasies get  diluted somewhat. Of 
course I won't bother doing so when we eventually get to my posts - 
priceless gems of deathless prose, every one of 'em...>>>

I've coded a couple of FPs, but I was sort of assuming that they 
would be subjected to further scrutiny, like a star chamber of 
ubercoders or something, before they were officially 
branded "fantastic".

--jayne




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Tue Jun  8 14:04:32 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 15:04:32 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Teacher's families (was Definitions of categories)
In-Reply-To: <ca2it7+m1l6@eGroups.com>
References: <ca2it7+m1l6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <C3C64C80-B954-11D8-959B-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>

>
>  Carolyn:
>  Could go with 'Households & families', and see how that works -
>  within section 3.5? If a thread wanders off into population estimates
>  based on numbers of couples/children, we already have a code for that
>  elsewhere.
>
>
>
>

That should do it.

Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 372 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040608/ec2d8f61/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Wed Jun  9 08:56:45 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:56:45 -0000
Subject: Defining FPs
In-Reply-To: <ca2kfm+q85k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ca6jcd+r4a9@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "jdr0918" <jdr0918 at h...> 
wrote:
> Barry Arrowsmith wrote:
> If you don't object, I'd like to notify the group about any post I 
> come across that gets close to FPdom  and see if there's a 
consensus -

> Jayne:
> I've coded a couple of FPs, but I was sort of assuming that they 
> would be subjected to further scrutiny, like a star chamber of 
> ubercoders or something, before they were officially 
> branded "fantastic".

Carolyn:
Out of curiosity, since I notice Hans is posting again...what is our 
consensus on his Alchemical Wedding contribution? The thing is, 
although I think a couple of us think the theory is pretty far-
fetched, to the point of nuts, that isn't actually a valid reason for 
not considering it for FP-dom. Heck, plenty of other theories are 
probably nuts as well, but that never stopped anyone.

In reality, it is a very-carefully argued, long, consistent and 
intellectually-wide-ranging contribution, expressed in fairly clear 
English. It takes careful account of canon, and relentlessly examines 
every last detail to support the argument.

If I were pulling all our contributions together to present to JKR, 
actually, I think I would want to include it. Its extreme, but not 
necessarily any more wrong than anything else..

Thoughts?






From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Wed Jun  9 13:57:40 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 14:57:40 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Defining FPs
In-Reply-To: <ca6jcd+r4a9@eGroups.com>
References: <ca6jcd+r4a9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <F8A0090E-BA1C-11D8-B0EA-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>

>
>  Carolyn:
>  Out of curiosity, since I notice Hans is posting again...what is our
>  consensus on his Alchemical Wedding contribution? The thing is,
>  although I think a couple of us think the theory is pretty far-
>  fetched, to the point of nuts, that isn't actually a valid reason for
>  not considering it for FP-dom. Heck, plenty of other theories are
>  probably nuts as well, but that never stopped anyone.
>
>  In reality, it is a very-carefully argued, long, consistent and
>  intellectually-wide-ranging contribution, expressed in fairly clear
>  English. It takes careful account of canon, and relentlessly examines
>  every last detail to support the argument.
>
>  If I were pulling all our contributions together to present to JKR,
>  actually, I think I would want to include it. Its extreme, but not
>  necessarily any more wrong than anything else..
>
>  Thoughts?


Plenty.

OK, for newer cataloguers - I've had problems with Hans in the past; a 
posted response expressing disagreement with points raised in one of 
his essays resulted in a bombardment of multi-page mails, even after I 
requested that they cease. Very  few of them had any bearing on HP, 
some were reminiscent of having an extreme evangelist constantly in 
your face. You may consider that to be irrelevant; I consider it to be 
indicative.

Hans does not try to deduce theories from canon;  canon has to fit his 
own personal beliefs. JKR has read and been seduced by all the 
wonderful ideas in "The Alchemical Wedding", all events and characters 
in HP are based on the precepts of this book, JKR is emulating this 
mind-expanding  tome and disguising it as a story about a boy wizard. 
He expresses total certainty. He, as a  fellow acolyte, knows all and 
provided copious quotes from Nazi Death-Camp survivors to prove it. 
Disagreement is seen as unenlightened ignorance that will be dispelled 
by exposure  to the true message.

That is not the attitude of a fan, but of a proselytiser. He doesn't 
give a damn about the plot, the  characters, or the eventual 
resolution, except in so far as it complies or can be presented as 
congruent with his own world view. Everything must  be interpreted to 
fit the concepts expounded in another book - this "Alchemical Wedding" 
that he kept referring to. Comparison is one thing, compulsory 
compliance is something else IMO.

He is not a fan, more a fanatic, and unfortunately it's not in his 
regard of the Potterverse. HP is just grist for his mill.

Some may  consider him plausible, even entertaining, and yes, he does 
delve into  minutiae (when it supports his case), but a candidate for 
inclusion amongst the best that we can provide? Never.

Barry


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 2927 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040609/d0a45cfd/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Wed Jun  9 16:35:55 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 16:35:55 -0000
Subject: Defining FPs
In-Reply-To: <F8A0090E-BA1C-11D8-B0EA-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <ca7e9b+dt0o@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> >
> >  Carolyn:
> >  If I were pulling all our contributions together to present to 
JKR, actually, I think I would want to include it. Its extreme, but 
not necessarily any more wrong than anything else..
> >

> 
Barry:
 > He is not a fan, more a fanatic, and unfortunately it's not in his 
> regard of the Potterverse. HP is just grist for his mill.
> 
> Some may  consider him plausible, even entertaining, and yes, he 
does delve into  minutiae (when it supports his case), but a 
candidate for inclusion amongst the best that we can provide? Never.
> 

Carolyn:
Well, I agree with you mostly, as you know. Its just that, looking at 
it dispassionately as an editor, it is difficult to distinguish 
between what he is doing, and what other posts are doing. Erm, he 
wouldn't be the first person to selectively quote from canon to 
support his argument. Nor the first to see support for his theory at 
every twist and turn of the book [coughs, ESE!Lupin].

And, looking back at my own self-imposed criteria, I have to say his 
posts have made me think, if only to conclude that I don't agree. 

There is no doubt, though, that he is coming at HP from a 
particularly personal evangelical viewpoint. However, plenty of other 
people on the list have strongly-held religious beliefs, and insist 
on reading HP through those lenses, and allow no real argument about 
the fundamentals of those beliefs. 

The strongest argument I can think of for not considering him for FP 
status is that his posts generate almost no responses. Clearly there 
is a silent consensus that he is too batty to debate with. But that 
introduces another criteria - should Fantastic Posts be characterised 
by the amount of response they get?

It is noticeable that Peg Kerr's essays get very few responses, yet 
they are generally considered FP's. And I would consider Iris_ft's 
recent thoughts on HP & Cain worthy of FP-dom, yet almost no one has 
responded to her.

Thoughts anyone?
Carolyn






From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Wed Jun  9 19:15:55 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (kippesp)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:15:55 -0000
Subject: "I need a definition"
Message-ID: <ca7nlb+k9i8@eGroups.com>

The little [d] next to some categories (while classifying posts) 
will pop up a small browser window with that category's 
description.  You'll need to permit the pop up, of course.





From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Wed Jun  9 19:36:44 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 20:36:44 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Defining FPs
In-Reply-To: <ca7e9b+dt0o@eGroups.com>
References: <ca7e9b+dt0o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <56E9764E-BA4C-11D8-B23C-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>

>


I can only repeat: I feel very, very strongly about this.


Barry




>  Carolyn:
>  Well, I agree with you mostly, as you know. Its just that, looking at
>  it dispassionately as an editor, it is difficult to distinguish
>  between what he is doing, and what other posts are doing. Erm, he
>  wouldn't be the first person to selectively quote from canon to
>  support his argument. Nor the first to see support for his theory at
>  every twist and turn of the book [coughs, ESE!Lupin].
>
>  And, looking back at my own self-imposed criteria, I have to say his
>  posts have made me think, if only to conclude that I don't agree.
>
>  There is no doubt, though, that he is coming at HP from a
>  particularly personal evangelical viewpoint. However, plenty of other
>  people on the list have strongly-held religious beliefs, and insist
>  on reading HP through those lenses, and allow no real argument about
>  the fundamentals of those beliefs.
>
>  The strongest argument I can think of for not considering him for FP
>  status is that his posts generate almost no responses. Clearly there
>  is a silent consensus that he is too batty to debate with. But that
>  introduces another criteria - should Fantastic Posts be characterised
>  by the amount of response they get?
>
>  It is noticeable that Peg Kerr's essays get very few responses, yet
>  they are generally considered FP's. And I would consider Iris_ft's
>  recent thoughts on HP & Cain worthy of FP-dom, yet almost no one has
>  responded to her.
>
>  Thoughts anyone?
>  Carolyn
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1968 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040609/3adf48cd/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Wed Jun  9 20:04:14 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:04:14 -0000
Subject: OK, New task for catalogue team (Re: "I need a definition")
In-Reply-To: <ca7nlb+k9i8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ca7qfu+l4kr@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "kippesp" <paul-groups at w...> 
wrote:
> The little [d] next to some categories (while classifying posts) 
> will pop up a small browser window with that category's 
> description.  You'll need to permit the pop up, of course.

Carolyn:
Thanks for this Paul..I thought my browser couldn't see them, then I 
realised there were only one or two where we actually had a 
definition..doh..

Right, folks..we need to write some definitions for each of the 
categories on our list. I will do some for one of the early sections, 
but then perhaps we can all share this task (hopes..)

I will post the definitions here before entering them in the 
definitions boxes, to make it easier to discuss them.




From jdr0918 at hotmail.com  Thu Jun 10 00:56:31 2004
From: jdr0918 at hotmail.com (jdr0918)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:56:31 -0000
Subject: Defining FPs
In-Reply-To: <ca7e9b+dt0o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ca8bjv+c531@eGroups.com>

<<In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003"wrote: ...Clearly 
there is a silent consensus that he is too batty to debate with... 
And I would consider Iris_ft's recent thoughts on HP & Cain worthy of 
FP-dom, yet almost no one has responded to her.
Thoughts anyone?>>

Maybe there should be a special category for *literally* fantastic 
posts. I mean, I was just dazzled by Hans' posts at first, they were 
so very serious and overthought; and the few replies were just as 
curious. Bottom line, though, unless I'm getting credit towards an 
advanced degree, I no longer read stuff like that.

I do think those discussions are significant, though, if only in case 
the guy turns out to be another Unabomber.




From pip at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Thu Jun 10 08:32:46 2004
From: pip at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:32:46 -0000
Subject: Defining FPs
In-Reply-To: <ca7e9b+dt0o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ca96bf+fmn2@eGroups.com>

Carolyn wrote:
> The strongest argument I can think of for not considering him for 
> FP status is that his posts generate almost no responses. Clearly 
> there is a silent consensus that he is too batty to debate with.  
> But that introduces another criteria - should Fantastic Posts be 
> characterised by the amount of response they get?
> 
> It is noticeable that Peg Kerr's essays get very few responses, 
> yet they are generally considered FP's. And I would consider 
> Iris_ft's recent thoughts on HP & Cain worthy of FP-dom, yet 
> almost no one has responded to her.

That's a side effect of not allowing any 'I agree' posts, I think. 
If a post is fantastic, and you agree with every word, what can you 
say that isn't 'I agree'?

So FP's can't really be judged by the amount of response. Ten 
thousand lurkers nodding in agreement won't show up on the list.

I agree that Ivan's posts should be kept, but would hesitate to 
class them as 'Fantastic'. I'm like Barry, I think, in that this is 
being influenced by my knowledge of Ivan. If we ever publically 
announce that his post is considered 'fantastic', I'm sure he'll use 
that on-list and I'm sure he'll use it elsewhere. To add weight to 
his arguments. 

Other people will just enjoy the accolade without seeing it as 
agreement with the views expressed, but I think Ivan will see it as 
*agreement*. 

So I dunno. Perhaps we should invent a subcategory/new category 
of 'Unforgettable posts', which could include ones remembered for 
all the wrong reasons {g}.

Incidentally, I've emailed Paul from the Word doc in Files, as per 
instructions, but haven't had a reply yet. Is there something wrong 
with the link, or am I just halfway down Paul's e-mail pile? Which, 
as someone who often doesn't reply to emails for weeks and then 
can't find them at all, I would entirely understand?

Pip




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Jun 10 09:58:31 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:58:31 -0000
Subject: Defining FPs
In-Reply-To: <ca96bf+fmn2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ca9bc7+4aps@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pip at e...> wrote:
> 
> I agree that Ivan's posts should be kept, but would hesitate to 
> class them as 'Fantastic'. I'm like Barry, I think, in that this is 
> being influenced by my knowledge of Ivan. If we ever publically 
> announce that his post is considered 'fantastic', I'm sure he'll 
use that on-list and I'm sure he'll use it elsewhere. To add weight 
to his arguments. 
> 
> 
Carolyn:
Ok, I agree with all of you, but I think its been useful to establish 
that there's a judgement about the author operating here, independent 
of the quality of his posts, which would be *extremely* tricky to 
justify publically. 

And because of this, I don't think we should try and come up with any 
strange category to put him in. He should just be coded 
under 'alchemy' and possibly 'Christian influences', and left for 
people to make what they want of his posts.


> Incidentally, I've emailed Paul from the Word doc in Files, as per 
> instructions, but haven't had a reply yet. Is there something wrong 
> with the link, or am I just halfway down Paul's e-mail pile? Which, 
> as someone who often doesn't reply to emails for weeks and then 
> can't find them at all, I would entirely understand?
> 
> Pip

Carolyn:
I've emailed him off-list again (and mentioned it to him at the 
weekend)..sorry, I fear he is overwhelmed with messages probably. 
Hope one of them gets noticed today - send a reminder as well, 
please! Also, could you re-visit the catalogue site address with your 
browser (http://24.0.225.196:8888), as although you won't get in, it 
will make doubly sure the site captures your computer's ID, which is 
what Paul uses to set up your access.




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Jun 10 19:09:56 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:09:56 -0000
Subject: Paul - the site is down again
Message-ID: <caabm4+eluf@eGroups.com>

Can't get into the site - error 502 or something..power again??

Carolyn




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Jun 10 20:02:03 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:02:03 -0000
Subject: Agreeing coding definitions
Message-ID: <caaenr+ujt@eGroups.com>

Here is my first set of definitions - do you agree with them?
Could someone do the second set of definitions (1.2) below?



1 TEXT ANALYSIS  
[Definition: Try not to use this code ? find something more specific]
1.1  - - Meta-themes 
[Definition:  only use this code for meta discussions about meta-
themes]
1.1.1  - - - - Good vs evil  
[Definition: generalised discussions about what the books are about, 
not tactics]
1.1.1.1  - - - - - - Religious influences  
[Definition: Any faith-related themes and topics]
1.1.1.2 - - - - - - REDEMPTION 
[Definition: Real Evil Depends on Emotional, Mental, and Physical 
Torture to Instil Orderly Notions;  post no 36807]
1.1.1.3  - - - - - - LAMBASTING
[Definition:  Love All Muggles Because  Alienating Someone True Is 
Not Growth; post no 34861]
1.1.1.4  - - - - - - Wicca 
[Definition: Wiccan belief systems, symbols, practices]
1.1.2  - - - - Freewill, choice & fate 
[Definition:  characters' freedom to act vs magical or plot 
constraints]
1.1.2.1  - - - - - - Prophecy discussions  
[Definition:  discussion of Trelawny's first and second prophecies]
1.1.3  - - - - Friendship, love & loyalty  
[Definition: not to be used for SHIPping discussions]
1.1.4  - - - - Equality & fairness  
[Definition:   debates about WW social structure & cultural 
imbalances]
1.1.5  - - - - Death & immortality 
[Definition: try not to use this for Voldie's agenda]
1.1.6  - - - - Parenting & child development 
[Definition: WW child-rearing and comparisons with RL]
1.1.7  - - - - Maturity & immaturity 
[Definition: lessons learnt by characters as they grow up]



1.2  - - War & military strategy  
[Definition:
1.2.1  - - - - Voldemort's agenda  
[Definition:
1.2.2  - - - - Dumbledore's agenda 
[Definition: 
1.2.3  - - - - Hogwart's defences  
[Definition:
1.2.4  - - - - Spying, espionage & betrayal  
[Definition:
1.2.4.1  - - - - - - ESE!  
[Definition:
1.2.4.2  - - - - - - Trust  
[Definition:
1.2.4.3  - - - - - - FLYING HEDGEHOGS
[Definition:
  





From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Fri Jun 11 15:34:43 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:34:43 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Defining FPs
In-Reply-To: <ca8bjv+c531@eGroups.com>
References: <ca8bjv+c531@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <DCC2722B-BBBC-11D8-892B-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>

OK.
Which batch of posts do you want me to tackle next?
Assuming, that is,  that I don't get too involved in the darrin 
nonsense.

Barry




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Fri Jun 11 16:54:03 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:54:03 -0000
Subject: Defining FPs
In-Reply-To: <DCC2722B-BBBC-11D8-892B-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <caco3b+5c38@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> OK.
> Which batch of posts do you want me to tackle next?
> Assuming, that is,  that I don't get too involved in the darrin 
> nonsense.
> 
> Barry

Carolyn:
I've been watching for the fisticuffs to start..a great temptation.. 

Here, take 2500-3000, see if there is something to distract you..




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Jun 13 13:25:07 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:25:07 -0000
Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 13th June
Message-ID: <cahkjj+u01c@eGroups.com>

PROGRESS
We have now coded or allocated for coding 10815 posts. Of the 10815, 
9511 have actually been coded, and out of the 9511, a total of 6784 
have been rejected - a continuing rate of 71%, which is great.

ADDITIONAL CATEGORIES
The following new categories have been added this week:

1.5.2.1 (ID:1026) Green
1.5.2.2 (ID:1027) Red

3.5.5 (ID:1025) Households & Families

DEFINITIONS
I have written definitions for some categories in section 1, and will 
continue to work on this next week. To see the definitions whilst you 
are coding, click the small 'd' next to the category name. The 'd' 
only appears if there is a definition written. Please post if you 
disagree with the definitions !




From jdr0918 at hotmail.com  Mon Jun 14 23:13:48 2004
From: jdr0918 at hotmail.com (jdr0918)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:13:48 -0000
Subject: locked out
Message-ID: <calbfc+u0bc@eGroups.com>

Am I tapping the wrong brick? I've been trying since Sunday 
afternoon, and I keep getting "This page cannot be displayed..."




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Tue Jun 15 08:45:02 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:45:02 -0000
Subject: locked out
In-Reply-To: <calbfc+u0bc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <camcue+qpf0@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "jdr0918" <jdr0918 at h...> 
wrote:
> Am I tapping the wrong brick? I've been trying since Sunday 
> afternoon, and I keep getting "This page cannot be displayed..."

Carolyn:
Currently I can get in to the site, but periodically it does this to 
me as well. Its something to do with computer IDs changing randomly 
outside the range Paul has specified I think.

I will email Paul and see if he can adjust the settings, but please 
bear with me as I am not sure he is receiving emails at the moment. 
At least I have not heard back from him for a week or so.

So sorry for the problems.. frustrating for me too, as I am very keen 
for people to get on with cataloguing whenever the whim takes them!




From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Tue Jun 15 22:47:46 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (kippesp)
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:47:46 -0000
Subject: Err...sorry
Message-ID: <canuai+a82l@eGroups.com>

I've been missing posts and emails for a bit, I see.  I've not been 
getting emails from my (at)wibbles.org since spam was rapidly 
filling my accout.  But now that Yahoo has larger email boxes, I 
should be fine!

I've added several IPs that were logged the 6th, 8th, and 10th.  
Everybody has the same username/password.  So if I don't respond 
with it, ask someone on the list.  Hopefully, I'll at least have the 
username listed for selection.

The connection may continue to be slow during the evening US hours.  
School is out, and I am noticing a difference.






From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Wed Jun 16 08:04:38 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:04:38 -0000
Subject: Err...sorry
In-Reply-To: <canuai+a82l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <caouum+3mrn@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "kippesp" <paul-groups at w...> 
wrote:
> I've been missing posts and emails for a bit, I see.  I've not been 
> getting emails from my (at)wibbles.org since spam was rapidly 
> filling my accout.  But now that Yahoo has larger email boxes, I 
> should be fine!
> 
> I've added several IPs that were logged the 6th, 8th, and 10th.  
> Everybody has the same username/password.  So if I don't respond 
> with it, ask someone on the list.  Hopefully, I'll at least have 
the 
> username listed for selection.
> 
> The connection may continue to be slow during the evening US 
hours.  
> School is out, and I am noticing a difference.

Carolyn:
Hi Paul - relief ! I was getting worried.
Erm..but this morning I am now locked out of the site?? Can you help?
Also, do I need to re-send any emails? There was a long one about 
displaying categorised posts, for instance.
Let me know.




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Wed Jun 16 16:47:06 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:47:06 -0000
Subject: Paul - Jayne & I are still locked out..
Message-ID: <captia+qt3a@eGroups.com>

Paul

If you are picking up messages again, Jayne & I are still locked out. 
Also, just had an email I sent you last week bounced back via 
FictionAlley webmaster..

Erm..help..Yahoo!Mort has heard of our attempts to defeat it and has 
found a new way to get back at us..


Carolyn




From annemehr at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 16 17:59:34 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:59:34 -0000
Subject: Defining FPs
In-Reply-To: <ca7e9b+dt0o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <caq1q6+9h49@eGroups.com>

Hello, again, all! Hi, Pip!Squeak! You and Carolyn met personally? <is
jealous>

I'm catching up on the group, forwarding the updates and important
stuff to my email to print out so I know what I'm doing when I start
coding again, and I'm replying here without having read further --
sorry if I don't make sense...

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003"
<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
> <arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> > >
> > >  Carolyn:
> > >  If I were pulling all our contributions together to present to 
> JKR, actually, I think I would want to include it. Its extreme, but 
> not necessarily any more wrong than anything else..
> > >
> 
> > 
> Barry:
>  > He is not a fan, more a fanatic, and unfortunately it's not in his 
> > regard of the Potterverse. HP is just grist for his mill.
> > 
> > Some may  consider him plausible, even entertaining, and yes, he 
> does delve into  minutiae (when it supports his case), but a 
> candidate for inclusion amongst the best that we can provide? Never.
> > 
> 
> Carolyn:
> Well, I agree with you mostly, as you know. Its just that, looking at 
> it dispassionately as an editor, it is difficult to distinguish 
> between what he is doing, and what other posts are doing. Erm, he 
> wouldn't be the first person to selectively quote from canon to 
> support his argument. Nor the first to see support for his theory at 
> every twist and turn of the book [coughs, ESE!Lupin].
> 
> And, looking back at my own self-imposed criteria, I have to say his 
> posts have made me think, if only to conclude that I don't agree. 
> 
> There is no doubt, though, that he is coming at HP from a 
> particularly personal evangelical viewpoint. However, plenty of other 
> people on the list have strongly-held religious beliefs, and insist 
> on reading HP through those lenses, and allow no real argument about 
> the fundamentals of those beliefs. 
> 
> The strongest argument I can think of for not considering him for FP 
> status is that his posts generate almost no responses. Clearly there 
> is a silent consensus that he is too batty to debate with. But that 
> introduces another criteria - should Fantastic Posts be characterised 
> by the amount of response they get?
> 
> It is noticeable that Peg Kerr's essays get very few responses, yet 
> they are generally considered FP's. And I would consider Iris_ft's 
> recent thoughts on HP & Cain worthy of FP-dom, yet almost no one has 
> responded to her.
> 
> Thoughts anyone?
> Carolyn

Anne:

I would have no objection to putting one of Hans' in as an FP (at
least, conditionally -- no one ever answered Jayne's question about
whether the FP designates would be reviewed and refined, at least so
far as I've read). It is very true that he has tunnel-vision as far as
the Potterverse is concerned, yet JKR did give him plenty to go on:
the Philosopher's Stone, Nicholas and Perenelle Flamel (and their
close relationship to Dumbledore), and the name Cassandra Vablatsky,
when Blavatsky is a very relevant name.

Personally, I don't think HP is alchemy/rosicrucianism, Christian
allegory, pagan/wicca, or mere fairy tale. I *think* what JKR has done
is taken her knowledge and research into all of these, put them in a
stew, and used whatever useful ideas bubbled up. Even though I think
it's too narrow to post as if HP was only any one of these, we can't
possibly reject posts that do. For all we know, JKR has read "the
Alchymical Wedding" and used ideas from it, even though I assume she
doesn't believe in it.

The short answer: the books certainly give reason to examine
alchemical influences. Perhaps Hans' definitive post (it may have been
a 2-3 parter) could go into FP as *the* take on HP from the
alchemist's point of view. Personally, I think it's probably as valid
as Granger's book (though I've never read that book - isn't he the one
who sees Christian influences/metaphors in everything?).

Glad to be back and catching up!

Anne





From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Wed Jun 16 18:02:30 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:02:30 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Paul - Jayne & I are still locked out..
In-Reply-To: <captia+qt3a@eGroups.com>
References: <captia+qt3a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <55EE87A2-BFBF-11D8-9DB1-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>


> Paul
>
>  If you are picking up messages again, Jayne & I are still locked out.
>  Also, just had an email I sent you last week bounced back via
>  FictionAlley webmaster..
>
>  Erm..help..Yahoo!Mort has heard of our attempts to defeat it and has
>  found a new way to get back at us..
>
>
>  Carolyn
>
>

...and for some reason I can't access the server....

Bugger.

Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040616/f9a97d66/attachment.bin>

From annemehr at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 16 18:35:56 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:35:56 -0000
Subject: Anne's locked out, too -- Re: Paul - Jayne & I are still locked out..
In-Reply-To: <55EE87A2-BFBF-11D8-9DB1-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <caq3uc+oahv@eGroups.com>

I also get "the connection was refused" message.

Anne
who agrees -- no FP for Hans is fine -- just code up like ordinary post...

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> 
> > Paul
> >
> >  If you are picking up messages again, Jayne & I are still locked out.
> >  Also, just had an email I sent you last week bounced back via
> >  FictionAlley webmaster..
> >
> >  Erm..help..Yahoo!Mort has heard of our attempts to defeat it and has
> >  found a new way to get back at us..
> >
> >
> >  Carolyn
> >
> >
> 
> ...and for some reason I can't access the server....
> 
> Bugger.
> 
> Barry




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Wed Jun 16 19:26:00 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:26:00 -0000
Subject: Server access problems & glad to hear from you all..
Message-ID: <caq6s8+k96n@eGroups.com>

Its good to know you are all still out there, sometimes think I am 
talking entirely to myself..(so what's new)..

Anne, relieved you mainly agree with us about Hans..its a difficult 
one.

Unfortunately, I've *no idea* what the problem is about our server 
access.... I have sent an email to Paul at every address he has ever 
used to contact me.. I hope he responds to one of them.

This crisis does beg the question of whether the database should be 
on a different server.. I know Paul wouldn't mind, if we could find 
the right home for it.

Hey, all you list elves watching in.. we need some thought and some 
help to solve some admin/tech stuff.. comments please.

Carolyn




From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Wed Jun 16 20:09:19 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (kippesp)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:09:19 -0000
Subject: Server access problems & glad to hear from you all..
In-Reply-To: <caq6s8+k96n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <caq9df+ri8o@eGroups.com>

The server is working again.

I'll try to be logged in with Y Messenger more often.  Really, if 
I'm online, that is the quickest and easiest method to contact me.  
If you attempt to contact me with Y Messenger and I'm there, I can 
look into problem and fix it in minutes.  With email, the more email 
I get, the less frequently I'll check it.  And right now, I'm 
getting tons of email.  I have hopes that a few filteres and folders 
will quicken my processing rate.

This goes for trouble shooting IP address changes.  YM=good, 
email=bad.



--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" 
<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> Its good to know you are all still out there, sometimes think I am 
> talking entirely to myself..(so what's new)..
> 
> Anne, relieved you mainly agree with us about Hans..its a 
difficult 
> one.
> 
> Unfortunately, I've *no idea* what the problem is about our server 
> access.... I have sent an email to Paul at every address he has 
ever 
> used to contact me.. I hope he responds to one of them.
> 
> This crisis does beg the question of whether the database should 
be 
> on a different server.. I know Paul wouldn't mind, if we could 
find 
> the right home for it.
> 
> Hey, all you list elves watching in.. we need some thought and 
some 
> help to solve some admin/tech stuff.. comments please.
> 
> Carolyn




From pip at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Wed Jun 16 20:20:17 2004
From: pip at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:20:17 -0000
Subject: I'm now in
Message-ID: <caqa21+2ojh@eGroups.com>

I now have access. Does this mean I get a prize? A group of messages 
to catalogue?

Pip




From jdr0918 at hotmail.com  Wed Jun 16 20:24:47 2004
From: jdr0918 at hotmail.com (jdr0918)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:24:47 -0000
Subject: Server access problems & glad to hear from you all..
In-Reply-To: <caq9df+ri8o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <caqaaf+en1r@eGroups.com>

<<<In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "kippesp" wrote: The server is 
working again...>>>

I still can't get in. (NYC/VerizonDSL/24.0.225.196:8888/)

--jayne




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Wed Jun 16 20:52:13 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:52:13 -0000
Subject: I'm now in
In-Reply-To: <caqa21+2ojh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <caqbtt+4238@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pip at e...> wrote:
> I now have access. Does this mean I get a prize? A group of 
messages 
> to catalogue?
> 
> Pip

Carolyn:
Hah! Would you like to take from 3300-3400 on the main list, not the 
Yahoo Group ? Not many to begin with - don't want to daunt you. Let 
me know how you get on. If you need a new code, just yell.




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Wed Jun 16 20:53:27 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:53:27 -0000
Subject: Server access problems & glad to hear from you all..
In-Reply-To: <caqaaf+en1r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <caqc07+upqs@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "jdr0918" <jdr0918 at h...> 
wrote:
> <<<In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "kippesp" wrote: The server 
is 
> working again...>>>
> 
> I still can't get in. (NYC/VerizonDSL/24.0.225.196:8888/)
> 
> --jayne

Carolyn:
I'm contacting Paul on IM - do you have this? Its free to download 
from Yahoo & quite useful.




From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Wed Jun 16 21:07:20 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (kippesp)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:07:20 -0000
Subject: Any still not seeing the site?
Message-ID: <caqcq8+uiuh@eGroups.com>

For anyone not seeing the site, please reattempt to visit it.  The 
program that records IP addresses wasn't running.  So I'll need to 
recapture your IP if I've not already done so.




From darkthirty at shaw.ca  Thu Jun 17 00:36:15 2004
From: darkthirty at shaw.ca (Dan Feeney)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:36:15 -0000
Subject: Any still not seeing the site?
In-Reply-To: <caqcq8+uiuh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <caqp1v+t4mc@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "kippesp" <paul-groups at w...> 
wrote:
> For anyone not seeing the site, please reattempt to visit it.  The 
> program that records IP addresses wasn't running.  So I'll need to 
> recapture your IP if I've not already done so.

Not only am I in, I'm actually cataloguing, finally. Yippee!

Dan




From annemehr at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 17 00:54:15 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:54:15 -0000
Subject: Any still not seeing the site?
In-Reply-To: <caqcq8+uiuh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <caqq3n+rn6d@eGroups.com>

Do I need to log in from the same computer every time, or just the
same house? There's another family member on the computer I've always
used.

Anne

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "kippesp" <paul-groups at w...>
wrote:
> For anyone not seeing the site, please reattempt to visit it.  The 
> program that records IP addresses wasn't running.  So I'll need to 
> recapture your IP if I've not already done so.






From annemehr at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 17 03:03:07 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 03:03:07 -0000
Subject: Never mind! --  I'm in! Re: Any still not seeing the site?
In-Reply-To: <caqq3n+rn6d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <car1lb+col9@eGroups.com>

It did work on my laptop this time.

Anne

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" <annemehr at y...> wrote:
> Do I need to log in from the same computer every time, or just the
> same house? There's another family member on the computer I've always
> used.
> 
> Anne
> 
> --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "kippesp" <paul-groups at w...>
> wrote:
> > For anyone not seeing the site, please reattempt to visit it.  The 
> > program that records IP addresses wasn't running.  So I'll need to 
> > recapture your IP if I've not already done so.




From jdr0918 at hotmail.com  Thu Jun 17 05:02:58 2004
From: jdr0918 at hotmail.com (jdr0918)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 05:02:58 -0000
Subject: Any still not seeing the site?
In-Reply-To: <caqcq8+uiuh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <car8m2+5ut0@eGroups.com>

<<<In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "kippesp" <paul-groups at w...> 
wrote: For anyone not seeing the site, please reattempt to visit it.  
The program that records IP addresses wasn't running.  So I'll need 
to recapture your IP if I've not already done so.>>>

I'm in. Huzzah!

--jayne




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Jun 17 07:58:20 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:58:20 -0000
Subject: Can this be real? Everyone in & cataloguing?
Message-ID: <carius+858c@eGroups.com>

So relieved to see all these messages this morning! Came close to 
losing it totally yesterday over the tech stuff.

However, had long IM chat with Paul and sorted out a few things - 
anyone who hasn't got this technology, I recommend it. Its free and 
relatively easy to set up.

So, thousands of posts done by the weekend, huh? I'll be counting..

Carolyn




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Thu Jun 17 09:29:03 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:29:03 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Can this be real? Everyone in & cataloguing?
In-Reply-To: <carius+858c@eGroups.com>
References: <carius+858c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <C5944040-C040-11D8-B88C-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>

Just to add to the general jollity... I can get in too.

Going  back to thoughts of Fantastic Posts and possibly evaluating 
possibles by general consensus -

I'm quite happy for the rest of the group to  pass comment on or even 
veto my preferences, and it sounds as if jdr is too. It could  be 
interesting when we get to the end; I suspect that we'll have a lot  
more than envisaged and we might have to sort out the best of the best. 
That'll be fun.

Barry


On 17 Jun 2004, at 08:58, a_reader2003 wrote:

> So relieved to see all these messages this morning! Came close to
>  losing it totally yesterday over the tech stuff.
>
>  However, had long IM chat with Paul and sorted out a few things -
>  anyone who hasn't got this technology, I recommend it. Its free and
>  relatively easy to set up.
>
>  So, thousands of posts done by the weekend, huh? I'll be counting..
>
>  Carolyn
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <lrec_companion_043004.gif>
> <l.gif>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> 	? 	To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/
> ?
> 	? 	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> ?
> 	? 	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
> Service.
>
>  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1852 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040617/48734c29/attachment.bin>

From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Thu Jun 17 15:10:26 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:10:26 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Can this be real? Everyone in & cataloguing?
In-Reply-To: <carius+858c@eGroups.com>
References: <carius+858c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <765C3CC4-C070-11D8-BF7E-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>

>
>  So, thousands of posts done by the weekend, huh? I'll be counting..
>
>  Carolyn
>
>

Dozens, maybe.

Question. I've run into an 'abuse' 'maltreated kids' thread. Not just 
Harry this time, Dudders is included as a sufferer as well!

This subject takes up an inordinate amount of site space; should it 
have a check box of it's own or do you think 1.1.4
Equality and Fairness can  cover it?

Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 453 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040617/25a38d40/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Jun 17 16:48:53 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:48:53 -0000
Subject: Can this be real? Everyone in & cataloguing?
In-Reply-To: <765C3CC4-C070-11D8-BF7E-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <casi1l+kpp0@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:

> 
> Question. I've run into an 'abuse' 'maltreated kids' thread. Not 
just 
> Harry this time, Dudders is included as a sufferer as well!
> 
> This subject takes up an inordinate amount of site space; should it 
> have a check box of it's own or do you think 1.1.4
> Equality and Fairness can  cover it?
> 
> Barry

Carolyn:
Wish I could have spent the afternoon coding..more SEC filings..

Well, to cater for the major threads that regularly come up in this 
area (!), I agree we'd better think of some extra sub-codes. If you 
look down below the Hogwarts section, there is a box about teaching 
methods, for one aspect, there is also 'Parenting' in section 1 
somewhere.

My brain has turned to mush.. will come back with something more 
coherent in an hour or so.




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Jun 17 18:59:52 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:59:52 -0000
Subject: Codes for abused kids (was Re: Can this be real? etc)
In-Reply-To: <765C3CC4-C070-11D8-BF7E-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <caspn8+3fnv@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> >
> Question. I've run into an 'abuse' 'maltreated kids' thread. Not 
just Harry this time, Dudders is included as a sufferer as well!
> 
> This subject takes up an inordinate amount of site space; should it 
> have a check box of it's own or do you think 1.1.4
> Equality and Fairness can  cover it?
> 

Carolyn:
Ok, had a think about it.

Definitely should be a sub-code under 1.1.6 (Parenting & child 
development). Suggest:
1.1.6.1 (Abuse/mistreatment of children)

Elsewhere, there is a code 3.17 (WW Education General). I would like 
to retain 3.17.1 (Other Wizarding Schools) in this position, but move 
the other sub-categories 3.17.2 to 3.17.4 to be sub-categories under 
the Hogwarts codes. Having done this, I think any child abuse, Snape-
style would then get coded under 'Teaching Methods'.

Comments please.




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Thu Jun 17 19:23:32 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 20:23:32 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Codes for abused kids (was Re: Can this be real? etc)
In-Reply-To: <caspn8+3fnv@eGroups.com>
References: <caspn8+3fnv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <D216EC01-C093-11D8-A9F0-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>


On 17 Jun 2004, at 19:59, a_reader2003 wrote:

> --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith
>  <arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
>  > >
>  > Question. I've run into an 'abuse' 'maltreated kids' thread. Not
>  just Harry this time, Dudders is included as a sufferer as well!
>  >
>  > This subject takes up an inordinate amount of site space; should it
>  > have a check box of it's own or do you think 1.1.4
>  > Equality and Fairness can? cover it?
>  >
>
>  Carolyn:
>  Ok, had a think about it.
>
>  Definitely should be a sub-code under 1.1.6 (Parenting & child
>  development). Suggest:
>  1.1.6.1 (Abuse/mistreatment of children)
>
>  Elsewhere, there is a code 3.17 (WW Education General). I would like
>  to retain 3.17.1 (Other Wizarding Schools) in this position, but move
>  the other sub-categories 3.17.2 to 3.17.4 to be sub-categories under
>  the Hogwarts codes. Having done this, I think any child abuse, Snape-
>  style would then get coded under 'Teaching Methods'.
>
>  Comments please.


hum. Don't want to make your life difficult, but why not leave it open 
as to who/what is being abused?

I've been surprised that the House Elf Supporters Club haven't appeared 
on my screen yet plus general Shock!Horror reaction at the way other 
minorities are treated in the WW - even Muggles and mudbloods. Add dear 
Dolly (by Centaurs) plus other odds and ends and there's almost nobody 
who doesn't get maltreated (a slight exaggeration, but I recently had a 
post where somebody was fulminating about ill-treating dragons at the 
TWT "How dare they burn their eyes like that!").
Takes all sorts.

Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1944 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040617/0a44ccd1/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Jun 17 19:55:36 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 19:55:36 -0000
Subject: Codes for abused kids (was Re: Can this be real? etc)
In-Reply-To: <D216EC01-C093-11D8-A9F0-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <cassvo+3a01@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> 
> >  Carolyn:

 the other sub-categories 3.17.2 to 3.17.4 to be sub-categories under
> >  the Hogwarts codes. Having done this, I think any child abuse, 
Snape-style would then get coded under 'Teaching Methods'.
> >

> Barry replied:
> hum. Don't want to make your life difficult, but why not leave it 
open as to who/what is being abused?
> 
> I've been surprised that the House Elf Supporters Club haven't 
appeared on my screen yet plus general Shock!Horror reaction at the 
way other minorities are treated in the WW - even Muggles and 
mudbloods. Add dear Dolly (by Centaurs) plus other odds and ends and 
there's almost nobody who doesn't get maltreated (a slight 
exaggeration, but I recently had a post where somebody was 
fulminating about ill-treating dragons at the TWT "How dare they burn 
their eyes like that!").Takes all sorts.

Carolyn:
Twit - I didn't mean to imply that I assumed that Snape was in the 
wrong. Clearly the nutters are getting to you. I just meant to refer 
to criticisms of teaching methods used at Hogwarts and used him as an 
example because of the recent heated debate on the topic. The code 
should just be called 'Teaching methods', and leave it neutral for 
arguments for- and against- any of the teachers to be coded to it.

I've just spent an hour or so cobbling various posts together in a 
furious invective against all sorts of similar stupidities related to 
your 'Which Way' post, but ultimately couldn't find a way of phrasing 
it in any way that would be acceptable on the list. Decided to pursue 
subversion by other methods, but was heartened that one or two people 
clicked to the possibility of dark British satire going on. 




From annemehr at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 17 21:25:46 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:25:46 -0000
Subject: Can this be real? Everyone in & cataloguing?
In-Reply-To: <carius+858c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cat28q+l63t@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003"
<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:

> So, thousands of posts done by the weekend, huh? I'll be counting..
> 
> Carolyn

Speaking of which: I'm all caught up, and have printed up your (highly
useful!) weekly updates since I faded out, for reference. All I have
left to do is check if there are any of my posts to recode under 1.13
Predictions. Then I'm all set to start cataloguing again!

So, may I please have some posts to sort?  :)

Anne




From annemehr at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 17 21:34:30 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:34:30 -0000
Subject: Codes for abused kids (was Re: Can this be real? etc)
In-Reply-To: <cassvo+3a01@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cat2p6+shpb@eGroups.com>


> > >  Carolyn:
> 
>  the other sub-categories 3.17.2 to 3.17.4 to be sub-categories under
> > >  the Hogwarts codes. Having done this, I think any child abuse, 
> Snape-style would then get coded under 'Teaching Methods'.
> > >
> 
> > Barry replied:
> > hum. Don't want to make your life difficult, but why not leave it 
> open as to who/what is being abused?
> > 
> > I've been surprised that the House Elf Supporters Club haven't 
> appeared on my screen yet plus general Shock!Horror reaction at the 
> way other minorities are treated in the WW - even Muggles and 
> mudbloods. Add dear Dolly (by Centaurs) plus other odds and ends and 
> there's almost nobody who doesn't get maltreated (a slight 
> exaggeration, but I recently had a post where somebody was 
> fulminating about ill-treating dragons at the TWT "How dare they burn 
> their eyes like that!").Takes all sorts.
> 
> Carolyn:
> Twit - I didn't mean to imply that I assumed that Snape was in the 
> wrong. Clearly the nutters are getting to you. I just meant to refer 
> to criticisms of teaching methods used at Hogwarts and used him as an 
> example because of the recent heated debate on the topic.

Anne:
Actually, I think what Barry was getting at was that the two
categories may be too specific: parent/child abuse and teacher/student
abuse. I think he wants one category to cover *all* the possibilities:
these two *and* other types such as wizard/muggle and
wizard/magicalbeing, etc.  i.e. one very general category called
"abuse," maybe under characterisation?

Not that I'm voting either way here; obviously I'm rusty as far as
coding up goes...

Anne





From jdr0918 at hotmail.com  Thu Jun 17 22:05:27 2004
From: jdr0918 at hotmail.com (jdr0918)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 22:05:27 -0000
Subject: Codes for abused kids
In-Reply-To: <cat2p6+shpb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cat4j7+rkfp@eGroups.com>

<<<In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote:...Actually, 
I think what Barry was getting at was that the two categories may be 
too specific: parent/child abuse and teacher/student abuse. I think 
he wants one category to cover *all* the possibilities...>>>

In the Harry Potter universe, all the possibilities fall under the 
category of politically correct whining. Or whinging. Whatever.

However, for coding purposes, I think it'll work out easiest if there 
is a subcategory "abuse" under *both* "Parenting and child 
development" and "Teaching methods".

This way, you'll end up with the major ones (Snape-Harry, the 
Dursleys-Harry, Lucius-Draco, and Petunia-Dudley) all nicely cross-
referenced.

That's my vote, anyway.

--jayne




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Jun 17 23:10:13 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 23:10:13 -0000
Subject: Can this be real? Everyone in & cataloguing?
In-Reply-To: <cat28q+l63t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cat8cl+uq6b@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" <annemehr at y...> 
wrote:

> 
> Speaking of which: I'm all caught up, and have printed up your 
(highly
> useful!) weekly updates since I faded out, for reference. All I have
> left to do is check if there are any of my posts to recode under 
1.13
> Predictions. Then I'm all set to start cataloguing again!
> 
> So, may I please have some posts to sort?  :)
> 
> Anne

Carolyn: 
Oh, great: would you like to take 3401-3600 on the main list? Out of 
curiosity, do you code up and down a thread rather than one after 
another in numerical sequence? Just something I wondered from the 
last ones you did?? I started to try and do that, but got too 
confused so went back to a linear sequence.




From annemehr at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 18 02:11:16 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 02:11:16 -0000
Subject: Can this be real? Everyone in & cataloguing?
In-Reply-To: <cat8cl+uq6b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <catj04+9394@eGroups.com>


> Carolyn: 
> Oh, great: would you like to take 3401-3600 on the main list? Out of 
> curiosity, do you code up and down a thread rather than one after 
> another in numerical sequence? Just something I wondered from the 
> last ones you did?? I started to try and do that, but got too 
> confused so went back to a linear sequence.

I'll do those, great.

Normally I catalogue in numerical sequence, but if a thread takes up
the vast majority of a sequence of numbers, I'll do the whole thread,
because in that case it's easy to pick up again with the next uncoded
one. A really long thread tends to be like that, and then I can
remember how I've been coding the posts.

Anne




From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Fri Jun 18 06:06:31 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (kippesp)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 06:06:31 -0000
Subject: New page
Message-ID: <cau0p7+oeab@eGroups.com>

This could get confusing for some.  All these [s] [p] [d] links to 
remember.

I added [p] tonight.  It expands on the [s] (summary) report and is 
a quick way to show the full posts of a category.  Up to 40 posts 
per page.  Is 40 okay?





From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Fri Jun 18 08:32:51 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:32:51 -0000
Subject: Look at this ! Re: New page
In-Reply-To: <cau0p7+oeab@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cau9bj+oj9f@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "kippesp" <paul-groups at w...> 
wrote:
> This could get confusing for some.  All these [s] [p] [d] links to 
> remember.
> 
> I added [p] tonight.  It expands on the [s] (summary) report and is 
> a quick way to show the full posts of a category.  Up to 40 posts 
> per page.  Is 40 okay?

Carolyn:
Paul, this is just *great*, thanks very much. 40 will be fine.

Class, pay attention:
There are now up to three small letters appearing after a category 
code.

's' = show. Click this and you get a list of all the posts coded 
there, but just the summary details.

'd' = description. As mentioned, this is for quick reference as to 
what the category means. Not too many of these appear yet, as we are 
still doing the definitions, but eventually there will be a lot.

'p' = posts. This is a new one last night, and is going to be 
exceptionally useful. When you click this, you get the full text, not 
summary details, of all the posts coded there. They will appear in 
batches of 40 at a time. This is a prototype of what the members 
might eventually see, and enables you to read through a whole thread 
continuously. Isn't that just great? What we always wanted??

It is also going to be essential for editing. It will be easy to see 
if a post got mis-coded, and doesn't fit into a category.

I am just so excited about this. Sad isn't it..where is that post-it 
note I had saying 'must get a life'.. I know I put it somewhere.




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Fri Jun 18 09:16:27 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:16:27 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Codes for abused kids (was Re: Can this be real? etc)
In-Reply-To: <cassvo+3a01@eGroups.com>
References: <cassvo+3a01@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2DCBD71D-C108-11D8-877E-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>

>
>  Carolyn:
>  Twit - I didn't mean to imply that I assumed that Snape was in the
>  wrong. Clearly the nutters are getting to you. I just meant to refer
>  to criticisms of teaching methods used at Hogwarts and used him as an
>  example because of the recent heated debate on the topic. The code
>  should just be called 'Teaching methods', and leave it neutral for
>  arguments for- and against- any of the teachers to be coded to it.
>

Ah. No, annemehr sussed out the point I was trying to make - that 
having a catch-all abuse/maltreatment category would/could save having 
to create further similar categories for Elves, Muggles, whatever at a 
later date.
Anyway, Snape is damn near perfect as a teacher - keeps the little sods 
in line.

>  I've just spent an hour or so cobbling various posts together in a
>  furious invective against all sorts of similar stupidities related to
>  your 'Which Way' post, but ultimately couldn't find a way of phrasing
>  it in any way that would be acceptable on the list. Decided to pursue
>  subversion by other methods, but was heartened that one or two people
>  clicked to the possibility of dark British satire going on.
>

Furious invective? Surely not.
Satire? Some mistake, surely.
Well, slight tendencies perhaps.
But  there  is a valid possibility in there. The fact that it may upset 
one or two is merely coincidental - as usual

Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1629 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040618/b67117a0/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Fri Jun 18 12:23:19 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 12:23:19 -0000
Subject: REPLY FROM KELLY: Codes for abused kids
In-Reply-To: <caspn8+3fnv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <caumrn+dqmi@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" 
<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
> <arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> > >
> > Question. I've run into an 'abuse' 'maltreated kids' thread. Not 
> just Harry this time, Dudders is included as a sufferer as well!
> > 
> > This subject takes up an inordinate amount of site space; should 
it 
> > have a check box of it's own or do you think 1.1.4
> > Equality and Fairness can  cover it?
> > 
> 
> Carolyn:
> Ok, had a think about it.
> 
> Definitely should be a sub-code under 1.1.6 (Parenting & child 
> development). Suggest:
> 1.1.6.1 (Abuse/mistreatment of children)
> 
> Elsewhere, there is a code 3.17 (WW Education General). I would 
like 
> to retain 3.17.1 (Other Wizarding Schools) in this position, but 
move 
> the other sub-categories 3.17.2 to 3.17.4 to be sub-categories 
under 
> the Hogwarts codes. Having done this, I think any child abuse, 
Snape-
> style would then get coded under 'Teaching Methods'.

THIS REPLY SENT BY KELLY via CW

Your suggestions sound good.  I recently ran across a series of 
threads discussing whether or not Harry's abuse by the Dursley's was 
realistic, and whether it was influenced by any real abuse JKR had 
experienced or witnessed.  I was a bit unsure where these would fit 
and ended up filing most under "Other Sources and Influences" (a few 
were placed in the subcategory "classic children's literature" for 
comparisons to Roald Dahl).
 
-Kelly  






From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Fri Jun 18 12:52:15 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 12:52:15 -0000
Subject: Codes for abused kids (was Re: Can this be real? etc)
In-Reply-To: <2DCBD71D-C108-11D8-877E-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <cauohv+l60j@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> >
> >  Carolyn:
> >  Twit - I didn't mean to imply that I assumed that Snape was in 
the wrong. Clearly the nutters are getting to you. > >
>
Barry: 
> Ah. No, annemehr sussed out the point I was trying to make - that 
> having a catch-all abuse/maltreatment category would/could save 
having to create further similar categories for Elves, Muggles, 
whatever at a later date.
> Anyway, Snape is damn near perfect as a teacher - keeps the little 
sods in line.
> 

Carolyn:
Oh, ok - the nutters were clearly getting to me instead (wouldn't be 
the first time). Sorry!

On the basis of this, I've spent quite a bit of time sorting out 
categories this morning, dull details to appear in Sunday update. Key 
aspects relevant to this discussion are:

1.1.6.1 (Child abuse/mistreatment) added under 1.1.6 (Parenting & 
child development)

3.16.5 has been renamed (Teachers) and now has three sub-categories, 
one of which is 3.16.5.1 (Teaching Methods)

I have also re-worded 3.1.6.6 to read (Prefects & Head boy & girl) - 
it used to have 'Discipline system' in the title, and I thought that 
might be confusing with 'Teaching methods'.

Other than this, quite a lot of the Hogwart's categories have been 
fiddled with - could everyone run their eye down the list and just 
take a look?

Finally, on the issue of having a general 'abuse/mistreatment' code, 
I am a bit concerned it might overlap or get confused with 3.2.6 
(Class system, racism & bigotry). Is there some way we could add to 
or amend 3.2.6 to suit this need if it is not deemed sufficient at 
the moment?




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Fri Jun 18 14:09:43 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:09:43 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Codes for abused kids (was Re: Can this be real? etc)
In-Reply-To: <cauohv+l60j@eGroups.com>
References: <cauohv+l60j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <25566D8C-C131-11D8-BCBB-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>

>
>  Carolyn:
>  Oh, ok - the nutters were clearly getting to me instead (wouldn't be
>  the first time). Sorry!
>
>  On the basis of this, I've spent quite a bit of time sorting out
>  categories this morning, dull details to appear in Sunday update. Key
>  aspects relevant to this discussion are:
>
>  1.1.6.1 (Child abuse/mistreatment) added under 1.1.6 (Parenting &
>  child development)
>
>  3.16.5 has been renamed (Teachers) and now has three sub-categories,
>  one of which is 3.16.5.1 (Teaching Methods)
>
>  I have also re-worded 3.1.6.6 to read (Prefects & Head boy & girl) -
>  it used to have 'Discipline system' in the title, and I thought that
>  might be confusing with 'Teaching methods'.
>
>  Other than this, quite a lot of the Hogwart's categories have been
>  fiddled with - could everyone run their eye down the list and just
>  take a look?
>
>  Finally, on the issue of having a general 'abuse/mistreatment' code,
>  I am a bit concerned it might overlap or get confused with 3.2.6
>  (Class system, racism & bigotry). Is there some way we could add to
>  or amend 3.2.6 to suit this need if it is not deemed sufficient at
>  the moment?
>
>


...and now some smartarse has introduced the subject of Draco bullying 
other pupils.

It might just be me, but mightn't it be useful to have a *few* 
categories in there to cover certain concepts - say, bravery/courage,
abuse/maltreatment, trust/mistrust, that could fit into  the 
Meta-themes section? They crop up all over the place but aren't such an 
enormous group  that they need much sub-division.

The only excuse I can offer is that it's maybe the influence of a  
secretary I once had who only used three of the slots in the filing 
cabinet:
L - letters
M - memoranda
R  - reports

Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 2088 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040618/d8e10083/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Fri Jun 18 14:59:17 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:59:17 -0000
Subject: Sorting out meta-themes (was Codes for abused kids)
In-Reply-To: <25566D8C-C131-11D8-BCBB-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <cav005+ampl@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:

> ...and now some smartarse has introduced the subject of Draco 
bullying other pupils.
> 
> It might just be me, but mightn't it be useful to have a *few* 
> categories in there to cover certain concepts - say, 
bravery/courage,
> abuse/maltreatment, trust/mistrust, that could fit into  the 
> Meta-themes section? They crop up all over the place but aren't 
such an enormous group  that they need much sub-division.
> 

Carolyn:

Proposed sort-out of meta-themes/comments please:

1.1.3 (Friendship, love & loyalty)
MOVE 1.2.4.2 (Trust) to a sub-category here and RENAME 
(Trust/mistrust)

1.1.4 (Equality & Fairness)
NEW sub-category: 1.1.4.1 (Inequality, bullying & discrimination)

1.1.6 (Parenting & Child Development)
MOVE category 1.1.7 (Maturity/immaturity) to a sub-category here 
(will become 1.1.6.2) 

1.1.7 (was Maturity/immaturity) RENAME (Bravery/courage)
ADD new sub-category 1.1.7.1 (Cowardice)


This way, each of the meta themes gets its opposite as a sub-
category. That do you?



> The only excuse I can offer is that it's maybe the influence of a  
> secretary I once had who only used three of the slots in the filing 
> cabinet:
> L - letters
> M - memoranda
> R  - reports
> 
> Barry


I'd have filed *her* under 0.10 (Mistakes/perpetrating mistakes); 
3.3.3 (Types of crime & punishment); and 5.3 (Just for a laugh), 
locked the cabinet and gone away for the weekend. The Snape approach, 
you know..they've got to learn.

Carolyn




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Fri Jun 18 15:11:38 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:11:38 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Sorting out meta-themes (was Codes for abused kids)
In-Reply-To: <cav005+ampl@eGroups.com>
References: <cav005+ampl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <CC26B0E4-C139-11D8-9410-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>

>
>
>  I'd have filed *her* under 0.10 (Mistakes/perpetrating mistakes);
>  3.3.3 (Types of crime & punishment); and 5.3 (Just for a laugh),
>  locked the cabinet and gone away for the weekend. The Snape approach,
>  you know..they've got to learn.
>
>  Carolyn
>
>

Trouble was, she was by far the most efficient secretary I ever had.
It made me think she knew something no-one else did.

Barry

P.S. This is getting ridiculous.
Post 2545 - 7  Deadly Sins: Anger

Examines the functions of anger in Rowling's books,  with copious 
examples.
Stuff that - it's going under the Meta-themes main heading and liking 
it.















-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 726 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040618/5f07014f/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Fri Jun 18 15:29:33 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:29:33 -0000
Subject: Sorting out meta-themes (was Codes for abused kids)
In-Reply-To: <CC26B0E4-C139-11D8-9410-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <cav1ot+e4pt@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> >

> Trouble was, she was by far the most efficient secretary I ever had.
> It made me think she knew something no-one else did.
> 
> Barry

Carolyn:
Confirms my worst fears about the NHS......


> 
> P.S. This is getting ridiculous.
> Post 2545 - 7  Deadly Sins: Anger
> 
> Examines the functions of anger in Rowling's books,  with copious 
> examples.
> Stuff that - it's going under the Meta-themes main heading and 
liking it.


Erm, yes, I rather wondered what you'd make of Peg. We will have to 
sort out posts under the main Meta head at some point, but it will do 
for now. Or we could have two sub-heads under good & evil called '7 
deadly sins' & '7 virtues'. It kinda fits the religious framework.
Yes?




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Fri Jun 18 15:42:49 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:42:49 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Sorting out meta-themes (was Codes for abused kids)
In-Reply-To: <cav1ot+e4pt@eGroups.com>
References: <cav1ot+e4pt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <27341E4A-C13E-11D8-9410-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>


On 18 Jun 2004, at 16:29, a_reader2003 wrote:

> --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith
>  <arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
>  > >
>
>  > Trouble was, she was by far the most efficient secretary I ever had.
>  > It made me think she knew something no-one else did.
>  >
>  > Barry
>
>  Carolyn:
>  Confirms my worst fears about the NHS......
>

It wasn't the NHS - it was at an American company I worked for in 
Saudi. Deduce from that what  you will.


>
>  >
>  > P.S. This is getting ridiculous.
>  > Post 2545 - 7? Deadly Sins: Anger
>  >
>  > Examines the functions of anger in Rowling's books,? with copious
>  > examples.
>  > Stuff that - it's going under the Meta-themes main heading and
>  liking it.
>
>
>  Erm, yes, I rather wondered what you'd make of Peg. We will have to
>  sort out posts under the main Meta head at some point, but it will do
>  for now. Or we could have two sub-heads under good & evil called '7
>  deadly sins' & '7 virtues'. It kinda fits the religious framework.
>  Yes?
>

Oh, no. Might as well add in vices, morality/immorality, 
pleasures/hates, obsessions/phobias and lying in bed 'till noon.

BTW, had a Catlady epic -  14 categories. Can anyone beat that?

Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1574 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040618/1c5fdd14/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Fri Jun 18 15:59:53 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:59:53 -0000
Subject: Sorting out meta-themes (was Codes for abused kids)
In-Reply-To: <27341E4A-C13E-11D8-9410-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <cav3hp+h972@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> 
> >  Erm, yes, I rather wondered what you'd make of Peg. We will have 
to sort out posts under the main Meta head at some point, but it will 
do for now. Or we could have two sub-heads under good & evil called '7
deadly sins' & '7 virtues'. It kinda fits the religious framework. 
Yes?
> >
> 
> Oh, no. Might as well add in vices, morality/immorality, 
> pleasures/hates, obsessions/phobias and lying in bed 'till noon.
> 
> BTW, had a Catlady epic -  14 categories. Can anyone beat that?
> 
> Barry

Carolyn
Add idling on Harry Potter sites when should be earning a living..

?But the other changes I proposed to the meta sections?

Paul has a plan for dealing with multi-posts, fortunately.




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Fri Jun 18 16:12:50 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:12:50 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Sorting out meta-themes (was Codes for abused kids)
In-Reply-To: <cav3hp+h972@eGroups.com>
References: <cav3hp+h972@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <5850AE0C-C142-11D8-9410-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>

>
>  Carolyn
>  Add idling on Harry Potter sites when should be earning a living..
>
>  ?But the other changes I proposed to the meta sections?
>
>  Paul has a plan for dealing with multi-posts, fortunately.
>
>
>
>

Not today. My desk  is clear -  sort of.

Other changes -  OK by me.

Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 370 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040618/281bc69d/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Fri Jun 18 17:19:04 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:19:04 -0000
Subject: Meta theme changes done  (was Re: Sorting out meta-themes )
In-Reply-To: <cav005+ampl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cav868+leaj@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" 
<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
Proposed changes to meta-themes
> 
> 1.1.3 (Friendship, love & loyalty)
> MOVE 1.2.4.2 (Trust) to a sub-category here and RENAME 
> (Trust/mistrust)
> 
> 1.1.4 (Equality & Fairness)
> NEW sub-category: 1.1.4.1 (Inequality, bullying & discrimination)
> 
> 1.1.6 (Parenting & Child Development)
> MOVE category 1.1.7 (Maturity/immaturity) to a sub-category here 
> (will become 1.1.6.2) 
> 
> 1.1.7 (was Maturity/immaturity) RENAME (Bravery/courage)
> ADD new sub-category 1.1.7.1 (Cowardice)
> 
>

Just to let everyone know that I have made these changes.
Let me know if you have further amendments..

Carolyn




From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Sat Jun 19 03:13:39 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes)
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 20:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: {groups} Re: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Sorting out meta-themes (was Codes for abused kids)
In-Reply-To: <5850AE0C-C142-11D8-9410-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <20040619031339.5128.qmail@web13807.mail.yahoo.com>

Before we go very far on multi-topic posts, I need a better idea of
what the end user will see.  I was always thinking that we'd direct
these people to the yahoo group.  In other words, we wouldn't
redisplay the post content.

If this isn't the case, we should get some lawyer input on this.

--- Barry Arrowsmith <arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com> wrote:
> >
> >  Carolyn
> >  Add idling on Harry Potter sites when should be earning a
> living..
> >
> >  ?But the other changes I proposed to the meta sections?
> >
> >  Paul has a plan for dealing with multi-posts, fortunately.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> Not today. My desk  is clear -  sort of.
> 
> Other changes -  OK by me.
> 
> Barry
> 



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 



From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sat Jun 19 12:43:56 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 12:43:56 -0000
Subject: Multi-topic posts (Re: [HPFGU-Catalogue] )
In-Reply-To: <20040619031339.5128.qmail@web13807.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <cb1cec+ljn0@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes <paul-
groups at w...> wrote:
> Before we go very far on multi-topic posts, I need a better idea of
> what the end user will see.  I was always thinking that we'd direct
> these people to the yahoo group.  In other words, we wouldn't
> redisplay the post content.
> 
> If this isn't the case, we should get some lawyer input on this.
> 

Carolyn:

On the issue of what the end-user will see, I think it defeats the 
object if they then have to go and look up a list of posts on the 
original Yahoo group. I would like them to see the complete posts as 
we are seeing them, one after another in connected threads, so it is 
easy to read through an argument. (As they appear if you click 'p' on 
your new programme - that's why I was so excited about it).

Because some categories will have many of thousands of posts coded to 
them by the time we are done, my main concern is how to sort those 
thousands of posts into useful chunks. Hence my suggestion of 
manually breaking them into threads, so you can read separate 
discussions as they occurred, one after another (roughly in date 
order, but not always).

On the legal issues, if there is any kind of copyright problem, I 
would vote for simply showing a post exactly as it was originally 
posted, same headings, everything, but arranged in threads according 
to our topics, as above.

On the problem of multi-topic posts, if legal aspects are a problem 
in splitting them up (and they probably are), the technical solution 
I would like is showing the original post exactly as it first 
appeared, but highlighting the bit relevant to the topic in a 
background colour, or whatever. I imagine this would have to be done 
manually, but personally I wouldn't mind the effort in doing it.

Thoughts?




From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Sat Jun 19 14:57:34 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 07:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: {groups} Multi-topic posts (Re: [HPFGU-Catalogue] )
In-Reply-To: <cb1cec+ljn0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20040619145734.95064.qmail@web13808.mail.yahoo.com>

I've always had concerns about displaying just the post.  By
requiring the person to view the post only from Yahoo, we are only
providing an index or tool to the Yahoo archive.  And it doesn't
defeat the log in procedure and viewing restrictions already
established by Group policy.

The safest thing is for us to wash our hands of legal issues by not
displaying the posts.  My issue isn't technical or ease-of-use or
convenience. 

--- a_reader2003 <carolynwhite2 at aol.com> wrote:

---------------------------------
--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes <paul-
groups at w...> wrote:
> Before we go very far on multi-topic posts, I need a better idea of
> what the end user will see.  I was always thinking that we'd direct
> these people to the yahoo group.  In other words, we wouldn't
> redisplay the post content.
> 
> If this isn't the case, we should get some lawyer input on this.
> 

Carolyn:

On the issue of what the end-user will see, I think it defeats the 
object if they then have to go and look up a list of posts on the 
original Yahoo group. I would like them to see the complete posts as 
we are seeing them, one after another in connected threads, so it is 
easy to read through an argument. (As they appear if you click 'p' on

your new programme - that's why I was so excited about it).

Because some categories will have many of thousands of posts coded to

them by the time we are done, my main concern is how to sort those 
thousands of posts into useful chunks. Hence my suggestion of 
manually breaking them into threads, so you can read separate 
discussions as they occurred, one after another (roughly in date 
order, but not always).

On the legal issues, if there is any kind of copyright problem, I 
would vote for simply showing a post exactly as it was originally 
posted, same headings, everything, but arranged in threads according 
to our topics, as above.

On the problem of multi-topic posts, if legal aspects are a problem 
in splitting them up (and they probably are), the technical solution 
I would like is showing the original post exactly as it first 
appeared, but highlighting the bit relevant to the topic in a 
background colour, or whatever. I imagine this would have to be done 
manually, but personally I wouldn't mind the effort in doing it.

Thoughts?


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  ADVERTISEMENT
 

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

   To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/
 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.




		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sat Jun 19 15:45:34 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 15:45:34 -0000
Subject: {groups} Multi-topic posts (Re: [HPFGU-Catalogue] )
In-Reply-To: <20040619145734.95064.qmail@web13808.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <cb1n2u+qosk@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes <paul-
groups at w...> wrote:
> I've always had concerns about displaying just the post.  By
> requiring the person to view the post only from Yahoo, we are only
> providing an index or tool to the Yahoo archive.  And it doesn't
> defeat the log in procedure and viewing restrictions already
> established by Group policy.
> 
> The safest thing is for us to wash our hands of legal issues by not
> displaying the posts.  My issue isn't technical or ease-of-use or
> convenience. 
> 

Carolyn:
Well, I had assumed that no one would have access to this index 
anyway unless they were already an HPfGU member, and had logged in to 
the main site. I'd seen it as a resource, maybe entered somewhere 
from the home page.

How are you seeing access to the posts then? As a series of hot links 
on a page under a topic heading?




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sat Jun 19 16:59:02 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 16:59:02 -0000
Subject: Legal Issues
Message-ID: <cb1rcm+s8v3@eGroups.com>

Paul, Dicey, Kelley

It would be useful to get some expert input from Admin on the legal 
issues Paul is raising about displaying posts, as they have quite an 
impact on how this whole project can be used by the members, and how 
we design the search screens, etc.

Thanks
Carolyn




From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Sat Jun 19 18:53:56 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (kippesp)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:53:56 -0000
Subject: catalog will be down -- very bad storms
Message-ID: <cb2244+mm6j@eGroups.com>

very bad.  but soon over I hope.




From pip at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Sat Jun 19 20:24:27 2004
From: pip at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 20:24:27 -0000
Subject: Peg Kerr's Seven Deadly Sins
Message-ID: <cb27dr+vela@eGroups.com>

Do they have a category?

I've categorised a reply post (3367) as character analysis of 
Lockhart (suggesting that he represents both covetousness and 
sloth), but is there another category that I can't see? Morals, or 
something. Character morality?

Pip




From annemehr at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 19 22:00:08 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:00:08 -0000
Subject: Vampire Snape
Message-ID: <cb2d18+bmgr@eGroups.com>

While coding, I ran across my first Vampire?Snape post, and the only
place to put it was right into category 2.3.7 Severus Snape. I think
we  ought to have a separate category for this question, which is
obviously going to take up a huge number of posts.

Useless observation: while clicking on the very useful "p" link, I ran
across an assumption that the DoM was some sort of "secret agent"
department, an assumption that I believe ran rampant before OoP. I'll
have you all know that in 2002 I posted the opinion that it carried on
secret magical research! Just so you all realise how perceptive I am <g>.

Anne
back in the saddle again




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sat Jun 19 22:16:28 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:16:28 -0000
Subject: Peg Kerr's Seven Deadly Sins
In-Reply-To: <cb27dr+vela@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cb2dvs+tql2@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pip at e...> wrote:
> Do they have a category?
> 
> I've categorised a reply post (3367) as character analysis of 
> Lockhart (suggesting that he represents both covetousness and 
> sloth), but is there another category that I can't see? Morals, or 
> something. Character morality?
> 
> Pip

Carolyn:
See back a few posts..Barry was against it, but I suggested perhaps 
the 7 sins and the 7 virtue posts ought to have sub-categories each 
under 'Good vs evil' in section 1.

The couple I have come across so far, I have also coded to 'FP' - 
don't know if you agree. Otherwise, I code them out to everyone 
mentioned, plus characterisation stereotypes, and any meta-themes 
that seem relevant. It can get a bit extensive, maybe I'm overdoing 
it?




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sat Jun 19 22:22:47 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:22:47 -0000
Subject: Vampire Snape
In-Reply-To: <cb2d18+bmgr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cb2ebn+nrsh@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" <annemehr at y...> 
wrote:
> While coding, I ran across my first Vampire?Snape post, and the only
> place to put it was right into category 2.3.7 Severus Snape. I think
> we  ought to have a separate category for this question, which is
> obviously going to take up a huge number of posts.
> 
> Useless observation: while clicking on the very useful "p" link, I 
ran across an assumption that the DoM was some sort of "secret agent"
> department, an assumption that I believe ran rampant before OoP. 
I'll have you all know that in 2002 I posted the opinion that it 
carried on secret magical research! Just so you all realise how 
perceptive I am <g>.
> 
> Anne
> back in the saddle again

Carolyn:
Yes, I think Vampire!Snape would be a good idea, I'll do it now. This 
sort of thing may come up quite a lot - eg, should we have ESE!Lupin 
in readiness? (Or in that case will Lupin +ESE be appropriate?).

Clever Anne - a correct prediction. There are some creepily good ones 
about what was in the first prophecy that I've come across as well.

Glad you have used the 'p' feature - I am really pleased about it. I 
very much want that to be the style that members eventually see posts 
when they get to use it, but there seem to be some legal issues 
surrounding this, unfortunately. It will be a pity if all the members 
get to see is a list of  numbers again - better than Yahoo search I 
suppose, but..




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Jun 20 10:22:57 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 10:22:57 -0000
Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 20th June
Message-ID: <cb3oi1+kgqf@eGroups.com>

PROGRESS
We have now coded, or allocated for coding, 11515 posts. Of the 
11515, 10140 have actually been coded, and of the 10105, 7169 have 
been rejected - a consistent rate of 70.7%.

Currently, there are 7 people actively coding, which is some kind of 
record. Only 100 posts remain to be finished on the Yahoo club, and 
then that's done with.

An observation - if you are coding by thread rather than one by one 
(and it is a good approach sometimes), could you just go back and 
recheck from start to finish just to make sure no posts got left out 
as result? I have come across some orphans within otherwise finished 
sets of posts as I have counted up each week. They are easy to spot 
as they are black rather than grey or green.

ISSUES
(1) FP-dom. 
Certainly we can have some fun reviewing what people have entered 
into this category later - don't be inhibited in clicking this box as 
you go along. The benefit of having a team doing this is the mix of 
people's opinions on what's good and what isn't. 

(2) Editing
Now we have the 'p' feature, its possible to do some editing on what 
has been coded up so far. Any views on how to tackle this ? This 
exercise would also help in writing the definitions, which summarise 
what kind of post goes under which category.

(3) Meta themes
7 sins/7 virtues (Peg Kerr's stuff). Further thoughts needed on what 
codes we need for these.

(4) Legal issues
Related to what we can and can't do in displaying the posts. Sorry if 
this sounds dull, but its rather central to creating an innovative 
product for the members to use. See Paul Kippes' points this week.

CATEGORY CHANGES (extensive, but feel its important to list them for 
the record)
BTW, I'd just like to point out that there are currently no less than 
*58* theory acronyms against our favourite potions teacher, way more 
than for relatively unimportant characters like Harry (!). Never has 
a man been more misunderstood..etc

(a) New categories added
1.1.3.1 (ID: 1039) Trust/mistrust
1.1.4.1 (ID: 1040) Inequality, bullying & discrimination
1.1.6.1 (ID:1038) Child abuse/mistreatment
1.1.6.2 (ID:1041) Maturity/immaturity
1.1.7.1 (ID:1042) Cowardice
2.3.7.58 (ID:1043) Vampire!Snape
2.12.10 (ID:1028) Hinkypunk
3.11.1.1 (ID:1029) Socks
3.16.3.1 (ID: 1037) Funding & tuition fees
3.16.4.6 (ID: 1030) House passwords
3.16.4.7 (ID: 1031) Heads of houses
3.16.4.8 (ID: 1032) House championship, points system & house cup
3.16.5.1 (ID: 1033) Teaching methods
3.16.5.2 (ID: 1034) Textbooks
3.16.5.3 (ID: 1035) Teacher's partners

(b) Category name changes
1.1.7 (ID: 27) Bravery/courage (WAS Maturity/immaturity)
1.2.4.2 (ID: 956) FLYING HEDGEHOGS (WAS 1.2.4.3, same category)
3.16.6 (ID:483) Teachers (WAS House Passwords)
3.16.7 (ID: 485) Non-magical classes (WAS House championship, points 
system & house cup)
3.16.8 (ID: 486) General curriculum & timetables (WAS General 
curriculum, timetables & non-magical classes)

(c) Deleted categories (because of changes above)
1.2.4.2 (ID:955) Trust (posts moved to 1.1.3.1 Trust/mistrust)
3.17.2 (ID: 503) Teachers (posts moved to 3.16.5 Teachers)
3.17.3 (ID: 504) Teaching methods (posts moved to 3.16.5.1 Teaching 
methods)
3.17.4 (ID: 505) Textbooks (posts moved to 3.16.5.2 Textbooks)






From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Jun 20 11:12:18 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 11:12:18 -0000
Subject: Correction/Re: UPDATE, Sunday 20th June
In-Reply-To: <cb3oi1+kgqf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cb3rei+s63c@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" 
<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> PROGRESS
> We have now coded, or allocated for coding, 11515 posts. Of the 
> 11515, 10140 have actually been coded, and of the 10105, 7169 have 
> been rejected - a consistent rate of 70.7%.

Erm, that should read 'of the 10140, 7169 have been rejected'.. 
*should* you be interested ....




From annemehr at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 20 19:07:49 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 19:07:49 -0000
Subject: Uniforms
Message-ID: <cb4na5+14na@eGroups.com>

A post discussing Hogwarts uniforms reminded me that there are going
to be a lot of these. I remember quite a few long threads before OoP
came out. I put one under category 3.16 Hogwarts School, although
there are going to be many discussing whether there are going to be
differences according to House as well. Do we want a category under
3.16 just for uniform discussions?

Anne





From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Jun 20 20:07:02 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:07:02 -0000
Subject: Uniforms
In-Reply-To: <cb4na5+14na@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cb4qp6+10ud6@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" <annemehr at y...> 
wrote:
> A post discussing Hogwarts uniforms reminded me that there are going
> to be a lot of these. I remember quite a few long threads before OoP
> came out. I put one under category 3.16 Hogwarts School, although
> there are going to be many discussing whether there are going to be
> differences according to House as well. Do we want a category under
> 3.16 just for uniform discussions?
> 
> Anne

Carolyn:
Yes, good idea. It does come up regularly. I'll put in a code.




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Mon Jun 21 16:19:11 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:19:11 -0000
Subject: Away for a couple of days
Message-ID: <cb71pv+idge@eGroups.com>

Just to let you all know I'm out until Thursday - catch up with any 
queries then.

Cheers
Carolyn




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Thu Jun 24 15:07:36 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:07:36 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Away for a couple of days
In-Reply-To: <cb71pv+idge@eGroups.com>
References: <cb71pv+idge@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3A4DCAD8-C5F0-11D8-8C7F-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>


On 21 Jun 2004, at 17:19, a_reader2003 wrote:

> Just to let you all know I'm out until Thursday - catch up with any
>  queries then.
>
>  Cheers
>  Carolyn
>

Are you back yet?

I've finished my current batch, so if you'll assign another..... though 
I probably won't be able to do much with it until sometime next week.

A few observations about the last lot.

Dunno about anyone else but I found myself frowning at the screen more 
than ever before. Not the posts per se, but the fact that so many 
didn't seem to fit comfortably into the categories.

For example - we have Godric's Hollow as a geographical location, but 
to most posters it's used as shorthand for an *event*. Same goes for 
'Shrieking Shack'. Eventually we'll get to posts where 'The Ministry' 
falls into the same category.
There was a longish thread wondering where all the children of the 
Hogsmeade inhabitants were. That went into Geography too, though it's 
not really what I think the category was intended for. Maybe I'm wrong; 
if so - hooray!

More shorthand - 'Dumbledore's gleam'  We all know exactly what is 
being referred to, but it ain't easy deciding which categories to tick.

A few others (mostly ephemerals) that made me shift in my seat:-

Motivation
Forgiveness
Fear
Rashness
Plot hole - not quite the same as Flint, it was referring to Lupin's 
transformation when the moonlight hit him. (Nobody likes it. It's seen 
as a form of 'special pleading' to get round a weak spot in the plot.)

And a straight-forward one that got missed - Polyjuice Potion.

Is it just me, or is anyone else having similar dilemmas?

Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1697 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040624/c86aacbd/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Jun 24 15:39:00 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:39:00 -0000
Subject: Back now/Misc queries (Re: Away for a couple of days)
In-Reply-To: <3A4DCAD8-C5F0-11D8-8C7F-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <cbesik+bmbo@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> 
> Are you back yet?
> 
> I've finished my current batch, so if you'll assign another..... 
though 
> I probably won't be able to do much with it until sometime next 
week.
> 

Hi, yes..back & trying to catch up quickly..

Would you like to take 4150-4500?


> A few observations about the last lot.
> 
> Dunno about anyone else but I found myself frowning at the screen 
more than ever before. Not the posts per se, but the fact that so 
many didn't seem to fit comfortably into the categories.
> 
> For example - we have Godric's Hollow as a geographical location, 
but to most posters it's used as shorthand for an *event*. Same goes 
for 'Shrieking Shack'. Eventually we'll get to posts where 'The 
Ministry' falls into the same category.

Carolyn:
Godric's Hollow is supposed to be a geography code as it stands. I 
tend to put all the posts referring to what happened there 
under 'Death of Lily & James' in section 1, plus assorted other 
codes, depending.

Agree we should definitely have 'Shrieking Shack' category (and later 
MoM incident), but where should they go? There's an argument for 
having major plot incidents somewhere under 'plot development' or 
some such, but also possibly for having them located as sub-
categories within relevant book chapters. Thoughts please.


> There was a longish thread wondering where all the children of the 
> Hogsmeade inhabitants were. That went into Geography too, though 
it's not really what I think the category was intended for. Maybe I'm 
wrong; if so - hooray!

Carolyn:
I think under Hogsmeade for now is fair enough, although possibly 
with side-codes to wizarding population estimates, or other schools, 
depending what they were on about.


> 
> More shorthand - 'Dumbledore's gleam'  We all know exactly what is 
> being referred to, but it ain't easy deciding which categories to 
tick.

Carolyn:
Agree tricky. I go for DD's agenda mostly, plus relevant chapters or 
characters, or types of magic if it seems to be on about old magic.

> 
> A few others (mostly ephemerals) that made me shift in my seat:-
> 
> Motivation
> Forgiveness
> Fear
> Rashness

Carolyn:
I've been plaintively asking what to do with Peg Kerr-type stuff for 
weeks. Answer came there none. Quite happy to have more meta-themes 
if you want them ...make a suggestion.


> Plot hole - not quite the same as Flint, it was referring to 
Lupin's transformation when the moonlight hit him. (Nobody likes it. 
It's seen as a form of 'special pleading' to get round a weak spot in 
the plot.)

Carolyn:
Won't plot development plus Lupin/lycanthropy codes do? Happy to add 
plot holes as a sub-section under plot development if you want 
something more specific.


> 
> And a straight-forward one that got missed - Polyjuice Potion.

Carolyn: will do that now.
> 
> Is it just me, or is anyone else having similar dilemmas?
> 
> Barry




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Thu Jun 24 19:04:58 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:04:58 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Back now/Misc queries (Re: Away for a couple of days)
In-Reply-To: <cbesik+bmbo@eGroups.com>
References: <cbesik+bmbo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <62B8D350-C611-11D8-8B3A-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>

>
>  Hi, yes..back & trying to catch up quickly..
>
>  Would you like to take 4150-4500?
>
>

No problem.

>  > A few observations about the last lot.
>  >
>  > Dunno about anyone else but I found myself frowning at the screen 
> more than ever before. Not the posts per se, but the fact that so  
> many didn't seem to fit comfortably into the categories.
>  >
>  > For example - we have Godric's Hollow as a geographical location,  
> but to most posters it's used as shorthand for an *event*. Same goes  
> for 'Shrieking Shack'. Eventually we'll get to posts where 'The
>  Ministry' falls into the same category.
>
>  Carolyn:
>  Godric's Hollow is supposed to be a geography code as it stands. I 
> tend to put all the posts referring to what happened there under 
> 'Death of Lily & James' in section 1, plus assorted other  codes, 
> depending.
>
>  Agree we should definitely have 'Shrieking Shack' category (and later 
>  MoM incident), but where should they go? There's an argument for  
> having major plot incidents somewhere under 'plot development' or
>  some such, but also possibly for having them located as sub- 
> categories within relevant book chapters. Thoughts please.
>

A sub-set of plot developments would be fine, IMO.
Why  not have 'DD's gleam' there as well?



>
>  > There was a longish thread wondering where all the children of the 
> Hogsmeade inhabitants were. That went into Geography too, though  it's 
> not really what I think the category was intended for. Maybe I'm  
> wrong; if so - hooray!
>
>  Carolyn:
>  I think under Hogsmeade for now is fair enough, although possibly  
> with side-codes to wizarding population estimates, or other schools,
>  depending what they were on about.
>

Yeah, well - posters were wondering why there seemed to be no kids 
native to Hogsmeade about the place;  and since there are no WW primary 
schools some of 'em got suspicious.


>
>  >
>  > A few others (mostly ephemerals) that made me shift in my seat:-
>  >
>  > Motivation
>  > Forgiveness
>  > Fear
>  > Rashness
>
>  Carolyn:
>  I've been plaintively asking what to do with Peg Kerr-type stuff for 
> weeks. Answer came there none. Quite happy to have more meta-themes if 
> you want them ...make a suggestion.

Meta-themes  seems best IMO. Rashness could go in with 
Immaturity/Maturity, I think, and maybe fear with Bravery?
Speaking of Peg - her latest didn't work very well - not easy to make 
'Sloth in the WW' really gripping.

>
>
>  > Plot hole - not quite the same as Flint, it was referring to 
> Lupin's transformation when the moonlight hit him. (Nobody likes it. 
> It's seen as a form of 'special pleading' to get round a weak spot in
>  the plot.)
>
>  Carolyn:
>  Won't plot development plus Lupin/lycanthropy codes do? Happy to add 
> plot holes as a sub-section under plot development if you want 
> something more specific.
>

Gawd, no. Only make categories that are unavoidable - that's my gut 
reaction, and the more I look at the list the more I'm convinced of it. 
But it's difficult to put yourself in the mind of an end-user (or it is 
for me). Just what phrases/words will they favour  when setting up a 
search? This is what I was getting at with Godric's Hollow. If they're 
looking for a thread to see who accompanied Voldy or if there was 
anybody else in the house, then GH would be their first choice. Can't 
be helped, I suppose; they'll just have to learn to use the index 
properly.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3893 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040624/df19e34b/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Jun 24 21:12:51 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:12:51 -0000
Subject: Back now/Misc queries (Re: Away for a couple of days)
In-Reply-To: <62B8D350-C611-11D8-8B3A-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <cbfg4j+htp8@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> >

> >  Carolyn:
> >  Agree we should definitely have 'Shrieking Shack' category (and 
later MoM incident), but where should they go? There's an argument 
for  having major plot incidents somewhere under 'plot development' or
some such, but also possibly for having them located as sub- 
categories within relevant book chapters. Thoughts please.
> >
> Barry:
> A sub-set of plot developments would be fine, IMO.
> Why  not have 'DD's gleam' there as well?
 

Carolyn:
Having checked the list, I think it would be most appropriate to put 
Shrieking Shack under Back History, so it reads like this:

1.3.5 Back History
1.3.5.1 Death of Lily & James
1.3.5.2 Shrieking Shack incident

On reflection, I don't think the MoM fight belongs here, because not 
only is it not back history, but it also has a handily discrete 
chapter to itself in OoP where most arguments about what happened can 
be parked. The two items currently under Back History are repeatedly 
referred to across the books, and have not been witnessed by us in 
real time, so they need a home of their own. Make sense?

DD's gleam I would prefer to see as a sub-set under 1.2.2 
Dumbledore's Agenda, since whatever it's about it clearly gave him 
something extra to think about and take into account.

> 
> >
> Yeah, well - posters were wondering why there seemed to be no kids 
> native to Hogsmeade about the place;  and since there are no WW 
primary schools some of 'em got suspicious.

Carolyn:
Surprised they didn't realise Fudge had them boiled down for glue...


> >  I've been plaintively asking what to do with Peg Kerr-type stuff 
for weeks. Answer came there none. Quite happy to have more meta-
themes if you want them ...make a suggestion.
> 
> Meta-themes  seems best IMO. Rashness could go in with 
> Immaturity/Maturity, I think, and maybe fear with Bravery?
> Speaking of Peg - her latest didn't work very well - not easy to 
make 'Sloth in the WW' really gripping.

Carolyn:
(Looks around nervously)..glad I am not alone in thinking they are a 
bit long-winded sometimes. My proposal for the extra categories are:

1.1.7 Bravery/courage
1.1.7.1 Cowardice & fear
1.1.7.2 Rashness

on the grounds that the immaturity/maturity codes more more aimed at 
the parenting and child development stuff.


Barry:
Just what phrases/words will they favour  when setting up a search? 
This is what I was getting at with Godric's Hollow. If they're 
looking for a thread to see who accompanied Voldy or if there was 
anybody else in the house, then GH would be their first choice. Can't 
be helped, I suppose; they'll just have to learn to use the index 
properly.

Carolyn:
As I understand it from Paul, it should be possible to search on 
multiple codes to narrow down what you are looking for. One thing I 
am working on at the moment is a proposal for what the end product 
might look like, which I will post here for discussion. Most 
technical things are possible, I am more worried about the legal 
issues preventing us doing what we want.

I'll make the above proposed changes tomorrow if no-one objects 
overnight from the US.

Carolyn




From annemehr at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 25 02:40:48 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 02:40:48 -0000
Subject: Back now/Misc queries (Re: Away for a couple of days)
In-Reply-To: <62B8D350-C611-11D8-8B3A-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <cbg3bg+j69@eGroups.com>

Carolyn:
> >  Agree we should definitely have 'Shrieking Shack' category (and
later 
> >  MoM incident), but where should they go? There's an argument for  
> > having major plot incidents somewhere under 'plot development' or
> >  some such, but also possibly for having them located as sub- 
> > categories within relevant book chapters. Thoughts please.
> >

Barry:
> A sub-set of plot developments would be fine, IMO.
> Why  not have 'DD's gleam' there as well?
> 
Anne:
I like having them under 'plot development' because it gathers them
all together, and some of them don't fit into discrete chapters. The
Shrieking Shack took several chapters, as did the Graveyard. Even the
MoM took more than one chapter: one getting to the prophecy orb, one
battling DEs in the DoM, and one in the Atrium, w/LV-DD battle.
'Occlumency lessons' might wind up here, I suppose, and what about
'Scar Connection' (which I wouldn't be sure is ancient magic -- or is it)?

Is that more thoughts than you wanted?

> >  Carolyn:
> >  I've been plaintively asking what to do with Peg Kerr-type stuff for 
> > weeks. Answer came there none. Quite happy to have more
meta-themes if 
> > you want them ...make a suggestion.

Barry:
> Meta-themes  seems best IMO. Rashness could go in with 
> Immaturity/Maturity, I think, and maybe fear with Bravery?
> Speaking of Peg - her latest didn't work very well - not easy to make 
> 'Sloth in the WW' really gripping.

Anne:
Sorry, I've only coded up one Peg Kerr post, after reading how Carolyn
did one. I just ticked off a bunch of categories that seemed to fit,
and then marked it as a Fantastic Post (well, it was much better than
what else I'd been reading). Sloth, now, that'd be tough. Still, we
don't have to code them *all* as FPs do we? Or will it look odd to
have only 5 or 6 deadly sins? <g>

Barry:
> But it's difficult to put yourself in the mind of an end-user (or it is 
> for me). Just what phrases/words will they favour  when setting up a 
> search? This is what I was getting at with Godric's Hollow. If they're 
> looking for a thread to see who accompanied Voldy or if there was 
> anybody else in the house, then GH would be their first choice. Can't 
> be helped, I suppose; they'll just have to learn to use the index 
> properly.

Anne:
We can't be all things to all people. I don't think it hurts to have
the end user do a *little* work -- for example, I can find my way
around the Lexicon much easier than the first time I used it. The end
user will be able to see a category list with all the 'd' entries to
help chose where to search, won't they?

The copyright question surprises me, although I have no expertise in
the subject. I just thought that if it was open to HPfGU members only,
accessible through the home page, we would be clear. But perhaps that
only would apply to the newer stuff, since the HBFile?






From annemehr at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 25 03:04:42 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 03:04:42 -0000
Subject: How picky are we?
Message-ID: <cbg4oa+ose0@eGroups.com>

Now that we've seen and coded a lot of posts, I'm beginning to wonder
if I've been rejecting enough of the posts and want to consult with you.

I've used the 'adds nothing new' for very short, obviously minor
posts. However, I've tended to reflexively code up anything of any
substance at all. Now, I'm beginning to think that even a lot of the
posts of several paragraphs are actually adding little to the discussion.

What about the rest of you? Can we discuss this?

As an example, look at 3493, which has obviously had some thought put
into it, but the new parts verge on OTChatter or just opinion. Thoughts?

Anne




From annemehr at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 25 04:05:56 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 04:05:56 -0000
Subject: "Reader Reactions"
Message-ID: <cbg8b4+j9v7@eGroups.com>

I'm beginning to think we need a new category by this name, perhaps
under Other Topics. There do seem to be a lot of posts involving how
each reader's personal experience of the books is different and
colours the way plot, characterisation, etc. is interpreted.

Or perhaps "Reader Interpretations" would be better.

Anne




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Fri Jun 25 07:31:13 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:31:13 -0000
Subject: How picky are we?
In-Reply-To: <cbg4oa+ose0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cbgkc1+h848@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" <annemehr at y...> 
wrote:
> Now that we've seen and coded a lot of posts, I'm beginning to 
wonder
> if I've been rejecting enough of the posts and want to consult with 
you.
> 
>

Carolyn:
I must admit I am totally ruthless now, but then I've coded a lot. 

For starts, I usually reject most initial questions which don't come 
packaged with some tentative answers, on the grounds that the initial 
question is usually quoted in subsequent replies, so that saves a 
bit. The replies get accepted or not, on merit - I don't do the whole 
thread necessarily.

All stuff which is just people's wishful thinking and not useful 
analysis gets dumped under 'personal favourites' in the reject list. 
Eg how they wish the series will turn out/what will happen to 
favourite characters (unless supported by canon analysis; if so, goes 
into predictions).

I alternate between 'adds nothing new' and 'FAQ' on the reject list 
for stuff which I know for sure I have already seen discussed in some 
depth. I only add in new takes on a topic. The 'p' button is pretty 
useful here for memory-checking. 

On SHIPPING I get really tough (there's a surprise), and increasingly 
just tick 'trio relationships' if its just another weary go-round the 
triangle, or 'adds nothing new' (particularly tempting). I used to 
code to the individual characters as well, but now do so only if 
there is an extended analysis.

Essentially, as I said at the outset of the project, I think that 
there will be a tendency for the glory to go to early posters on 
ideas, and the hurdles get higher for later posters to add anything 
new.

Be interested to see what others think.
Carolyn





From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Fri Jun 25 07:38:19 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:38:19 -0000
Subject: "Reader Reactions"
In-Reply-To: <cbg8b4+j9v7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cbgkpb+449i@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" <annemehr at y...> 
wrote:
> I'm beginning to think we need a new category by this name, perhaps
> under Other Topics. There do seem to be a lot of posts involving how
> each reader's personal experience of the books is different and
> colours the way plot, characterisation, etc. is interpreted.
> 
> Or perhaps "Reader Interpretations" would be better.
> 
> Anne

Carolyn:
Mainly I put these under 'personal favourites', ie, reject them. I 
only let them in if the reader's personal reaction leads to some 
interesting new insights. 

The problem I see with 'reader interpretations' is that *every* post 
is reader interpretation ! How would we narrow down the definition?

However, I did wonder whether we should have a category (probably in 
section 5) for published reviews of the books.





From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Fri Jun 25 07:51:44 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:51:44 -0000
Subject: Back now/Misc queries (Re: Away for a couple of days)
In-Reply-To: <cbg3bg+j69@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cbglig+7q57@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" <annemehr at y...> 
wrote:
> I like having them under 'plot development' because it gathers them
> all together, and some of them don't fit into discrete chapters. The
> Shrieking Shack took several chapters, as did the Graveyard. Even 
the MoM took more than one chapter: one getting to the prophecy orb, 
one battling DEs in the DoM, and one in the Atrium, w/LV-DD battle.
> 'Occlumency lessons' might wind up here, I suppose, and what about
> 'Scar Connection' (which I wouldn't be sure is ancient magic -- or 
is it)?
> 
> Is that more thoughts than you wanted?

Carolyn:
It looks like we are heading towards a 'major incidents' section. If 
so, probably should have more prominence than just tucked under 'plot 
development' (?)


> Barry:
 - not easy to make 'Sloth in the WW' really gripping.
> 
> Anne:
 Sloth, now, that'd be tough. Still, we don't have to code them *all* 
as FPs do we? Or will it look odd to have only 5 or 6 deadly sins? <g>

Carolyn:
Loved this one Anne! A nice problem indeed.. I certainly think the 
essays are uneven in quality. No, we shouldn't give FP status to 
anything that doesn't deserve it. Afer all, its unlikely any of the 
essays would actually get rejected, so they will get coded somewhere.



> Anne:
> The copyright question surprises me, although I have no expertise in
> the subject. I just thought that if it was open to HPfGU members 
only, accessible through the home page, we would be clear. But 
perhaps that only would apply to the newer stuff, since the HBFile?

Carolyn:
I am waiting for someone from Admin to reply to this in more detail. 
I am not quite clear what the problem is either. From the discussion 
on the Feedback list I understood that none of the incremental 
changes to the HB file over the years made any difference to the 
rules that people originally signed up to as members of the club, but 
I may be wrong.




From annemehr at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 26 03:03:55 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 03:03:55 -0000
Subject: "Reader Reactions"
In-Reply-To: <cbgkpb+449i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cbip2r+oj7m@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003"
<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" <annemehr at y...> 
> wrote:
> > I'm beginning to think we need a new category by this name, perhaps
> > under Other Topics. There do seem to be a lot of posts involving how
> > each reader's personal experience of the books is different and
> > colours the way plot, characterisation, etc. is interpreted.
> > 
> > Or perhaps "Reader Interpretations" would be better.
> > 
> > Anne
> 
> Carolyn:
> Mainly I put these under 'personal favourites', ie, reject them. I 
> only let them in if the reader's personal reaction leads to some 
> interesting new insights. 
> 
> The problem I see with 'reader interpretations' is that *every* post 
> is reader interpretation ! How would we narrow down the definition?
> 
> However, I did wonder whether we should have a category (probably in 
> section 5) for published reviews of the books.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I'm thinking of is posts that discuss the
subject of reader interpretation in general. For instance, while MAGIC
DISHWASHER was being debated, a side thread erupted about literary
criticism and what lit crit standards and theories ought to be applied
to HP and to theories such as MD. Another facet are posts discussing,
say, whether JKR *saying* Snape is abusive in an interview holds any
more value than the readers' reactions to the actual text. Stuff like
that. It's not a huge category, but there were some thoughtful posts
and I'm not sure where we'd code them. I'm thinking one category,
properly named, could probably hold them all.

Pippin? Are you around? And Jayne? You must remember stuff like this...

Anne




From jdr0918 at hotmail.com  Sat Jun 26 19:04:04 2004
From: jdr0918 at hotmail.com (jayne reed)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:04:04 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: "Reader Reactions"
Message-ID: <BAY16-F24Cy92ew5oWm00011b38@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040626/d17daa3c/attachment.html>

From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Sun Jun 27 04:49:18 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Fwd: Re: HPFGU archive/catalog question
Message-ID: <20040627044918.46721.qmail@web13808.mail.yahoo.com>

This is the response I got from Heidi.  See below email.

Of course we can choose to not display any FROM information.  But
that still leaves names when replying to someone else, signing a
post, or directly mentioning someone else.  I don't understand the
significance of Jan 2001, but it must be either a TOU change or legal
thing.  Maybe that is when eGroups became yGroups?  We can also do
what Yahoo does and omit portions of the email to obsure the author.

I think we should:
1) Clarify how the information is being used.
2) Promise that we'll do everything we can to prevent our stored data
from being copied into a search index (like Google) or other archive
(like Internet Archive).  This will probably require a log in type of
thing for all users and viewers.
3) Clear all this with the Meg folks
4) Perhaps give the original author an opt-out ability and display
only a link of such opters into the Yahoo group.  Basically, they can
opt out of having the post redisplayed outside of Yahoo, but they
can't prevent us from telling others about how to read it.

Heads up though.  I won't be putting this server in my name.  Some
HPFGU readers can be real asses, and I want no part of trouble
makers.  If those kinds of people don't want us to show their posts,
let them.





--- Heidi Tandy <heidi at heidi8.com> wrote:
> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 20:07:01 -0400
> Subject: Re: HPFGU archive/catalog question
> To: Paul Kippes <kippesp at yahoo.com>
> From: Heidi Tandy <heidi at heidi8.com>
> 
> Are people's names on them? If it were done sans name, then
> everything 
> from january of 2001 is fair game, and everything from august of
> 2000 
> can, at least, be summarized and if the listee stayed on thru
> january of 
> 2001, they can be used in toto.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 1:27am, Paul Kippes wrote:
> > Remember the HPFGU catalog I helped put together an interface to
> > categorize the various HPFGU posts with the hope of eventually
> making
> > something useful to people?
> >
> > There's a question about what can and can't (or should and
> shouldn't)
> > be done with the content.
> >
> > Assume that the post archive was provided by a person who had
> been a
> > member of the HPFGU group since the beginning and saved each
> emailed
> > post.  Are there legal concerns to cataloging those emails,
> providing
> > an index of categories, and displaying the full posts' content
> for
> > those posts in a category?  Are there legal concerns to not
> verifying
> > the visitor is a current member of HPFGU?
> >
> > Ethically, I don't think the posts of other people should be
> > displayed outside of Yahoo.  But basically all that is being
> > accomplished by displaying the posts is a convenience.  Links
> could
> > be provided into the Yahoo group to get at the same information.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 		
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> 



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 



From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Jun 27 21:51:57 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:51:57 -0000
Subject: UPDATE, Sunday, June 27th
Message-ID: <cbnfht+tt5r@eGroups.com>

PROGRESS

To date we have either coded or allocated for coding 12315 posts. Of 
the 12315, 11183 have actually been done, and of the 11183, 7794 have 
been rejected - a rate of 69%. The Yahoo club is now completely 
finished and we are all out on the main list.

NEW MEMBERS
Very pleased to welcome Dave Witley and Boyd Smythe as new members. 
Feel free to post and ask any question you like.

LEGAL ISSUES
I have not yet had time to think through Heidi's advice this weekend, 
but will post something later in the week as a proposal for a way 
forward. Thanks for contacting her Paul.

ADMIN
I have updated our Catalogue guide notes and sent a copy to each of 
you individually. As I was re-writing that and bringing it up to 
date, I realised that what was really needed was the summary of 
category descriptions that I started off a week or two ago. There is 
really no other way to summarise the discussions we have had over the 
last few months, especially for new people.

Therefore I have spent many long hours this weekend writing a 
definitions document from scratch, and again have sent it to you all 
individually to ensure you see it. Inevitably, it is a big document, 
but it does represent the category list as of today's date. Please 
take some time to scroll through it, and raise any points you are not 
sure about or disagree with.

In particular, I want to use it to resolve the discussions we have 
been having about changes to the meta themes (see recent posts). Its 
much easier to think about this offline, or even print out the 
document if necessary. I will post a proposal on how I think we 
should handle the changes shortly.

I will regularly put an up to date copy of this definitions document 
in the file section, and paste the agreed definitions into the live 
version of the catalogue on line, so its always easy to remind 
ourselves what goes where.

CATEGORY CHANGES THIS WEEK

NEW CATEGORIES
3.8.4.10 (ID: 1046) Polyjuice potion
3.15.1.1.1 (ID: 1045) Hogsmeade
3.16.4.1.1 (ID: 1047) SENTIMENTAL CRAP (was 2.4.1)
3.16.4.1.1 (ID: 1048) SLOPPY READING (was 2.4.2)

DELETED CATEGORIES 
This is mind-numbing detail, sorry. Essentially, I have removed about 
100 theory categories which I realised were duplicated. Each theory 
acronym should now only appear once somewhere on the list. Hopefully 
it may make a small difference to scrolling time, but I mainly did it 
to save confusion later.

2.1.4.1 (547)
2.1.4.2 (548)
2.1.5.3 (551)
2.1.5.8 (624)
2.1.5.9 (625)
2.1.5.10 (626)
2.7.1 (564)
2.2.1.6 (570)
2.2.1.8 (572)
2.2.1.9 (573)
2.2.1.10 (574)
2.2.1.11 (575)
2.2.2.3 (586)
2.2.3.1 (587)
2.2.4.1 (589)
2.2.4.2 (590)
2.2.5.1 (591)
2.2.5.3 (593)
2.2.5.5 (595)
2.2.5.11 (601)
2.2.5.14 (604)
2.2.5.15 (605)
2.2.6.1 (608)
2.2.7.2 (610)
2.2.8.2 (613)
2.2.8.3 (614)
2.2.8.4 (615)
2.2.8.6 (617)
2.2.8.7 (618)
2.2.8.8 (619)
2.2.10.1 (621)
2.3.1.6 (632)
2.3.1.9 (635)
2.3.2.2 (640)
2.3.2.3 (641)
2.3.4.1 (645)
2.3.7.5 (654)
2.3.7.7 (656)
2.3.7.9 (658)
2.3.7.10 (659)
2.3.7.14 (663)
2.3.7.16 (665)
2.3.7.21 (670)
2.3.7.23 (672)
2.3.7.36 (685)
2.3.7.43 (692)
2.3.7.54 (703)
2.3.7.55 (704)
2.3.7.57 (878)
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3.6 (748)
2.4.3.7 (749)
2.4.3.9 (751)
2.4.3.12 (754)
2.4.3.13 (755)
2.4.3.16 (758)
2.4.3.18 (760)
2.4.3.20 (762)
2.4.3.21 (763)
2.4.3.23 (765)
2.4.4.5 (787)
2.4.4.6 (788)
2.4.4.13 (795)
2.4.5.6 (717)
2.4.7.2 (719)
2.4.7.5 (722)
2.4.7.7 (724)
2.4.7.9 (726)
2.4.7.16 (733)
2.4.7.18 (735)
2.4.7.19 (736)
2.4.7.20 (737)
2.4.7.21 (738)
2.4.7.25 (742)
2.4.9.4 (769)
2.4.10.1 (770)
2.4.10.2 (771)
2.4.10.4 (773)
2.4.10.8 (777)
2.4.10.9 (778)
2.4.10.11 (780)
2.4.10.12 (781)
2.5.1.1 (801)
2.6.1.1 (808)
2.7.1.1 (824)
2.7.1.2 (825)
2.7.1.3 (826)
2.7.1.4 (827)
2.7.1.7 (830)
2.7.1.8 (831)
2.7.2.1 (813)
2.7.2.6 (818)
2.7.21.2 (839)
2.8.1.1 (840)
2.8.1.2 (841)
2.8.1.3 (842)
2.8.1.7 (846)
2.8.1.8 (847)
2.8.1.9 (848)
2.8.1.12 (851)
2.10.2.1 (855)
2.10.3.1 (857)
2.12.1.2.2 (861)
2.12.1.2.3 (862)
2.12.1.2.5 (864)
2.12.3.1 (865)
2.12.4.1 (866)









From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Sun Jun 27 23:24:06 2004
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:24:06 -0000
Subject: UPDATE, Sunday, June 27th
In-Reply-To: <cbnfht+tt5r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cbnkum+d51g@eGroups.com>

Hi, all

> Very pleased to welcome Dave Witley and Boyd Smythe as new 
members. 
> Feel free to post and ask any question you like.

Thank you.  I'll introduce myself properly as soon as I can put the 
time to it.  Meanwhile, I'll just say that...

> Therefore I have spent many long hours this weekend writing a 
> definitions document from scratch, and again have sent it to you 
all 
> individually to ensure you see it. Inevitably, it is a big 
document, 
> but it does represent the category list as of today's date. Please 
> take some time to scroll through it, and raise any points you are 
not 
> sure about or disagree with.

...I couldn't open the copy I received as an e-mail attachment (I 
think it must have been corrupted in some way) but I had no trouble 
with the one in the files section here.

David




From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Mon Jun 28 04:59:59 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (kippesp)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 04:59:59 -0000
Subject: UPDATE, Sunday, June 27th
In-Reply-To: <cbnfht+tt5r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cbo8kf+n030@eGroups.com>


Kelly may not appreciate 100 click throughs.  Please pass this tip 
on to Kelly.  She'll do a 1.5 hour task in 10-15 minutes.

Kelly,

Once you delete one category, your URL and page will switch to the 
confirmation page.  On that page, you can change the ID of the 
category_id to the next one in the DELETED CATEGOIES list.

You will receive an error only if you attempt to delete a category 
parent or a utilized category.  Otherwise, you'll always see "done" 
(even if the category ID doesn't exist).

It is not critical that you even delete the categories.  Those IDs 
will never be used again--either way.


--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" >

DELETED CATEGORIES 
> This is mind-numbing detail, sorry. Essentially, I have removed 
about 
> 100 theory categories which I realised were duplicated. Each 
theory 
> acronym should now only appear once somewhere on the list. 
Hopefully 
> it may make a small difference to scrolling time, but I mainly did 
it 
> to save confusion later.
> 
> 2.1.4.1 (547)
> 2.1.4.2 (548)
> 2.1.5.3 (551)
> 2.1.5.8 (624)
> 2.1.5.9 (625)
> 2.1.5.10 (626)
> 2.7.1 (564)
> 2.2.1.6 (570)
> 2.2.1.8 (572)
> 2.2.1.9 (573)
> 2.2.1.10 (574)
> 2.2.1.11 (575)
> 2.2.2.3 (586)
> 2.2.3.1 (587)
> 2.2.4.1 (589)
> 2.2.4.2 (590)
> 2.2.5.1 (591)
> 2.2.5.3 (593)
> 2.2.5.5 (595)
> 2.2.5.11 (601)
> 2.2.5.14 (604)
> 2.2.5.15 (605)
> 2.2.6.1 (608)
> 2.2.7.2 (610)
> 2.2.8.2 (613)
> 2.2.8.3 (614)
> 2.2.8.4 (615)
> 2.2.8.6 (617)
> 2.2.8.7 (618)
> 2.2.8.8 (619)
> 2.2.10.1 (621)
> 2.3.1.6 (632)
> 2.3.1.9 (635)
> 2.3.2.2 (640)
> 2.3.2.3 (641)
> 2.3.4.1 (645)
> 2.3.7.5 (654)
> 2.3.7.7 (656)
> 2.3.7.9 (658)
> 2.3.7.10 (659)
> 2.3.7.14 (663)
> 2.3.7.16 (665)
> 2.3.7.21 (670)
> 2.3.7.23 (672)
> 2.3.7.36 (685)
> 2.3.7.43 (692)
> 2.3.7.54 (703)
> 2.3.7.55 (704)
> 2.3.7.57 (878)
> 2.4.1
> 2.4.2
> 2.4.3.6 (748)
> 2.4.3.7 (749)
> 2.4.3.9 (751)
> 2.4.3.12 (754)
> 2.4.3.13 (755)
> 2.4.3.16 (758)
> 2.4.3.18 (760)
> 2.4.3.20 (762)
> 2.4.3.21 (763)
> 2.4.3.23 (765)
> 2.4.4.5 (787)
> 2.4.4.6 (788)
> 2.4.4.13 (795)
> 2.4.5.6 (717)
> 2.4.7.2 (719)
> 2.4.7.5 (722)
> 2.4.7.7 (724)
> 2.4.7.9 (726)
> 2.4.7.16 (733)
> 2.4.7.18 (735)
> 2.4.7.19 (736)
> 2.4.7.20 (737)
> 2.4.7.21 (738)
> 2.4.7.25 (742)
> 2.4.9.4 (769)
> 2.4.10.1 (770)
> 2.4.10.2 (771)
> 2.4.10.4 (773)
> 2.4.10.8 (777)
> 2.4.10.9 (778)
> 2.4.10.11 (780)
> 2.4.10.12 (781)
> 2.5.1.1 (801)
> 2.6.1.1 (808)
> 2.7.1.1 (824)
> 2.7.1.2 (825)
> 2.7.1.3 (826)
> 2.7.1.4 (827)
> 2.7.1.7 (830)
> 2.7.1.8 (831)
> 2.7.2.1 (813)
> 2.7.2.6 (818)
> 2.7.21.2 (839)
> 2.8.1.1 (840)
> 2.8.1.2 (841)
> 2.8.1.3 (842)
> 2.8.1.7 (846)
> 2.8.1.8 (847)
> 2.8.1.9 (848)
> 2.8.1.12 (851)
> 2.10.2.1 (855)
> 2.10.3.1 (857)
> 2.12.1.2.2 (861)
> 2.12.1.2.3 (862)
> 2.12.1.2.5 (864)
> 2.12.3.1 (865)
> 2.12.4.1 (866)




From boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com  Mon Jun 28 19:11:38 2004
From: boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com (boyd_smythe)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:11:38 -0000
Subject: Howdy--and a Yahoo! Note
Message-ID: <cbpqha+unrf@eGroups.com>

Whew! This looks to be fun, and after reading everything I can't 
believe I'm saying that. You have all done an amazing job on this 
project; I'm honored to join. BTW, I love predictions, and I'll be 
paying extra attention to whether our current predictions categories 
can be improved.

Here's the quick note on Yahoo! If I'm Yahoo!, my concern about this 
project is the decrease in eyeballs hitting my site and generating 
my ad dollars. So there are a couple of ways around this:
1) As suggested, have the database link to Y!Groups to read the 
message 
2) Once built, download the database to the Y!Groups site as some kind 
of useable file. That would keep the content on Yahoo!
3) Discuss with Yahoo! the idea of adding this functionality to their 
Y!Groups site with us as the beta-testers. Other groups might like 
this, albeit to a lesser extent.
4) Purchase space on Yahoo! or its subsidiary, Geocities, for our own 
home page. Then they're still getting the eyeballs and resulting 
revenue, plus any fees we pay. Of course, this means $$$. Donations, 
anyone?

It might bolster our case to mention that all of these options would 
also be much like effective advertising and generate more visits to 
the site over time. And my assumption here is that it would be *way* 
better to head this off at the pass (yes, I'm from Texas) than to hope 
it doesn't become an issue. So if we haven't already, I'd vote for at 
least a small exploratory talk with them.




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Mon Jun 28 20:16:53 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 20:16:53 -0000
Subject: Howdy--and a Yahoo! Note
In-Reply-To: <cbpqha+unrf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cbpubl+jsln@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "boyd_smythe" 
<boyd.t.smythe at f...> wrote:
> Whew! This looks to be fun, and after reading everything I can't 
> believe I'm saying that. You have all done an amazing job on this 
> project; I'm honored to join. BTW, I love predictions, and I'll be 
> paying extra attention to whether our current predictions 
categories can be improved.

Carolyn:
Well, that's a relief, the category list has got a bit alarming, even 
to me! But, it does make a lot of sense when you are cataloguing..you 
will not believe what comes up. Happy to hear your suggestions - but 
do take a look at the catalogue site first to see how it all works.

> 
> Here's the quick note on Yahoo! If I'm Yahoo!, my concern about 
this project is the decrease in eyeballs hitting my site and 
generating my ad dollars. So there are a couple of ways around this:


Carolyn:
Alas, this is not really a Yahoo problem at all. If anything, it will 
be so wonderful that people spend even more hours on the HPfGU site 
reading it, no doubt pestered by ads as they move from screen to 
screen just like now. 

No, unfortunately, is about what permission the members have given us 
to use or display their posts when they joined HPfGU, and also what 
permission we end up with to even index their posts if someone has 
left the group. Its tricky, and means the full display of some stuff 
may have to be through a link to the post rather than the full text - 
a great pity when following an argument. It also limits us fixing the 
post titles, or touching any part of the text of posts probably (I 
had wanted to split up the multi-part ones for ease of reading, for 
instance).

However, I am puzzled, and would just like to comment on one point 
raised by Paul/Heidi - there was no intention that this catalogue 
could be used anywhere outside the HPfGU group, or be open listed on 
the web, or on even on Yahoo generally. I had seen it strictly as a 
high value resource for current HPfGU members, and if members even 
had to access it via an additional password, that would be fine by 
me. Does this make any difference to Heidi's advice?

Carolyn






From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Tue Jun 29 03:59:11 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (kippesp)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 03:59:11 -0000
Subject: Howdy--and a Yahoo! Note
In-Reply-To: <cbpubl+jsln@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cbqpef+ok10@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "a_reader2003" 
> However, I am puzzled, and would just like to comment on one point 
> raised by Paul/Heidi - there was no intention that this catalogue 
> could be used anywhere outside the HPfGU group, or be open listed 
on 
> the web, or on even on Yahoo generally. I had seen it strictly as 
a 
> high value resource for current HPfGU members, and if members even 
> had to access it via an additional password, that would be fine by 
> me. Does this make any difference to Heidi's advice?


I don't know.  I've always assumed that this catalog, like the
archives, will be accessible only through a log in.  That is
sufficient to prevent a perpetual archive like Google or archive.org
from storing the data.  I actually wouldn't participate if this was
not the case.  I have no interest in providing Joe-Schmoe Employer to
Google an employee and find he or she frequently ponders the 
relevance
of gleams in peoples' eyes during work hours.

Contact me off list tomorrow please.





From kelleythompson at gbronline.com  Tue Jun 29 20:21:39 2004
From: kelleythompson at gbronline.com (Kelley)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:21:39 -0000
Subject: Fwd: Re: HPFGU archive/catalog question
In-Reply-To: <20040627044918.46721.qmail@web13808.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <cbsj0j+ug0h@eGroups.com>

Paul <paul-groups at w...> wrote:
> This is the response I got from Heidi.  See below email.
> 
> Of course we can choose to not display any FROM information.  But
> that still leaves names when replying to someone else, signing a
> post, or directly mentioning someone else.  I don't understand the
> significance of Jan 2001, but it must be either a TOU change or 
> legal thing.  Maybe that is when eGroups became yGroups? >>>

Paul, this is referring to the first time we began including this 
disclaimer in the welcome message to list members when they join (it 
was on behalf of the FAQs specifically at the time):

"In posting to this group, you grant the Moderators the right and 
license to use the content of your messages in other contexts. At 
this time, the Moderators intend to use this permission only for 
purposes of archiving and creating topical FAQs for the group, but 
reserve the right to use them for other purposes. If you have any 
concerns about infringement of your copyright, you are advised to 
contact the Moderators. Should you have any further questions, feel 
free to contact the Moderators."

> We can also do what Yahoo does and omit portions of the email to 
obsure the author. >>>

Yes.
 
> I think we should:
> 1) Clarify how the information is being used. >>>

Clarify to ourselves, to MEG, to the list members?  All of the 
above? ;-)

> 2) Promise that we'll do everything we can to prevent our stored 
> data from being copied into a search index (like Google) or other 
> archive (like Internet Archive).  This will probably require a log 
> in type of thing for all users and viewers. >>>

Agreed; frankly, I can see the whole thing hinging on this.  It comes 
down to the same arguments against making the main archives 
publically available.

(Am going to stop here for now; we're in conference as I write this.)

More to come soon...

--Kelley






From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Tue Jun 29 20:44:35 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (a_reader2003)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:44:35 -0000
Subject: Fwd: Re: HPFGU archive/catalog question
In-Reply-To: <cbsj0j+ug0h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cbskbj+flp3@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Kelley" 
<kelleythompson at g...> wrote:
> 
> More to come soon...
> 
> --Kelley

Carolyn:
Just to let you all know that Kelley & Paul and I have just had a 
chat about all this, and tonight and tomorrow I am writing a proposal 
about public display of the catalogue. If anyone has any ideas to 
contribute to this, please contact me on or off list. I'll be putting 
the draft up for discussion as well, of course.