Questions

[a_reader2003]

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> 
> Just remembered - FLYING HEDGEHOGS was the origin of ESE.
> Eloise and her merry band scoured canon for dubious or even 
ridiculous 'evidence' to point the finger of accusation at the most 
unlikely of suspects, who they then labeled as ESE. And FLYING 
HEDGEHOGS isn't an acronym, it's derived from some weird middle-
European saying. These two could be combined.
> 
> >
Carolyn:
I couldn't remember, so looked it up - apparently it stands 
for 'Fearful League Yabbering "Innocent Narratives Generally Harbour 
Enemies, Death-eaters, Grim Henchmen or Gangsters" (!), but I haven't 
checked the post where it started (36235) yet for ME etymology. 
Suggest we leave it in for the time being till we get there.


> >  Carolyn:
 At what point does un-supported prediction, fluffy bunny or 
otherwise, become acceptable? > 

Barry:
> To my mind the deeply argued posts are the predictions, the others 
are hunches or guess-work, yet only the guesses will appear in the 
search mode when calling for 'Predictions'. Someone searching for an 
analysis predicting say, the eventual revelations regarding Snapes 
memories will be presented with thousands of posts to search through, 
most irrelevant. (Only one can be linked to the Pensieve.)
> Sorry, I don't agree.
> Yes link to character, chapter etc. but also prediction.
> 
> 

Carolyn:
Hm. This is a useful one to have come up. I have certainly been using 
the predictions codes for (mostly accurate) guesses as well as longer 
length analyses.

Perhaps the best approach would be to have two options under the 
predictions for future books as follows:

1.13 Predictions
1.13.1 Book 4/GOF
1.13.1.1 With canon
1.13.1.2 No canon

Would this work? Is it clear enough?

Carolyn

BTW came across a long and convoluted piece on WW politics just now, 
following through a HPfGU post:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/pharnabazus

Only glanced at it; may not stand up to much analysis