From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Wed Sep  1 15:06:06 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 16:06:06 +0100
Subject: *SPAM?* [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re:
In-Reply-To: <1093911277.25225.21562.w37@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1093911277.25225.21562.w37@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <7318A58A-FC28-11D8-A08B-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>

Started a thread that's a bit of a problem to classify.

14172 makes the interesting observation that the frontispiece of QTTA 
is a page for stamping when the book is due back in the library. Some 
of these dates fall in the school holidays. Now the thread is starting 
to discuss whether students can stay at the school during holidays.

How do you think this should be categorised?

Barry




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Wed Sep  1 16:27:09 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:27:09 -0000
Subject: *SPAM?* [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re:
In-Reply-To: <7318A58A-FC28-11D8-A08B-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <ch4t8t+qg0b@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> Started a thread that's a bit of a problem to classify.
> 
> 14172 makes the interesting observation that the frontispiece of 
QTTA 
> is a page for stamping when the book is due back in the library. 
Some 
> of these dates fall in the school holidays. Now the thread is 
starting 
> to discuss whether students can stay at the school during holidays.
> 
> How do you think this should be categorised?
> 
> Barry


1.7.4 Timing Controversies I think. Does it look extensive enough to 
warrant its own sub-head? 

There is also 3.16.8 General curriculum & timetables, which is 
another possibility.




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Wed Sep  1 16:57:30 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:57:30 -0000
Subject: Re Hogwarts terms/holiday dates
In-Reply-To: <ch4t8t+qg0b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ch4v1q+qsva@eGroups.com>

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

> 1.7.4 Timing Controversies I think. Does it look extensive enough 
to warrant its own sub-head? 
> 
> There is also 3.16.8 General curriculum & timetables, which is 
> another possibility.


Actually, I took a look at it and decided to add another code 3.16.12 
Hogwarts Terms & Holidays, because its an argument I remember gets 
debated every now and again.

Use that in conjunction with 1.7.4 maybe ?? 

Carolyn




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Wed Sep  1 20:21:19 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:21:19 -0000
Subject: Meta-codes: Seven Virtues and Sins
Message-ID: <ch5avv+4jl8@eGroups.com>

The code 1.1.1.5 - 7 Sins & 7 Virtues was originally created as a 
place to capture Pegg Kerr's essays, which, for reference are:

Pride
Envy
Gluttony
Lust
Anger
Covetousness
Sloth


Faith
Hope
Charity
Loyalty
Fortitude
Justice
Courtesy & ambition
Temperance

My question is, since there is often discussion of character's traits 
along these lines, should I list these out separately as sub-
categories, so you can code to them ?

I know Debbie has already encountered this problem, with some threads 
on ambition. I am now dealing with a lot about Snape and pride.

However, we already have some other codes which might conflict, for 
instance:

1.1.3 Friendship, love & loyalty
1.1.3.2 Jealousy
1.1.7.2 Rashness & anger
1.1.8 Justice

It's a tricky one - what do people think?

Carolyn




From kkearney at students.miami.edu  Wed Sep  1 22:08:16 2004
From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum)
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 22:08:16 -0000
Subject: Transfiguration
Message-ID: <ch5h8g+k3ob@eGroups.com>

I may have asked this before, but didn't take note of the answer (and
it seems almost disloyal to use the search function :) )...

I've come across one of the many threads discussing the differences
between the animagus tranformation and transfiguration into an animal.
 I've coded it to the obviuos Animagi category, but I'm not sure about
the tranfiguration end.  Types of magic?  Tranfiguration under
Hogwarts (which would be misleading)?  Leave it as just Animagi?  

-Kelly




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Thu Sep  2 09:26:39 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:26:39 +0100
Subject: *SPAM?* [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re:
In-Reply-To: <ch4t8t+qg0b@eGroups.com>
References: <ch4t8t+qg0b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <31B34262-FCC2-11D8-B66E-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>

Is it worthwhile adding the Room of Requirement to the Hogwarts section?

A 'magical room' has been mentioned by JKR in one of her chats and 
14210 is predicting it's DD's chamber-pot room.
Other than  the general 'Layout of Hogwarts' there's nowhere to put it.

Barry




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Sep  2 13:08:13 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 13:08:13 -0000
Subject: Room of Requirement
In-Reply-To: <31B34262-FCC2-11D8-B66E-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <ch75vt+l4dt@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> Is it worthwhile adding the Room of Requirement to the Hogwarts 
section?
> 
> A 'magical room' has been mentioned by JKR in one of her chats and 
> 14210 is predicting it's DD's chamber-pot room.
> Other than  the general 'Layout of Hogwarts' there's nowhere to put 
it.
> 
> Barry


Oi, we're not *SPAM* thank you very much..

Ok, I'll add the Room.






From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Sep  2 13:14:33 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 13:14:33 -0000
Subject: Transfiguration
In-Reply-To: <ch5h8g+k3ob@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ch76bp+j8sq@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "corinthum" <kkearney at s...> 
wrote:
> 
> I've come across one of the many threads discussing the differences
> between the animagus tranformation and transfiguration into an 
animal. I've coded it to the obviuos Animagi category, but I'm not 
sure about the tranfiguration end.  Types of magic?  Tranfiguration 
under Hogwarts (which would be misleading)?  Leave it as just 
Animagi?  
> 
> -Kelly


I've been using both the codes you suggested when this comes up, to 
be honest. I agree that using the transfiguration code under Hogwarts 
is somewhat misleading, but I thought it might be even more confusing 
to add a second transfiguration code in the magic section...

One of the many things that I thought we could sort out at the second 
edit stage, when we could see what we had ended up with in the 
various sections.

Carolyn




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Thu Sep  2 13:14:27 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 14:14:27 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Room of Requirement
In-Reply-To: <ch75vt+l4dt@eGroups.com>
References: <ch75vt+l4dt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <049AC98B-FCE2-11D8-B66E-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>


  Oi, we're not *SPAM* thank you very much..



My computer thinks you are - and who am I to disagree with Steve Jobs?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 136 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040902/1bd3de00/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Sep  2 15:01:46 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:01:46 -0000
Subject: *SPAM* again
In-Reply-To: <049AC98B-FCE2-11D8-B66E-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <ch7ckq+jgfb@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
>
>   Oi, we're not *SPAM* thank you very much..
> 
>
>
> My computer thinks you are - and who am I to disagree with Steve 
Jobs?

Ah, proof at last of something Microsoft said to us* in an 
interview: 'One of Microsoft's strengths is our brutal honesty with 
ourselves about what is happening. We are paranoid. Absolutely 
paranoid.'

Clearly they were too right.

Carolyn
*who can bore anyone with the details, be warned..




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Sep  5 12:07:01 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 12:07:01 -0000
Subject: UPDATE , Sunday, September 5th
Message-ID: <chevh5+f8sv@eGroups.com>

PROGRESS
As mentioned last week, Paul has created a new analysis tool to help 
me keep track of what is happening on the database. Amongst many 
useful things, it allows us to see the net numbers of posts rejected 
and coded up, without the element of double-counting that was 
occurring previously due to:
(a) posts rejected but also getting a code in the admin section 5; 
(b) posts included in numbers of coded, but in fact ignored as they 
appeared 'corrupted' on your screens. 
(In fact, Paul now tells me that this type of text indicates that a 
post has been removed from the original archive by its author).

So, using the new system, this week we have coded/allocated for 
coding 25565 posts, representing the 7815 posts in the old Yahoo 
club, and up to post 17750 on the main list.

Out of the 25565 posts, we have actually coded 23768 posts, and out 
of the 23768, we have rejected 15270 - 64%. (It is noticeable how the 
reject rate is now beginning to fall steadily).

This week, with 6 people coding, we managed 771 posts.

NEW ANALYSIS TOOL
Those of you who are idly curious about statistics might like to look 
at the analysis screen for yourselves. Unfortunately, the numbers you 
see are never likely to exactly correspond with the ones I give you, 
as they change as soon as anyone does any work on the database 
(obviously), and I am just grabbing them at a single point in time, 
but you might find it interesting anyway.

To go and look at it, first get into the catalogue, and you will see 
that the catalogue address looks like this on your browser:

http://24.0.253.65:8888/admin/categorize.php

Now replace the word 'categorize' with the word 'stats', being 
careful not to delete any other part of the address (slash, full stop 
etc). Highlight the whole amended address and hit GO.

A screen should come up showing you the current number of posts coded 
to each category, and various totals at the top. Please note that 
these totals are *not* the totals of the three columns to the right 
of the screen - they are adjusted to remove duplication, as explained 
above.

Also note that within this screen you can hit 's' against any 
category and it takes you to the screen showing exactly which posts 
are making up the numeric total you were looking at. Closing this 's' 
summary keeps you within the stats analysis.

To get out of the stats analysis altogether, you can either close it 
top right, which will crash you out of the catalogue and you will 
have to re-enter as normal. Or you could replace the word 'stats' 
with the word 'categorize' [Brits, note the spelling!], highlight and 
hit GO to take you back.

One thing I am finding this very useful for apart from the overall 
stats is noting where mistakes in coding have been made. For 
instance, in column 2, there should only be zeroes between reject 
section 1 and admin section 5. Where I found a number instead, I have 
been able to identify the wrongly-coded post and go in and correct it 
[I will post a full analysis of what I have done so you can go in and 
check your own posts if you like].

Similarly, there should only be zeroes in column 3 against the reject 
codes. Right now, there are quite a few numbers and I am working on 
correcting these today. I will include them in the analysis I post 
summarising what I have done.

There are other things we can use it for too - for instance to check 
that posts have not been coded to headers, where we have agreed we 
will only use the sub-heads. Eg under 'predictions' - we must split 
them between canon/non-canon, not bung them into the header box.

I guess that is much more than you wanted to know, and undoubtedly 
qualifies me for pending LOON membership.

CATALOGUE GROUP
Speaking of membership, some of you may have noticed that our group 
has gone down to 19 from last week's 20. This is because Jayne (The 
Sergeant Majorette) has decided to spend more time with her remaining 
sanity, and has bowed out. She has nevertheless offered to do any 
admin work we can think of on the catalogue, 'as long as it doesn't 
involve reading posts' (!). As she really does know how to use a gun, 
who am I to argue...but I have thanked her warmly for her 
contribution so far. I'll be looking for a replacement over the next 
few weeks.

NEW CATEGORIES THIS WEEK

1.1.3.3 (1097) Forgiveness
1.4.6 (1093) Family dynamics
1.4.6.1 (1094) Weasleys
1.4.6.2 (1095) Blacks
1.4.6.3 (1096) Dursleys

2.12.16 (1091) Spiders
2.12.16.1 (1092) Aragog

3.8.3.1 (1100) Wand-less magic
3.16.1.2 (1099) Room of Requirement
3.16.12 (1098) Hogwarts Terms & Holidays

And finally, on the subject of categories, please could you respond 
to my query earlier in the week about sins and virtues ? Its not the 
first time I have asked the question, but the subject keeps coming 
up, and might mean quite a lot of sorting out of the meta section.

Thanks

Carolyn





From kkearney at students.miami.edu  Sun Sep  5 19:23:08 2004
From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum)
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 19:23:08 -0000
Subject: UPDATE , Sunday, September 5th
In-Reply-To: <chevh5+f8sv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <chfp2s+m5ge@eGroups.com>

Carolyn wrote:

> And finally, on the subject of categories, please could you respond 
> to my query earlier in the week about sins and virtues ? Its not the 
> first time I have asked the question, but the subject keeps coming 
> up, and might mean quite a lot of sorting out of the meta section.


I think it should remain one category for now, although perhaps you
should change the description to list those 7 sins and virtues, rather
than restricting it to Peg's essays.  If necessary, we can always go
back to that category and separate each trait, but for now I think an
additional 14 categories would be more hassle than help.

-Kelly, laughing at the news anchor who just had to dive for cover to
avoid being hit by flying roof bits while covering Hurricanne Frances  




From kkearney at students.miami.edu  Sun Sep  5 21:37:48 2004
From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum)
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 21:37:48 -0000
Subject: pre-TBAY posts
Message-ID: <chg0vc+pcl4@eGroups.com>

I know I asked before whether TBAY-style posts that add nothing
canonical should be kept, and we agreed they should, since they add to
the TBAY environment.  But what about posts like 11053 and 11065,
which border on OT as well as "Adds Nothing New"?  I'm inclined to
toss them.  Any thoughts?

-Kelly




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Sep  5 22:05:32 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 22:05:32 -0000
Subject: Edited posts/use of reject codes
Message-ID: <chg2jc+d0rg@eGroups.com>

I mentioned in Sunday's update that I was now able to spot any posts 
that somehow had got a mix of reject codes and main codes. I've now 
gone through them and here is a list if you want to check out what 
I've done.

Mostly the problem turned out to be that the 'reject post' button was 
not checked, but a reject sub-category was.

Some might have been caused by the database merge.

But some definitely had a mix of reject and non-reject categories. 
Please don't do this, unless you are checking reject + an admin 
category in section 5.

And I had more corrections on my posts than anyone - over 30, so 
don't feel bad!

Carolyn

Barry - club
1726
1742
1743
1744
1754
1755
1756
1759
2804
2821
3055

Barry - Group
510
520
4277
6467
14199

David - Group
7541

Boyd - Group
5033
5069
12710

Kelly - club
5004
Kelly - Group
8097
8237
11040

Paul - Grp
1747

Eva - Group
11924

Corinne - Group
12643
12625

Debbie - Group
10230
16371

Anne - Club
1334
Anne - Group
6270




From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com  Mon Sep  6 09:27:04 2004
From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen)
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 09:27:04 -0000
Subject: Lycanthropy and Timing
Message-ID: <chhah8+d78i@eGroups.com>

Does discussion about when exactly Lupin transforms into a werewolf 
count as a Timing Controvesy, or just an aspect of Lycanthropy, or 
does it need it's own special category about the Controversial 
Timing of Werewolf Transformations?

Post 17705 and thread.

~<(Laurasia)>~




From kkearney at students.miami.edu  Mon Sep  6 17:15:16 2004
From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum)
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 17:15:16 -0000
Subject: Edited posts/use of reject codes
In-Reply-To: <chg2jc+d0rg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <chi5v4+65l6@eGroups.com>

Carolyn wrote:

> But some definitely had a mix of reject and non-reject categories. 
> Please don't do this, unless you are checking reject + an admin 
> category in section 5.

What about multiple posts? I don't think any of my changed posts fell
into this category, but I know I've categorized like this.  If a post
discusses a reject subject (for example, fanfic or movies) and then
addresses a separate catalogue-accepted subject, I'll check the
specific reject category in addition to the other subjects but not the
Reject Post box.  Should I stop coding the reject portion of these posts?

-Kelly




From elfundeb at comcast.net  Mon Sep  6 17:20:53 2004
From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2)
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 17:20:53 -0000
Subject: UPDATE , Sunday, September 5th
In-Reply-To: <chfp2s+m5ge@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <chi69l+5jjh@eGroups.com>

Carolyn wrote: 
> > And finally, on the subject of categories, please could you 
respond 
> > to my query earlier in the week about sins and virtues ?


Kelly: 
> I think it should remain one category for now, although perhaps you
> should change the description to list those 7 sins and virtues, 
rather
> than restricting it to Peg's essays.  If necessary, we can always 
go
> back to that category and separate each trait, but for now I think 
an
> additional 14 categories would be more hassle than help.

I agree that adding all those subcategories might be excessive, 
especially since some are already covered by other codes.  However, 
I'd like to see a separate subcode (not necessarily under 
sins/virtues) for "ambition".  That's not one I would have included 
on a list of virtues (there seems to be a bit of fluidity regarding 
what characteristics belong on the sins & virtues lists), and 
ambition has been discussed on the list as a theme as well as in 
connection with particular characters.

Carolyn suggested I raise another coding issue I came up with here.  
I've seen some posts dealing with the psychology of the characters, 
e.g., whether Hermione suffers from obsessive/compulsive disorder.  
Later on, we'll get to threads discussing whether Sirius suffers 
from PTSD, and whether Harry is clinically depressed.  Would it make 
sense to have a category under characterisation to cover 
psychological assessments? 
  
Debbie




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Mon Sep  6 21:40:07 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 21:40:07 -0000
Subject: Edited posts/use of reject codes
In-Reply-To: <chi5v4+65l6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <chilfn+t368@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "corinthum" <kkearney at s...> 
wrote:
 If a post discusses a reject subject (for example, fanfic or movies) 
and then addresses a separate catalogue-accepted subject, I'll check 
the specific reject category in addition to the other subjects but 
not the Reject Post box.  Should I stop coding the reject portion of 
these posts?
> 
> -Kelly

Um, yes please...we have to make an initial decision as to whether it 
is a reject or not. On multiple posts, it is a non-reject if it has 
any element that you want to code up on subjects between sections 1-
4, but you shouldn't try to code any other content.

One of the things we will have to work out is what to do with 
multiple posts. Paul says there are various potential technical 
solutions, but as yet has not started working on them. He really 
needs some help to do this part of the catalogue and is going to 
produce the wording for an ad to go up on Feedback and OTC to see if 
someone with the relevant skills might come forward.

The legal advice we had from Heidi said it would be alright to 
highlight different bits, for instance, depending on what you had 
searched for. Doubt if we are actually allowed to wrench the posts 
apart, but I expect it would be ok to do the highlighting in such a 
way so that you completely obscured the non-relevant part of the post.

On what happens to the reject category bits, eg fic, movie etc of an 
otherwise-accepted post, I go back to what I said in a long reply to 
David a while back (see post 537). There are some arguments for 
offering some of the current reject category posts to the members 
eventually, but right now I think that's a priority too far.

If and when we get to a point where some of that material is included 
in the catalogue, I suppose there is a task to be undertaken in 
coding up those bits of the multi-posts which perhaps should be 
included in those offerings. This should not be too difficult, as by 
that point, we will have identified all the multi-posts, in order to 
have done the highlighting for the main part of the catalogue, so 
someone could review that sub-set fairly easily.

At the moment, I feel that trying to decide the merits of various 
bits of non-canon discussion is rather too much to ask in addition to 
the main categorising - eg how OT does OT have to get, before a bit 
of OT within a multi-post is coded or not?? Be interested in other 
peoples views on this.

Carolyn








From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Mon Sep  6 21:49:39 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 21:49:39 -0000
Subject: DD wand rant - just ignore me
Message-ID: <chim1j+bgn1@eGroups.com>

Sorry...I am just so *mad* at the utter stupidity of the replies on 
the list tonight about a thread I was on all about Fawkes' feathers 
and Tom and Harry's wands. I mean how can people *be* that 
credulous....?

Mutter...mutter..etc




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Tue Sep  7 13:17:16 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 13:17:16 -0000
Subject: pre-TBAY posts
In-Reply-To: <chg0vc+pcl4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <chkccs+cdo4@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "corinthum" <kkearney at s...> 
wrote:
> I know I asked before whether TBAY-style posts that add nothing
> canonical should be kept, and we agreed they should, since they add 
to
> the TBAY environment.  But what about posts like 11053 and 11065,
> which border on OT as well as "Adds Nothing New"?  I'm inclined to
> toss them.  Any thoughts?
> 
> -Kelly

Kelly, these two are complete and utter garbage! Consign them and 
anything similar to the scrap heap without delay please....

(And thanks for the intelligent contribution to the DD wand 
debate..appreciated).

Carolyn




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Tue Sep  7 17:04:19 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 18:04:19 +0100
Subject: *SPAM?* [HPFGU-Catalogue] Edited posts/use of reject codes
In-Reply-To: <chg2jc+d0rg@eGroups.com>
References: <chg2jc+d0rg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <F53B0F20-00EF-11D9-93E7-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>

Sorry to be late in responding - I've been engaged in a titanic 
struggle trying to get decent standards of safety incorporated into a 
medical lab in Kurdistan.

>
>  Mostly the problem turned out to be that the 'reject post' button was
>  not checked, but a reject sub-category was.
>
>  Some might have been caused by the database merge.
>
>  But some definitely had a mix of reject and non-reject categories.
>  Please don't do this, unless you are checking reject + an admin
>  category in section 5.
>
>  And I had more corrections on my posts than anyone - over 30, so
>  don't feel bad!
>
>  Carolyn
>
>  Barry - club
>  1726
>  1742
>  1743
>  1744
>  1754
>  1755
>  1756
>  1759
>  2804
>  2821
>  3055
>
>  Barry - Group
>  510
>  520
>  4277
>  6467
>  14199
>

Oops!
Though I am a bit puzzled by  the number that fall together in the 
1700s -  a random distribution, it  ain't. OK -  I can switch to 
automatic mind-off mode on occasion, but this seems excessive, even for 
me.
I think I'll blame the machine/site/software/Bill Gates/Voldy. 
Reasonable?

7 sins/virtues, whatever.  I agree  with corinthum -  keep ''em 
together until it becomes necessary to split 'em up.

Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1589 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040907/35ab0ae4/attachment.bin>

From kkearney at students.miami.edu  Tue Sep  7 17:38:53 2004
From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum)
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 17:38:53 -0000
Subject: UPDATE , Sunday, September 5th
In-Reply-To: <chi69l+5jjh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <chkrnd+gjgb@eGroups.com>

Debbie asked:

> I've seen some posts dealing with the psychology of the characters, 
> e.g., whether Hermione suffers from obsessive/compulsive disorder.  
> Later on, we'll get to threads discussing whether Sirius suffers 
> from PTSD, and whether Harry is clinically depressed.  Would it 
make 
> sense to have a category under characterisation to cover 
> psychological assessments? 


Yes, a PTSD (etc) category would be helpful.  I just dealt with a 
thread that began discussing Harry and Sirius and whether their 
courage differed judging by the way they reacted to things, and 
developed into an in-depth discussion of PTSD.  I kept the thread 
under Bravery/courage and the characters, despite the fact that that 
didn't really fit the pure PTSD posts.




From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Wed Sep  8 21:50:17 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (kippesp)
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 21:50:17 -0000
Subject: web host (for later reference)
Message-ID: <chnuqp+68k0@eGroups.com>


http://www.alphaomegahosting.com/premium.html




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Sep  9 20:51:32 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:51:32 -0000
Subject: Category changes/various - pl. read
Message-ID: <chqfok+e6ri@eGroups.com>

SINS & VIRTUES

In response to your various comments, I have now sorted out this 
section as follows:

- I split the original 1.1.1.5 (7 sins & 7 virtues) into two (sins 
and virtues).
- I moved a number of categories which we had already begun up to 
being sub-sets of either sins or virtues (rashness & anger; jealousy; 
justice; forgiveness)
- I added one new sub-set (pride)

This I hope is a useful compromise between adding 14 new sub-
categories versus preserving what we had already started, driven by 
the content we had found. 

The new section now looks like this:

1.1.1.6 Sins
1.1.1.6.1 Rashness & anger (was 1.1.7.2)
1.1.1.6.2 Jealousy (was 1.1.3.2)
1.1.1.6.3 Pride

1.1.1.7 Virtues
1.1.1.7.1 Justice (was 1.1.8)
1.1.1.7.2 Forgiveness (was 1.1.3.3)

We can add new sub-sets as required. The Pegg Kerr essays which 
originally started all this are now split between the two main heads 
sins/virtues, plus any threads that they directly generated. In order 
to split them up I had to recode the following posts which were not 
mine, hope you don't mind - check them if you like:

4434 (Barry)
5892 (Boyd)
5905, 5914, 5919, 5973, 5983, 5997 (Anne)

Finally, as a result of all this, Debbie got her Ambition code 
(1.1.8), which I agree is not either a sin or a virtue. Debbie, could 
you please now check posts [16347, 16352, 16362, 16377], which I 
think are probably in the wrong place because you were waiting for 
this decision.

PSYCHOLOGY
Although this will probably make Barry gnash his teeth, I have added:
1.4.8 Psychological assessments
under characterisation, for all those tragic posts claiming that 
Sirius was suffering from PTSD and not just missing his bike <g>.

ETYMOLOGY/ORIGINS OF NAMES
Although strictly speaking etymology is just the origins of words, I 
thought it was confusing to also have a category called 'Origins of 
names', so I have merged these two together (1.5.1).

Carolyn





From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Sep  9 20:57:09 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:57:09 -0000
Subject: Lycanthropy and Timing
In-Reply-To: <chhah8+d78i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <chqg35+lflf@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "sevenhundredandthirteen" 
<sevenhundredandthirteen at y...> wrote:
> Does discussion about when exactly Lupin transforms into a werewolf 
> count as a Timing Controvesy, or just an aspect of Lycanthropy, or 
> does it need it's own special category about the Controversial 
> Timing of Werewolf Transformations?
> 
> Post 17705 and thread.
> 
> ~<(Laurasia)>~

Carolyn:
I can't make up my mind about this, what does anyone else think? The 
other things under timing controversies are really date-related, eg 
when were Bill & Charlie born.

This is timing in the sense of a sequence of events relating to a 
medical condition, but important to the plot development 
nevertheless. Its the stuff about whether werewolves transform at a 
certain time each month, whether or not the moon is behind a cloud or 
not, or whether Lupin is out in the grounds or in his 
office/Shrieking Shack.

Thoughts?





From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Sep  9 21:07:54 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 21:07:54 -0000
Subject: web host (for later reference)/sinister or not??
In-Reply-To: <chnuqp+68k0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <chqgna+ecin@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "kippesp" <paul-groups at w...> 
wrote:
> 
> http://www.alphaomegahosting.com/premium.html

I noticed that soon after posting this, Paul disappeared as a member 
of this group.. 

Just out for a stroll, or abducted by aliens?

Concerned cataloguers need to know.

Carolyn




From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Thu Sep  9 22:37:00 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (kippesp)
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 22:37:00 -0000
Subject: web host (for later reference)/sinister or not??
In-Reply-To: <chqgna+ecin@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <chqluc+4foh@eGroups.com>

With the FA server switch, my email has been spotty.  It was down 
from Friday to Sunday.  But I think things have been worked out....

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" 
<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "kippesp" <paul-
groups at w...> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > http://www.alphaomegahosting.com/premium.html
> 
> I noticed that soon after posting this, Paul disappeared as a 
member 
> of this group.. 
> 
> Just out for a stroll, or abducted by aliens?
> 
> Concerned cataloguers need to know.
> 
> Carolyn




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Sat Sep 11 15:47:24 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:47:24 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Category changes/various - pl. read
In-Reply-To: <chqfok+e6ri@eGroups.com>
References: <chqfok+e6ri@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E013280A-0409-11D9-99A0-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>

>
>  PSYCHOLOGY
>  Although this will probably make Barry gnash his teeth, I have added:
>  1.4.8 Psychological assessments
>  under characterisation, for all those tragic posts claiming that
>  Sirius was suffering from PTSD and not just missing his bike <g>.


Oh, I don't know, I'll probably refer to it as:
'Posturing Twit Satisfyingly Deceased' for Sirius  and for everyone else
'Predictably Trite, Specious Diagnosis'.
Anyone who attempts psychological assessments of fictional 
characters.... well, it tells you more about them than the characters 
IMO.

Be that as it may, I've finished the batch of posts you assigned.
I suppose you'll dump some more on me now.

Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 773 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040911/92015c18/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sat Sep 11 16:00:39 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:00:39 -0000
Subject: Category changes/various - pl. read
In-Reply-To: <E013280A-0409-11D9-99A0-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <chv7f7+a6pm@eGroups.com>

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

> Oh, I don't know, I'll probably refer to it as:
> 'Posturing Twit Satisfyingly Deceased' for Sirius  and for everyone 
else
> 'Predictably Trite, Specious Diagnosis'.
> Anyone who attempts psychological assessments of fictional 
> characters.... well, it tells you more about them than the 
characters 
> IMO.
> 
> Be that as it may, I've finished the batch of posts you assigned.
> I suppose you'll dump some more on me now.
> 
> Barry

For Barry, ever the voice of sane reason in this wilderness: 18253-
18750, trusting they will not keep him quiet for long, or at all.

Carolyn




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Sep 12 13:33:43 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:33:43 -0000
Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 12th September
Message-ID: <ci1j7n+7se8@eGroups.com>

PROGRESS
We have coded/allocated for coding 26865 posts. Of the 26865, 24536 
have actually been done, and of these 15660 have been rejected - 
63.8%.

This week, with 9 people coding we managed only 789 posts. 

MAGICAL CATALOGUE LAW ENFORCEMENT
See my post earlier this week on ensuring posts are either rejected 
or not. The following posts either have a mix of reject/accepted 
categories, or the reject post box is not ticked. Please can you go 
back to them and sort them out:

Eva: 11972
Barry: 14547
Boyd: 15353
Corinne: 17439

IDLE STATISTICAL TRIVIA/MOST CODED CHARACTERS
Lay your bets now, but this is the field so far:

Harry: 749
Snape: 651
Ron: 376
Hermione: 366
Voldemort: 357
Dumbledore: 321
Sirius: 285
Draco: 269
Remus: 205

NEW CATEGORIES THIS WEEK
1.1.1.6.3 (1103) Pride
1.1.7 (1102) Virtues
1.1.8 (1104) Ambition
1.4.6.4 (1101) Potters
1.4.6.5 (1106) Malfoys
1.4.8 (1105) Psychological assessments

2.2.17 (1107) Dedalus Diggle
2.2.18 (1111) McKinnons
2.8.20 (1112) Bones family
2.12.17 (1108) Lethifold

3.9.6 (1109) Cursed items
3.9.6.1 (1110) Opals




From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Sep 13 21:46:25 2004
From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:46:25 -0000
Subject: Glasses
Message-ID: <ci54fh+fejq@eGroups.com>

Should we have a special section for discussions of eyesight and 
glasses? So far I base this question upon two posts (12032 and 12034) 
which are not very profound, but I think the topic is going to pop up 
later - I am thinking of JKR mentioning that Harry's eyes are his 
weakness.
Or do we already have such a section and have I overlooked it?
So far I have coded them under 3.4.1.

Eva/Sigune




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Tue Sep 14 08:40:18 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:40:18 -0000
Subject: Glasses
In-Reply-To: <ci54fh+fejq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ci6api+a270@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" 
<severelysigune at y...> wrote:
> Should we have a special section for discussions of eyesight and 
> glasses? So far I base this question upon two posts (12032 and 
12034) 
> which are not very profound, but I think the topic is going to pop 
up 
> later - I am thinking of JKR mentioning that Harry's eyes are his 
> weakness.
> Or do we already have such a section and have I overlooked it?
> So far I have coded them under 3.4.1.
> 
> Eva/Sigune


I'd stick with 3.4.1 for now as these were more general about magical 
illnesses and cures. If we find some big threads specifically 
discussing Harry's eyesight/vulnerability/importance of same to plot, 
then we could create a sub-category under Harry, same as we have for 
discussions of his scar, what it means etc.

Carolyn




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Tue Sep 14 20:25:55 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:25:55 -0000
Subject: Ad for technical help on the catalogue
Message-ID: <ci7k4j+an6b@eGroups.com>

Just to let everyone know, the following ad will shortly go up on 
various HP lists as an Admin message from Kelley. If you know any 
HPfGU member who you think might have the necessary skills, please 
draw it to their attention:

IT technical help wanted for interesting HPfGU project. 
Basic skills required: PHP, Python or Java. Need to be able to create 
SQL queries and handle text processing. 
Project will probably take 6 months, possibly longer.  Alas, for 
legal reasons, we can only work with US-based developers, and 
involvement is on strictly voluntary basis. However unlimited 
butterbeer and chocolate frogs to the chosen few. 
If you are interested in helping, please contact us at: 
developerapp at hpfgu.org.uk




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Tue Sep 14 21:05:11 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:05:11 -0000
Subject: That veil...
Message-ID: <ci7me7+fpj8@eGroups.com>

Just picked up this snippet from post 19219 in connection with 
Cassandra relative of Trelawny, and written before OOP came out.

"Madame Blavatsky was the founder of the 
Teosophist Society in New York at the end of the 19th century. 
Claimed she had a connection to the akashic-world-memory and 
spiritual beings told him the truth about how humans came into this 
world. Spent many years in Tibet and wrote at least a book 
called "The Veil of Isis".

This is an interesting link explaining about the book: 
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/theos/th-isisj.htm

Hm..more connections between batty old Trelawny, the despised subject 
of Divination, the textbook they are using, the arch at the MoM etc 
etc

Caroyn




From annemehr at yahoo.com  Wed Sep 15 03:45:24 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:45:24 -0000
Subject: Trio Dynamics
Message-ID: <ci8dsk+v74k@eGroups.com>

Do we have a category for this? I've been coding a lot about "who
Harry would miss (most)" and who ought to apologise/forgive in PoA and
GoF. Definitely not SHIPping.  I've just been coding to the relevant
chapters and each of the three characters, but was wondering if there
is or should be a category similar to the "family dynamics" ones we
have now?

Anne

P.S. Under Neville, might it be useful to have a category for Memory
Charm theories?

P.P.S I realise at a certain point adding categories becomes
problematic, as there are bound to be more and more posts previously
coded that would have fit into the new ones...




From annemehr at yahoo.com  Wed Sep 15 03:49:31 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:49:31 -0000
Subject: Trio Dynamics: addendum
In-Reply-To: <ci8dsk+v74k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ci8e4b+p1ch@eGroups.com>

And before you admonish me to, Carolyn, let me assure you that I have
also been using the new "forgiveness" category where appropriate!  :)

Anne

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" <annemehr at y...> wrote:
> Do we have a category for this? I've been coding a lot about "who
> Harry would miss (most)" and who ought to apologise/forgive in PoA and
> GoF. Definitely not SHIPping.  I've just been coding to the relevant
> chapters and each of the three characters, but was wondering if there
> is or should be a category similar to the "family dynamics" ones we
> have now?
> 
> Anne
> 
> P.S. Under Neville, might it be useful to have a category for Memory
> Charm theories?
> 
> P.P.S I realise at a certain point adding categories becomes
> problematic, as there are bound to be more and more posts previously
> coded that would have fit into the new ones...




From elfundeb at comcast.net  Wed Sep 15 04:08:36 2004
From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:08:36 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Trio Dynamics
References: <ci8dsk+v74k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007f01c49ad9$acb01c60$1502a8c0@TOSHIBALAPTOP>

Annemehr wrote:

<<I've been coding a lot about "who
Harry would miss (most)" and who ought to apologise/forgive in PoA and
GoF. Definitely not SHIPping.  I've just been coding to the relevant
chapters and each of the three characters, but was wondering if there
is or should be a category similar to the "family dynamics" ones we
have now?>>

I just finished a set with quite a few posts on the same or a similar thread.  I found 1.1.3, Friendship, love & loyalty, to fit a lot of the posts.

Debbie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040915/1790b9ca/attachment.html>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Wed Sep 15 21:42:35 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:42:35 -0000
Subject: Tolkein a drunken sot..
Message-ID: <ciad0b+qp48@eGroups.com>

>From post 19320:

Tolkien liked to spend evenings drinking beer while singing viking
songs in their original languages, and some of his colleagues
considered him less than fully serious. After his death in 1973 one
colleague lamented the loss of "a very fine medieval scholar who
might have done so much more work of lasting value."


Carolyn
still in snippet mode...and trying to remember the Philosopher's 
drinking song..come on Barry, help me out, something about Descartes 
being a drunken fart and Aristotle a bugger for the bottle...

Apologies etc for lowering the tone..




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Wed Sep 15 22:12:13 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:12:13 -0000
Subject: Trio Dynamics
In-Reply-To: <007f01c49ad9$acb01c60$1502a8c0@TOSHIBALAPTOP>
Message-ID: <ciaent+ncf3@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "elfundeb" <elfundeb at c...> 
wrote:
> Annemehr wrote:
> 
> <<I've been coding a lot about "who
> Harry would miss (most)" and who ought to apologise/forgive in PoA 
and
> GoF. Definitely not SHIPping.  I've just been coding to the relevant
> chapters and each of the three characters, but was wondering if 
there
> is or should be a category similar to the "family dynamics" ones we
> have now?>>
> 
> I just finished a set with quite a few posts on the same or a 
similar thread.  I found 1.1.3, Friendship, love & loyalty, to fit a 
lot of the posts.
> 
> Debbie


I think I agree with Debbie here. 'Trio dynamics' could be 
interpreted rather widely and people might accidentally put SHIPS in 
there.

However, I have been thinking how useful it would be to have two 
shorthand notations: HRH and MWPP. Would save a lot of clicking, but 
can't quite see where it should go..and what about all the posts we 
have now already done. Hum.

Re Memory Charmed Neville - this begs the question of what do we do 
with all the theory categories generally. At the moment, as I have 
said to a few people offlist recently, I am thinking it is too 
difficult to set these categories in advance. Eventually though we 
will sort through all the posts on one character, and decided on a 
set of sub-categories to put them all into. Eg, you could have Snape 
& Love, and under that put LOLLIPOPS and all the rest, Snape & Spying 
and so on. The categories will be different for each character, 
depending on the type of theories that have been dreamt up.

Carolyn
not being all that decisive tonight




From annemehr at yahoo.com  Thu Sep 16 02:37:21 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:37:21 -0000
Subject: Underage, uncontrolled magic
Message-ID: <ciau91+uesm@eGroups.com>

First off, I agree with the Trio coding conclusions -- we probably
will end up with HRH and MWPP codes somewhere, but the "second pass"
might be a better time to place them.

Anyway, how are people coding posts involving uncontrolled magic (such
as Harry turning the teacher's wig blue)?  It doesn't seem to fit
under 3.3.5 Age of consent and underage magic (under the Law and Order
section) even though much of it *is* underage, just because the MoM
isn't involved.

So I'm wavering between 3.8.1 Magical ability, and 3.8.3.1 Wandless
magic, even though the latter "feels" like it's for intentional
wandless magic.

Anyone?

Anne





From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Thu Sep 16 08:04:16 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:04:16 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Tolkein a drunken sot..
In-Reply-To: <ciad0b+qp48@eGroups.com>
References: <ciad0b+qp48@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <0141F192-07B7-11D9-A426-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>


On 15 Sep 2004, at 22:42, carolynwhite2 wrote:

> From post 19320:
>
>  Tolkien liked to spend evenings drinking beer while singing viking
>  songs in their original languages, and some of his colleagues
>  considered him less than fully serious. After his death in 1973 one
>  colleague lamented the loss of "a very fine medieval scholar who
>  might have done so much more work of lasting value."
>
>
>  Carolyn
>  still in snippet mode...and trying to remember the Philosopher's
>  drinking song..come on Barry, help me out, something about Descartes
>  being a drunken fart and Aristotle a bugger for the bottle...
>
>  Apologies etc for lowering the tone..


Ah, Four Australian philosophers called Bruce.
Not much point in having a tone unless there's some-one around to lower 
it.....

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
  Who was very rarely stable.

  Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
  Who could think you under the table.

  David Hume could out-consume
  Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,

  And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
  Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

  There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
  'Bout the raising of the wrist.
  Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

  John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
  On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

  Plato, they say, could stick it away--
  Half a crate of whisky every day.

  Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
  Hobbes was fond of his dram,

  And Ren? Descartes was a drunken fart.
  'I drink, therefore I am.'

  Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
  A lovely little thinker,
  But a bugger when he's pissed.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 2929 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040916/ca7bf5ca/attachment.bin>

From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Thu Sep 16 08:37:17 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:37:17 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Tolkein a drunken sot..
In-Reply-To: <0141F192-07B7-11D9-A426-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
References: <ciad0b+qp48@eGroups.com> <0141F192-07B7-11D9-A426-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <9DD06988-07BB-11D9-A426-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>

>>
>>  Carolyn
>>  still in snippet mode...and trying to remember the Philosopher's
>>  drinking song..come on Barry, help me out, something about Descartes
>>  being a drunken fart and Aristotle a bugger for the bottle...
>>
>>  Apologies etc for lowering the tone..
>
>
> Ah, Four Australian philosophers called Bruce.
> Not much point in having a tone unless there's some-one around to 
> lower it.....


Additional information:

If you want to hear this song (in glorious lo-fi) you'll need a 
computer with speakers. Then access the Philosophy Dept website at the 
University of Adelaide library.....

Can't  supply  a link, I'm afraid - there's a hash-mark in there
that doesn't appear on an iMac keyboard, but it's

www.library.adelaide.edu.au/guide/hum/philosophy/index.html*toc

Insert hash-mark in place of *

Then  click on 'Some light relief'

Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 962 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040916/5727383b/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Sep 16 09:48:05 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:48:05 -0000
Subject: Tolkein a drunken sot..
In-Reply-To: <0141F192-07B7-11D9-A426-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <cibngl+r5ep@eGroups.com>

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

> Ah, Four Australian philosophers called Bruce.
> Not much point in having a tone unless there's some-one around to 
lower 
> it.....


...and a splendid example of the British education system at its 
best/worst, Shaun and GulPlum take note. You put very talented people 
through its hallowed halls; half of them try to rule the world, the 
other half fall about laughing and knock it all down with idle 
ridicule. 

The Gred and Forge approach in a nutshell.

Carolyn

'Listen' said Harry firmly...'I could do with a few laughs. We could 
all do with a few laughs. I've got a feeling we're going to need them 
more than usual before long.'







From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Sep 16 20:47:16 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:47:16 -0000
Subject: Godric's Hollow - yet another take on it
Message-ID: <cicu4k+ilsm@eGroups.com>

>From Post 18159 

Doreen:
Which makes me wonder if Voldemort, indeed, did the killing. What if 
he forced Pettigrew to do it, to show that he was really loyal to 
him, Voldemort? Pettigrew snitched on the Potters, after having been 
trusted with their secret. What would prove his loyalty more than his 
killing the Potters for Voldemort? This could also explain why the 
curse went bad, if Pettigrew was doing it with Voldemort's wand. 





From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Sun Sep 19 04:00:56 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (kippesp)
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 04:00:56 -0000
Subject: Catalog down starting Tuesday
Message-ID: <cij09o+1fjn@eGroups.com>

I'll need to shut down the catalog server on Tuesday until Thursday 
since I'll be going out of town.





From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Sep 19 11:32:11 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:32:11 -0000
Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 19th September
Message-ID: <cijqnr+aff6@eGroups.com>

PROGRESS
We have coded/allocated for coding 27615 posts; of the 27615, 25730 
have actually been coded, and of the 25730, 16205 have been rejected 
(63%).

This week, with 6 people coding, we have managed 1203 posts between 
us, and we are up to post 19800 on the main list.

CATALOGUING CRIMES
Erm, please can you sort out reject/non-reject status on:

Boyd: 15353
Kathy: 18182
Corinne: 17439

MORE STATS TRIVIA
Top 10 themes from section 1:

Voldemort's agenda: 231
Etymology/origin of names: 222
Portrayal of males/females/gays: 191
Godric's Hollow/death of L&J: 182
Plot development: 160
Dumbledore's agenda: 149
Friendship, love & loyalty: 144
Spying, espionage & betrayal: 111
Originality & use of stereotypes: 100
Foreshadowing, clues & misdirection: 98

GROUP MEMBERS:
Pleased to welcome KathyK (zanelupin), who foolishly admitted to 
having time on her hands, and Tim Regan (dumbledad), who responded to 
our ad for IT help, and mostly will be helping Paul with that rather 
than coding. 

However, he also has a very mad text analysis project of his own 
(madder than this even), which I'll leave him to explain, but 
apparently our catalogue might be of use to him in his research. 

NEW CATEGORY:
2.10.10 (1113) Frank Bryce









From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Tue Sep 21 11:58:13 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:58:13 -0000
Subject: Theory acronyms..
Message-ID: <cip50l+g011@eGroups.com>

Just to alert you all, since we are now in the 20000s, that we are 
entering acronym territory soon. The earliest one I can find on the 
Inish Alley list is 23415 REST(Reading for Entertainment, Style & 
IntenT), followed by 25575 CRAB (Cut Ron a Break), but they build 
pretty fast after that.

Remember to only code things to the acronym if the theory is actually 
mentioned in the text of the post, or if a post is directly 
discussing a named theory. Other codes should also be ticked in 
addition to the theory acronym, reflecting the content of the theory. 

I'll be keeping a running tally of theories in the Sunday updates, 
including how many posts they have attracted, so we can make 
decisions on whether to keep them as headings or not.

Carolyn

PS - we have only been using FITD and OBHWF up to now (SHIP section).




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Thu Sep 23 20:20:25 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:20:25 -0000
Subject: Are we wasting our time?
Message-ID: <civb69+r3np@eGroups.com>

See: 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/24441

Steve is offering a CD which can be text searched. I know Dicentra 
has already done this for herself, maybe others too.

Assuming it's legal for him to do this, is this really what people 
want, rather than the painstaking work we are doing?

It kills me to ask, obviously, but I feel I should.

Carolyn




From darkthirty at shaw.ca  Thu Sep 23 21:59:11 2004
From: darkthirty at shaw.ca (dark thirty)
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:59:11 -0700
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Are we wasting our time?
Message-ID: <4df46034df2cac.4df2cac4df4603@shaw.ca>

Carolyn - oh, absolutely, if it's possible. This is what I was doing on my own as well. I always felt that the catalogue project, if possible, should take this kind of thing and provide "approaches" to the text, ways to look at it, suggestions of catagories or kwic (keyword in context) ways to see it, results from some people's "regular expression" searches on the material. 

What it doesn't do, however, is deal with cataloguing FPs.


----- Original Message -----
From: carolynwhite2 <carolynwhite2 at aol.com>
Date: Thursday, September 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Are we wasting our time?

> See: 
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/24441
> 
> Steve is offering a CD which can be text searched. I know Dicentra 
> has already done this for herself, maybe others too.
> 
> Assuming it's legal for him to do this, is this really what people 
> want, rather than the painstaking work we are doing?
> 
> It kills me to ask, obviously, but I feel I should.
> 
> Carolyn
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------
> ~--> 
> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/1hIolB/TM
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -~-> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 




From elfundeb at comcast.net  Fri Sep 24 01:58:50 2004
From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:58:50 -0000
Subject: Are we wasting our time?
In-Reply-To: <civb69+r3np@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <civv0q+11ctn@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" 
<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> See: 
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/24441
> 
> Steve is offering a CD which can be text searched. I know Dicentra 
> has already done this for herself, maybe others too.
> 
> Assuming it's legal for him to do this, is this really what people 
> want, rather than the painstaking work we are doing?

I have serious doubts about the legality of packaging copyrighted 
material and selling it, even at cost (though we can't stop 
individuals from copying the posts).

Text searching on a CD will bring up thousands of posts that will be 
eliminated from the catalogue.  Thus, the catalogue should be a much 
better tool for directing readers to posts that are worth reading.
As a result, if we ever want FPs to actually be written, we'll want 
a catalogue.

At least that's my opinion.

Debbie






From annemehr at yahoo.com  Fri Sep 24 03:35:19 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 03:35:19 -0000
Subject: Are we wasting our time?
In-Reply-To: <civb69+r3np@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cj04ln+31d6@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2"
<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> See: 
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/24441
> 
> Steve is offering a CD which can be text searched. I know Dicentra 
> has already done this for herself, maybe others too.
> 
> Assuming it's legal for him to do this, is this really what people 
> want, rather than the painstaking work we are doing?
> 
> It kills me to ask, obviously, but I feel I should.
> 
> Carolyn

I'd think we'd still want to do the catalogue.  How many people are
actually going to mail Steve the money and get the CD?  We need
something people can get at with a couple of clicks, for free, or else
hardly anyone will search the archives at all.  After all, a
disappointingly large number of people bring up a subject without even
bothering to see whether it's been discussed in the past few days.

Not that I mightn't still send for the CD!

Anne





From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Fri Sep 24 08:12:52 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 03:12:52 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Are we wasting our time?
In-Reply-To: <cj04ln+31d6@eGroups.com>
References: <civb69+r3np@eGroups.com> <cj04ln+31d6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <c89e39d50409240112303f8ddf@mail.gmail.com>

As long as he doesn't make a profit.  If I got pissed off at things,
I'd probably be pissed at this.  He wouldn't have the CD if it wasn't
for my building the archive of posts.

Since he didn't ask my permission (or for that matter MEG's), I don't
think I'll bother making those archive files.  That is how I read his
post: a complete download of the archive.  And I can't imagine there
are two insane people who archive these messages...but I could be
wrong.

I wouldn't worry about any value-add his CD gives.  It only saves
people time from downloading the messages.  Once they get the files,
their PC must be zippy enough to search the files.  I imagine only a
tiny percentage of people have the tools to speedily and conveniently
search these files.  I know I don't.  (Example I know would be X1 or
Lotus Magellan.)


----- Original Message -----
From: annemehr <annemehr at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 03:35:19 -0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Are we wasting our time?
To: hpfgu-catalogue at yahoogroups.com

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2"
<carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> See: 
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/24441
> 
> Steve is offering a CD which can be text searched. I know Dicentra 
> has already done this for herself, maybe others too.
> 
> Assuming it's legal for him to do this, is this really what people 
> want, rather than the painstaking work we are doing?
> 
> It kills me to ask, obviously, but I feel I should.
> 
> Carolyn

I'd think we'd still want to do the catalogue.  How many people are
actually going to mail Steve the money and get the CD?  We need
something people can get at with a couple of clicks, for free, or else
hardly anyone will search the archives at all.  After all, a
disappointingly large number of people bring up a subject without even
bothering to see whether it's been discussed in the past few days.

Not that I mightn't still send for the CD!

Anne






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.



From timregan at microsoft.com  Fri Sep 24 13:03:32 2004
From: timregan at microsoft.com (Tim Regan)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:03:32 -0000
Subject: Are we wasting our time?
In-Reply-To: <c89e39d50409240112303f8ddf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cj15v4+6u1r@eGroups.com>

Hi All,

I'm not yet up-to-date on progress here so sorry if I'm talking 
rubbish.

Steve is exactly the kind of HPfGU member who will benefit from the 
work here. The fact that he and others are already using Paul's 
archive and automated text searching tools to circumvent Yahoomort 
shows what a huge demand there is for the catalogue. It's great news.

The problem it presents, I think, is one of publicity. It suggests 
to me that the detail and the timescales of the cataloguing project 
are not widely understood among HPfGU members. Thus Steve and others 
are spending time building ad-hoc solutions when they could wait ??? 
months for the results of the catalogue to start to become available.

Steve's plan also makes me wonder if we should make a full install 
of the messages, the meta data, and the search tools available for 
those who would prefer them to a web search interface. In any case, 
some of the technologies Paul's planning to use (e.g. a SQL server) 
are not the kind of applications that most users will be comfortable 
installing on their own machines, so for the majority of people the 
search interface we are working towards will be their best option.

As Anne pointed out a search tool and a catalogue are very different 
beasts. Engines like Google are not just running a text search, the 
clever bit is the ranking of the results. That's why we have the 
counter-intuitive position we are in now where it is easier to 
search billions of documents on the web than the documents on one's 
hard drive.

But the real difference, and the reason cataloguing is hard, is the 
meta information. If I have a "new" theory on Harry's name and 
search through all the HPfGU posts for the text "Harry" and "name" I 
will get back thousands and thousands of successful hits. Which are 
important? Who knows, and that's where the catalogue will prove 
invaluable.

Cheers,

Dumbledad.




From timregan at microsoft.com  Fri Sep 24 14:00:27 2004
From: timregan at microsoft.com (Tim Regan)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:00:27 -0000
Subject: Are we wasting our time?
In-Reply-To: <4df46034df2cac.4df2cac4df4603@shaw.ca>
Message-ID: <cj199r+65fp@eGroups.com>

Hi All,

Sorry, I didn't read all the replies to Carolyn's post before 
chipping in.

Dan wrote:
>>> the catalogue project, if possible, should take this kind of 
thing and provide "approaches" to the text, ways to look at it, 
suggestions of catagories or kwic (keyword in context) ways to see 
it, results from some people's "regular expression" searches on the 
material. <<<

Another cool thing we could do, as a web based centralized 
catalogue, is to make visible what search queries and categories 
other members recently used ? a kind of "what topics are hot reading 
now" facility.

Cheers,

Dumbledad.




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Fri Sep 24 14:41:59 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:41:59 -0000
Subject: Are we wasting our time?/Some thoughts...
Message-ID: <cj1bnn+gnqo@eGroups.com>

There seem to be two issues here, or possibly three if you include 
the legal POV.

Firstly, what people are likely to want from an improved search 
function.

Secondly, whether the way we are working is the best/most efficient 
way of creating the improved search.


(1) What do people want?

IMO, people want the following:

(a) to search for threads on topics/characters
(b) to search for posts by particular author
(c) to be offered content to browse
(d) to have irrelevant or repetitive content filtered out
(e) to have their attention drawn to outstanding posts

I think it is important to have functions that enable you to look for 
what you want, but also menus to browse, which may prompt a whole 
string of new ideas. People really have no idea what is in the 
archives, and alongside their quest to find everything ever written 
on eg Snape, they should also be offered the chance to find 
collections of posts on a myriad of other topics that they'd never 
even thought of.

Once people find the type of content they are looking for, I cannot 
see why anyone would want to plough through endlessly repetitive, 
incorrect or trivial/mainly OT posts in their attempt to read up on 
past ideas. By the same token, surely anyone would like to have what 
are considered to be FPs flagged up, if only for the opportunity of 
disagreeing with the assessment?

I am stating the blindingly obvious perhaps, but I think it is 
necessary in order to point up the disadvantages of simply text-
searching the complete body of past posts. Anyone who uses Internet 
search engines regularly will be painfully aware of the difference 
between knowing exactly what you are looking for and locating it, and 
searching for relevant hits on questions you are still formulating; 
the rubbish quotient is formidable. As Debbie says (648):

>>>Text searching on a CD will bring up thousands of posts that will 
be
eliminated from the catalogue. Thus, the catalogue should be a much
better tool for directing readers to posts that are worth reading.
As a result, if we ever want FPs to actually be written, we'll want
a catalogue.<<<<

This issue has come up before. David (526) said:

>>>I confess part of my thinking here is that, given we have a 
database
of the entire list here, why not use it? It would be great to be able
to call up all posts that, say, include the text
string 'Hermione' and are categorised as 'Snape'. This would give a
different (but overlapping) set to those categorised as 'Hermione'
and including the string 'Snape'. What about all posts
categorised 'Snape' but *not* including the text string 'vampire'?
Or all such posts whose author was Pippin, posted between GOF
release and OOP release. Really, I think you are sitting on
something of a goldmine here, and to focus only on the categories is
to miss out.<<<

My point is that it is important to have both the category approach, 
to prompt investigation, plus other types of search functions to 
locate content when you are more sure of what you are looking for. 
However, I am saying that it is not worth our while, or IMO, the 
members' time, to include all past posts in the content to be 
searched. Currently we are rejecting over 60%, and I think that is a 
good thing.

Paul has recently put forward some new ideas on how to build this 
part of the catalogue which we are going to discuss with Tim shortly. 
Just as soon as something clear emerges, I'll post it here for 
comment from you all. It is perhaps the second most important part of 
the catalogue, apart from the initial weeding, sorting and 
categorising of the posts themselves.

Finally, Paul suggests (650) that the practicality of the CD approach 
is severely limited by people's computing power:

>>>Once they get the files,
their PC must be zippy enough to search the files. I imagine only a
tiny percentage of people have the tools to speedily and conveniently
search these files. I know I don't. (Example I know would be X1 or
Lotus Magellan.)<<<

The eventual catalogue presented to the members will be easily 
searchable by anyone who can access the HPfGU website. To aim for 
anything less defeats the object - which is to try and get everyone 
to read, think and add to what has gone before, rather than keep re-
inventing the wheel.

I also really like Tim's idea of have a 'what's hot' section 
eventually, which keeps tabs on the areas attracting most posts at 
any particular time. Ahem, this assumes a catalogue team able to 
continue on and on into the far distant future..

(2) Our approach - right/wrong?

Dan comments (647):
>>>Carolyn - oh, absolutely, if it's possible. This is what I was 
doing on my own
as well. I always felt that the catalogue project, if possible, 
should take this
kind of thing and provide "approaches" to the text, ways to look at 
it,
suggestions of catagories or kwic (keyword in context) ways to see 
it, results
from some people's "regular expression" searches on the material.

What it doesn't do, however, is deal with cataloguing FPs.<<<<

>From a past YM conversation with Dan, what I think he is referring to 
here is an approach which takes the existing body of 100,000+ posts, 
and first of all sets out to allocate them to a number of main 
catagories. He then suggests that we go over those five main 
categories again using ever finer definitions.

The five main categories he suggested we might use were: reject, 
meta, star (funny, cute etc.), plot (incl characters, WW), outcome 
theory. He felt that reading posts initially to reject or accept 
would be very fast, and would quickly separate out the wheat from the 
chaff. The task of refining the coding on the accepted posts would 
then be a lot quicker.

The kwic (key word in context) approach would be used (I think) to 
determine both the initial main categories and the subsequent sub-
categories. Kwic describes how people quickly decide what gets their 
real attention, and what is just scanned (for example in assessing 
posts to read on the main list). It equates to a list of personal 
buzz words/phrases, in effect.

Essentially, he is arguing against building up/refining the list of 
categories from scratch as we have done, based on what we find post-
by-post, but proposing a top-down approach, based on people's 
collective search preferences. [Correct me if I have misunderstood, 
Dan; I am also not sure how far you are suggesting that any of this 
is automated].

My reservations about this approach are as follows:
(a) It is just not possible to run through 100 000+ posts any quicker 
than we are doing. If we are reading them once, and deciding whether 
to accept or reject, in my view it takes very little extra time to 
add the appropriate coding. The ones that take a long time to read 
and code would take just as long either route.

(b) The resulting main categories and sub-categories from the kwic 
approach are unlikely to be vastly different from those we are 
working with anyway.

(c) The organic, bottom-up approach reflects the way the list 
developed and evolves with the subjects. As we continue, we will be 
able to see which subjects attract the most posts in a highly 
scientific way, and make decisions on which topics to drop through 
lack of interest, and which to fragment further to reflect their 
growing complexity as ideas build on ideas. I think this reflects the 
membership's interests over time as accurately as Dan's proposed 
method.

However, if there is a consensus that we have set ourselves an un-
doable task and we would be better to stop and re-think, and consider 
a different approach, then do make some constructive suggestions, all 
of you.

Carolyn
Masochistically pleased to be able to get back into the catalogue 
again after a few days absence. 




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Fri Sep 24 14:51:23 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:51:23 -0000
Subject: Timescales/Tim
In-Reply-To: <cj15v4+6u1r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cj1c9b+m26o@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Tim Regan" <timregan at m...> 
wrote:
> 
> The problem it presents, I think, is one of publicity. It suggests 
> to me that the detail and the timescales of the cataloguing project 
> are not widely understood among HPfGU members. Thus Steve and 
others 
> are spending time building ad-hoc solutions when they could 
wait ??? 
> months for the results of the catalogue to start to become 
available.
> 

The reason that the majority of the HPfGU members don't know about 
the project yet is because we don't have a plan to explain. Also, 
initially, there were some substantial legal issues to work through, 
which are now a good deal clearer.

If it is possible that you can find some time to work with Paul to 
help get a prototype interface written, this starts to make the whole 
project a reality. I have also suggested several times that we might 
consider a partial launch once we have catalogued say, 50 000 posts. 
Perhaps early 2005 might be a possibility for that.

Anyway, catch up with you offlist about Paul's detailed suggestions 
which he sent last week.

Carolyn 




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Fri Sep 24 18:23:19 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:23:19 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Are we wasting our time?
In-Reply-To: <civb69+r3np@eGroups.com>
References: <civb69+r3np@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <CF602CB2-0E56-11D9-846A-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>

Tut, tut.

*Never* ask people what they want - you're bound to get an answer you 
don't like.

A searchable disk sounds OK, but it'd be hell to use.
No, I suggest we plod ever onward, heads bowed with sweat and strain, 
counting not the cost, heeding not the wounds, until we finally reach 
the sunny uplands and we can look back and ask "Why the hell did I  let 
myself  in for that lot?"

Barry



> See:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/24441
>
>  Steve is offering a CD which can be text searched. I know Dicentra
>  has already done this for herself, maybe others too.
>
>  Assuming it's legal for him to do this, is this really what people
>  want, rather than the painstaking work we are doing?
>
>  It kills me to ask, obviously, but I feel I should.
>
>  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: 1815 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040924/8c3cc704/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Fri Sep 24 19:13:53 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:13:53 -0000
Subject: Are we wasting our time?
In-Reply-To: <CF602CB2-0E56-11D9-846A-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <cj1rlh+ql97@eGroups.com>

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

> No, I suggest we plod ever onward, heads bowed with sweat and 
strain, 
> counting not the cost, heeding not the wounds, until we finally 
reach 
> the sunny uplands and we can look back and ask "Why the hell did I  
let 
> myself  in for that lot?"
> 
> Barry
> 


It'll be a pleasure to crack the whip...
Carolyn




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Fri Sep 24 19:22:15 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:22:15 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Are we wasting our time?
In-Reply-To: <cj1rlh+ql97@eGroups.com>
References: <cj1rlh+ql97@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <0B500824-0E5F-11D9-846A-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>



> --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith
>  <arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
>
>  > No, I suggest we plod ever onward, heads bowed with sweat and
>  strain,
>  > counting not the cost, heeding not the wounds, until we finally
>  reach
>  > the sunny uplands and we can look back and ask "Why the hell did I?
>  let
>  > myself? in for that lot?"
>  >
>  > Barry
>  >
>
>
>  It'll be a pleasure to crack the whip...
>  Carolyn
>

Ah, yes. That reminds me.
It's about time I put together another epic of the life and times of
Madam Whiplash. I've been ignoring Hermione recently.
Hmm. I  wonder....

Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 846 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040924/32df832d/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sat Sep 25 14:12:40 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 14:12:40 -0000
Subject: Ooh good, the rot's setting in..
Message-ID: <cj3uco+hksq@eGroups.com>

from post 21050 -

It would be quite interesting if it turns out the 
Malfoy's aren't half bad and Dumbledore really has been plotting 
world domination from the start.
DM





From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Sat Sep 25 21:19:04 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:19:04 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Ooh good, the rot's setting in..
In-Reply-To: <cj3uco+hksq@eGroups.com>
References: <cj3uco+hksq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8736DB48-0F38-11D9-900F-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>



> from post 21050 -
>
>  It would be quite interesting if it turns out the
>  Malfoy's aren't half bad and Dumbledore really has been plotting
>  world domination from the start.
>  DM
>
>
>

The rot starts before then.... there's a thread that kicks off at 18428 
"Dumbledore is evil".

Pretty tentative so far, but I haven't got far into it yet.


Barry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 451 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040925/651a7b26/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Sep 26 18:03:28 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 18:03:28 -0000
Subject: Ooh good, the rot's setting in..
In-Reply-To: <8736DB48-0F38-11D9-900F-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <cj709g+gr69@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> 
> > from post 21050 -
> >
> >  It would be quite interesting if it turns out the
> >  Malfoy's aren't half bad and Dumbledore really has been plotting
> >  world domination from the start.
> >  DM
> >

> The rot starts before then.... there's a thread that kicks off at 
18428 
> "Dumbledore is evil".
> 
> Pretty tentative so far, but I haven't got far into it yet.
> 
> Barry

Hm, looks promising, but I can see the PC brigade massing on the 
horizon. They strung up my poster (DM) too, but not before she also 
managed to suggest that Dobby was insane and the Malfoys' treatment 
of him was perfectly ok. The best bit of the row was when she 
apologised and said she hadn't realised this wasn't a site for 
theorising...priceless. Hope she re-surfaces..

Carolyn
..bolshie from a day asserting her right to roam in the English 
countryside [US readers note - class war continues alive and kicking 
in the UK].






From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Sep 26 18:43:34 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 18:43:34 -0000
Subject: Update, Sunday 26th September
Message-ID: <cj72km+sjjh@eGroups.com>

PROGRESS
We have currently coded/allocated for coding 29315 posts. Of the the 
29315, 27071 have actually been coded, and of the 27071, 16825 have 
been rejected - 62%.

This week, even though we only had 6 people coding, and had the 
database shut for 3 days, surprisingly, we managed to do 1028 
posts...thanks! Clearly, withdrawal symptoms kicking in at the 
weekend.

We are up to post 21500 on the main list.

and, um, that's it this week. No new categories, no catalogue crimes..


Is anyone reading Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell? Do you reckon it 
lives up to the hype??

Carolyn






From annemehr at yahoo.com  Sun Sep 26 20:04:33 2004
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 20:04:33 -0000
Subject: Ooh good, the rot's setting in..
In-Reply-To: <cj709g+gr69@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cj77ch+335q@eGroups.com>

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

> Carolyn
> ..bolshie from a day asserting her right to roam in the English 
> countryside [US readers note - class war continues alive and kicking 
> in the UK].

Eh? Does it have anything to do with footpaths? Or are you a fox
hunter?  <beg>

Anne
--and, yes, I *know* 'bolshie' and 'fox hunter' don't go together...





From paul-groups at wibbles.org  Sun Sep 26 21:53:43 2004
From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 16:53:43 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Update, Sunday 26th September
In-Reply-To: <cj72km+sjjh@eGroups.com>
References: <cj72km+sjjh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <c89e39d5040926145391f5c00@mail.gmail.com>

I'm waiting to get it from my library.  I passed on one of my
libraries with 81 people waiting.  But at another library (with
several copies on order), I'm 18th.


----- Original Message -----
From: carolynwhite2 <carolynwhite2 at aol.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 18:43:34 -0000
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Update, Sunday 26th September
To: hpfgu-catalogue at yahoogroups.com

PROGRESS
We have currently coded/allocated for coding 29315 posts. Of the the 
29315, 27071 have actually been coded, and of the 27071, 16825 have 
been rejected - 62%.

This week, even though we only had 6 people coding, and had the 
database shut for 3 days, surprisingly, we managed to do 1028 
posts...thanks! Clearly, withdrawal symptoms kicking in at the 
weekend.

We are up to post 21500 on the main list.

and, um, that's it this week. No new categories, no catalogue crimes..


Is anyone reading Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell? Do you reckon it 
lives up to the hype??

Carolyn



From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com  Sun Sep 26 23:30:09 2004
From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:30:09 -0000
Subject: Are we wasting our time?/Some thoughts...
In-Reply-To: <cj1bnn+gnqo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cj7je1+71uj@eGroups.com>

Carolyn wrote:
> (1) What do people want?
> 
> IMO, people want the following:
> 
> (a) to search for threads on topics/characters
> (b) to search for posts by particular author
> (c) to be offered content to browse
> (d) to have irrelevant or repetitive content filtered out
> (e) to have their attention drawn to outstanding posts

Just to chip in my two kunts.

There is the problem of standardisation. That is, using a word 
search and putting in the keyword 'Voldemort' won't brind up any 
matches with posts discussing: Voldy/Voldie/Vmort/V'mort/V-
mort/V/Lord V/LV/Lord Thingy/You-Know-Who/YKW/He-Who-Must-Not-Be-
Named/HWMNBN/Tom/Tommy/Tom Riddle/TR/TMR/The Dark Lord/Voldrmot 
countelss other typos etc, etc, etc.

Without standardisation there is no way to cross-reference posts and 
ideas. Without some kind of standardisation there is no way for 
newbies to find out what has already been said. However, the 
catalogue is all about standardisation.

I foresee three different ways of using the catalogue: 
Search (for specific posts which would be tedious to find using the 
current search) 
Browse (for nothing in particular)
Cross-Reference (to see if your ideas have already been discussed)

A text search will only be good if you are searching for a very 
particular post. If you know the author and the content then a word 
search will be fine. 

But if you just want to find out if anyone has thought about whether 
Draco Malfoy might be an animagus? What kind of search criteria 
do you use? Draco? Malfoy? DM? Ferret Boy? Animagus? Animagi? What 
about if the posts only say 'Can he turn himself into an animal?'

The catalogue is more than just filtering out bad posts- it's 
standardising the terminology used so that there is continuity 
across the entire archive.

~<(Laurasia)>~




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Mon Sep 27 08:50:51 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 08:50:51 -0000
Subject: right to roam
In-Reply-To: <cj77ch+335q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <cj8k9b+ltfg@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" <annemehr at y...> 
wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2"
> <carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> 
> > Carolyn
> > ..bolshie from a day asserting her right to roam in the English 
> > countryside [US readers note - class war continues alive and 
kicking 
> > in the UK].
> 
> Eh? Does it have anything to do with footpaths? Or are you a fox
> hunter?  <beg>
> 
> Anne
> --and, yes, I *know* 'bolshie' and 'fox hunter' don't go together...

Carolyn:
Bad!Bad!Anne..<g>.. footpaths dept here, for sure. [*Horror-struck* 
at the idea of being taken for a fox hunter..]. There has recently 
been some new legislation enacted, opening up some previously-closed 
areas of the English countryside to walkers and ramblers, basically 
on private land. More will be opened up progressively over the next 
few years, and many keen walkers like myself have been out in autumn 
sun this week taking advantage of our new liberties. 

The landowners' issues have been about trespass, privacy, damage to 
crops, frightening animals etc. But walkers are mainly an incredibly 
responsible lot, and its been proved in many rural areas that they 
are a major source of income for the local economy, so the landowners 
have caved in at last - extremely reluctantly in some cases.

I don't know about the US, but the situation is totally different in 
places like France and Italy. There, all land is regarded as national 
property and you can walk anywhere you like, although you are not 
allowed to touch or damage anything that belongs to the 'owner' - eg 
even pick a grape if you are passing through a vineyard, although 
obviously you can go through gates and climb fences.




From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Mon Sep 27 08:58:11 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 08:58:11 -0000
Subject: Strange & Norrell
In-Reply-To: <c89e39d5040926145391f5c00@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cj8kn3+mtt0@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes <paul-
groups at w...> wrote:
> I'm waiting to get it from my library.  I passed on one of my
> libraries with 81 people waiting.  But at another library (with
> several copies on order), I'm 18th.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: carolynwhite2 <carolynwhite2 at a...>
> 
> Is anyone reading Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell? Do you reckon it 
> lives up to the hype??
> 
> Carolyn


You could have a long wait, it's 800 pages and a small typeface! 
Also, it's sure to feature on your US banned books list shortly, as 
the first bit of magic Mr Norrell does is to bring someone back from 
the dead. Don't know what to make of it yet..a lot of spoof scholarly 
footnotes and English history jokes so far.




From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com  Mon Sep 27 11:43:00 2004
From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:43:00 +0100
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: right to roam
In-Reply-To: <cj8k9b+ltfg@eGroups.com>
References: <cj8k9b+ltfg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <62117AEC-107A-11D9-A72A-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>


>
>  Carolyn:
>  Bad!Bad!Anne..<g>.. footpaths dept here, for sure. [*Horror-struck*
>  at the idea of being taken for a fox hunter..]. There has recently
>  been some new legislation enacted, opening up some previously-closed
>  areas of the English countryside to walkers and ramblers, basically
>  on private land. More will be opened up progressively over the next
>  few years, and many keen walkers like myself have been out in autumn
>  sun this week taking advantage of our new liberties.
>
>  The landowners' issues have been about trespass, privacy, damage to
>  crops, frightening animals etc. But walkers are mainly an incredibly
>  responsible lot, and its been proved in many rural areas that they
>  are a major source of income for the local economy, so the landowners
>  have caved in at last - extremely reluctantly in some cases.
>

An alternative view.

Foxes are *officially* a pest. Control has always been encouraged, only 
from now on it'll be by shooting, traps or poison.

The hunting debate in the UK has nothing whatsoever to do with 'fox 
welfare' it's one of the old class hangovers.
Farmers tended to co-operate with local hunts and accepted a certain 
level of fox activity; if it got too bad, call the hunt. Now of course, 
there's no reason to tolerate foxes - since they're classed as vermin 
by the Ministry they'll be wiped out in the countryside within 5 years.

Round my neck of the woods walkers contribute practically nothing 
except rubbish, litter and aggravation to the farmers.
An  example - I was chatting to a local at the gate to a field with 
cows and calves in it. Along comes a family group, with a dog (on a 
leash). They were told not to enter the field, it was dangerous because 
of the dog. Abuse was the response, plus "we know our rights" - despite 
all persuasion they more or less forced an entry - and were promptly 
charged by the cows. Cows with calves at heel get *very* aggressive 
towards dogs.
Fine kerfuffle -  the upshot being that the walkers threatened legal 
action against the farmer for their own intransigence.

Too many can't seem to comprehend that  the  countryside is not a park 
- it's a workplace, and a dangerous one at that. Agriculture is second 
only to the building industry for the number of reportable workplace 
accidents and deaths. It'd be a good idea to require all walkers to 
take out insurance against any damage they may cause or any injuries 
they may incur.

Not for nothing are walkers known as 'plastic pigs' - they make a mess, 
are pig-headed and wear waterproof rain gear.

Barry
who believes that 'rights' should only be allowed if responsibilities 
are understood, accepted and if necessary enforced.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 2913 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20040927/b82adb29/attachment.bin>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Mon Sep 27 12:35:59 2004
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:35:59 -0000
Subject: right to roam
In-Reply-To: <62117AEC-107A-11D9-A72A-000A9577CB94@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <cj91ff+mhvh@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
>> Round my neck of the woods walkers contribute practically nothing 
> except rubbish, litter and aggravation to the farmers.

Carolyn:
Probably this is not the best forum to continue this very UK and non-
HP debate, so I'm going to take it offlist with Barry. Just one point 
here though, I have never seen any walkers behave like this, and if 
they did, I would be appalled, and tell them so in no uncertain way. 
Always a minority let down the majority, and I sympathise entirely 
with this farmer.