Lots, scroll down..

[carolynwhite2]

Boyd:
Yes, you heard it here first: I will complete the annoyingly 
repetitive, often humorous, occasionally insightful category of 
Predictions--today!

C - ain't he just a star? Hope everyone has read and memorised his 
FAQ on how to deal with predictions from now on...

********
Jen: 
...unless the point of the post has been said a million different 
ways prior, or it is totally based on personal opinion, or full of 
mistakes, then it has a right to be coded up for content. 

Of course, all this is personal opinion. In the end, Miss Havisham 
has the final say, no?

C - purrs happily at the thought of unlimited power..but Jen sums up 
the coding rules very neatly.

**********
Dot:
Incidentally, I ran across this list of Rules for Good Writing:
http://www.noggs.dsl.pipex.com/la/rules.htm

C - As a hassled editor, I took grim enjoyment in this one:

10. If you possibly can, without obscuring the essential thrust of 
what you  are  trying  to say, and without misleading by excessive 
and patently unjustifiable   oversimplification, avoid sentences of 
such inordinate length and complexity of construction as would 
overtax the comprehension and/or attention of the average reader, as 
these are by their nature a particularly difficult medium in which 
to  sustain  a  good prose style, and best attempted only by such 
coruscating and inimitable masters of the genre as Mr Bernard Levin, 
and even by him only when at the height of his by no means 
inconsiderable intoxication with the exuberance of his own notorious 
verbosity. 

*********
Ginger:
I was thinking of Hans and his Character Discussions. Like filks, 
people either enjoy them or skip them alltogether. We have a seperate 
category for filks, why not one for the character discussions? It 
could be under religious influences. 

Jen:
I remember reading in our archives some discussion about how to code 
his posts. Some people felt a separate category might provide undue 
encouragement, if I'm remembering right.

Carolyn:
Well-remembered Jen. Early on, I made a similar suggestion to Ginger 
in that I thought Hans should be coralled in his own awful category, 
but I thought it should be under alchemy. Barry objected and said it 
gave him too much prominence.

I wasn't sure back then, but as Hans' posts have progressed, I have 
come to agree that he is so completely off his rocker that he 
shouldn't really be given that kind of prominence. I would prefer to 
put them under alchemy, cross-coded to religious influences, and 
leave them for people to come across. If you want to create a sub-
code Rosicrucianism under religious influences (like Wicca), I don't 
mind, just as long as it isn't called Hans.

Jen:
We have some precedent for this with Peg's essays on sins/virtues. 

Carolyn:
The Peg category may not survive as such. The good n'evil categories 
have not yet been sorted through (everyone nervously avoiding them (I 
tell you, I'll do 'em with a flame thrower one of these days). Once 
they are sorted, there will probably be a lot more than Peg in each 
category.


********
Ginger:
There seems to be a typo on 2.6.1.1. The acronym is DITCH PUGS: Draco 
Is The Centre of Harry Potter Universe-Go Slytherin!!
In the list it is written DITCH PLUGS.

C - I'll correct it, of course, but wasn't clear whether you had 
actually kept the post naming the acronym, and whether it was all a 
mistake anyway? Do we need to keep it??

**********
Debbie:
A Magic Dishwasher question, for all you MD experts. What are, or 
should be, the boundaries of MD? 

Carolyn:
The actual MDDT main posts include Pip's rebuttal after the 
publication of OOP, not just the original two spying game posts. The 
boundaries in my view are the actual threads weaving out from the 
three main posts (see my original list of them back in the archives 
here).

I don't think *all* discussion of DD's agenda should be coded to MD, 
only if the MD posts are specifically referenced. But if the posts 
are written by any of MDDT, I think that it is likely they belong 
with MD, unless they are on another subject altogether.

Later, the argument about MD breaks out again and again, and that 
should get coded to the theory.

********* 

Debbie:
Oh, so *that's* where to find his anger management class? Was I 
reading the wrong Fforde?

Carolyn:
No, it's the Well of Lost Plots, the third book, chapter 12 -

'Shut up!'  yelled Havisham, and Heathcliff was instantly quiet.  I 
looked around. His agent was cowering under a briefcase and the rest 
of the cast were hiding beneath the oak table. There was a pause.
'What's going on?' I hissed.
'ProCath attack' murmured Havisham, reloading her pistol in the 
sudden quiet. 'Support of the young Catherine and hatred of 
Heathcliff run deep in the bookworld...'

...'I'm still leaving this appalling book, ' retorted Heathcliff, who 
was back on full obnoxious form again.
'No you're not,' replied Havisham.
'You just try and stop-'
Miss Havisham, who was fed up with pussyfooting around and hated men 
like Heathcliff with a vengeance, grasped him by the collar and 
pinned his head to the table with a well-placed gun barrel pressed 
painfully into his neck.
'Listen here,' she said, her voice quavering with anger, 'to me, you 
are worthless scum...

(to be continued..)

*********
Debbie
whose elfin status precludes her from commenting on certain trolls of 
the Lupinus doctrinus bindweed variety

Ginger:  I hope our growlings haven't put you in a bind (weed or 
otherwise).  Or put you in the middle, or in any uncomfortable 
situation.

Carolyn:
(sweetly) isn't that what elves are for ? (see Kneasy, passim..)