From elfundeb at comcast.net Tue Feb 1 11:29:14 2005 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 06:29:14 -0500 Subject: Questions/TNRAMCNTSHPBTAFASETUDWOIT/Neville Message-ID: <003401c50851$42c8db80$3c02a8c0@TOSHIBALAPTOP> Finished my last batch, but have a couple of questions: 1. I couldn't find Prince of Lies in the category list. Is it there? 2. I had trouble cataloguing Harry and Neville as literary doubles. Generational parallels wasn't quite accurate, but I didn't find anything better. Carolyn, to Ginger: "Alas, you obviously haven't yet encountered TNRAMCNTSHPBTAFASETUDWOIT. I like to think this one is a tongue-in- cheek joke, but there is the possibility that it isn't. Your sleeping nightmares may yet become reality." Heh. TNRAMCNTSHPBTAFASETUDWOIT was my nightmare, it seems, as it appears that *I* asked for it. From #38797: >>The Dastardly Debbie maligned: > I don't believe the Reverse Memory Charm is necessary to explain >the Cover Your Tracks Memory Charm (erm, I think we need an acronym >for this). Yes, this is true. Memory Charm Neville has quite a few dandy acronyms, but Cover Their Tracks Memory Charm Neville is practically naked, as no one has even *tried* to grind out an acronym for him. Well, how hard can this acronym thing be, anyway? Anyone can do it if you just set your mind to it. To prove this point, I have wrestled control of the TAGSWATCH acronym generator from Tabouli and, if I twiddle the knobs juuuuuust so, I'm sure I can come up with the single longest and best acronym ever generated on the board: "Toddler Neville Received A Memory Charm Not To Spare Him Pain, But To Allow For A Successful Escape That Ultimately Didn't Work Out, I'm Thinking" (T.N.R.A.M.C.N.T.S.H.P.B.T.A.F.A.S.E.T.U.D.W.O.I.T). >>> An acronym for the GARBAGE SCOW, perhaps? About Neville the pureblood, Carolyn wrote: "What Neville says is in PS is: 'my gran brought me up and she's a witch...but the family thought I was all Muggle for ages...nothing happened till I was eight' What Ron says in CS is: 'Look at Neville Longbottom, he's a pureblood and he can hardly stand a cauldron the right way up' I don't think there is any other statement anywhere from an adult confirming Ron's remark, which is a sort of sweeping statement that he could easily have assumed and not know the truth of - after all, he knows nothing about the torture of Neville's parents, so the Longbottom family is evidently not much discussed at the Weasleys." What about this, from OOP ch. 37: "'He chose the boy he thought most likely to be a danger to him,' said Dumbledore. 'And notice this, Harry: he chose, not the pureblood (which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard worth being or knowing) but the half-blood, like himself.'" It's from a source that JKR herself has stated that she deems reliable enough to use to convey information that the reader needs to know, so I doubt he's the HBP. Debbie who has forwarded the update to the elves -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From quigonginger at yahoo.com Tue Feb 1 16:05:11 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 08:05:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Neville In-Reply-To: <003401c50851$42c8db80$3c02a8c0@TOSHIBALAPTOP> Message-ID: <20050201160511.24094.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com> Debbie wrote: About Neville the pureblood, Carolyn wrote: "What Neville says is in PS is: 'my gran brought me up and she's a witch...but the family thought I was all Muggle for ages...nothing happened till I was eight' What Ron says in CS is: 'Look at Neville Longbottom, he's a pureblood and he can hardly stand a cauldron the right way up' I don't think there is any other statement anywhere from an adult confirming Ron's remark, which is a sort of sweeping statement that he could easily have assumed and not know the truth of - after all, he knows nothing about the torture of Neville's parents, so the Longbottom family is evidently not much discussed at the Weasleys." What about this, from OOP ch. 37: "'He chose the boy he thought most likely to be a danger to him,' said Dumbledore. 'And notice this, Harry: he chose, not the pureblood (which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard worth being or knowing) but the half-blood, like himself.'" It's from a source that JKR herself has stated that she deems reliable enough to use to convey information that the reader needs to know, so I doubt he's the HBP. Ginger now: I awoke with a start (no idea what I had been dreaming) and the thought in my head was "What if Alice's maiden name was Lestrange? Wouldn't that be BANG-y?" Just thought I'd throw that in here. Ginger --------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Feb 1 17:03:23 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:03:23 -0000 Subject: Questions/Neville In-Reply-To: <003401c50851$42c8db80$3c02a8c0@TOSHIBALAPTOP> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "elfundeb" wrote: > Finished my last batch, CW: 40201-40300 (what, you didn't actually want some more??) but have a couple of questions: > > 1. I couldn't find Prince of Lies in the category list. Is it there? CW: Erm, no. Reason is that it wasn't on the acronym list. Been wondering whether to add it - does anyone have the post ref where it was first mentioned? > > 2. I had trouble cataloguing Harry and Neville as literary doubles. Generational parallels wasn't quite accurate, but I didn't find anything better. CW: I guess click on one of the lit categories most closely corresponding to the supposed double. Is it a Wizard of Oz comparison? In which case, children's classics..etc > > Heh. TNRAMCNTSHPBTAFASETUDWOIT was my nightmare, it seems, as it appears that *I* asked for it. From #38797: > > An acronym for the GARBAGE SCOW, perhaps? CW: Hm, a fine one to talk, Ms Debbie Elf. I have just coded up your (lengthy) application to become a member of the Order of the FLYING HEDGEHOG. Trelawny didn't stand a chance did she ?! > > About Neville the pureblood, Carolyn wrote: > > I don't think there is any other statement anywhere from an adult > confirming Ron's remark, ... > (Debbie): What about this, from OOP ch. 37: > > "'He chose the boy he thought most likely to be a danger to him,' said Dumbledore. 'And notice this, Harry: he chose, not the pureblood (which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard worth being or knowing) but the half-blood, like himself.'" > > It's from a source that JKR herself has stated that she deems reliable enough to use to convey information that the reader needs to know, so I doubt he's the HBP. > Carolyn: Tsk, tsk. I see Faith has turned up again, bulging out of her unsuitable gym slip, threatening me with one of her stilettos. It's this kind of detail which separates MD enthusiasts from the rest. This is still a war of misinformation. The tiresome boy has just demonstrated how vulnerable he is to Voldie's manipulations, so this is absolutely not the moment to go into details of Neville's mother's parentage. It is essential that Harry continues to believe he is the One for Dumbledore's many plans to work out. Dumbledore has shown himself quite capable of lying when he needs to, and conveniently in this typically Delphic utterance he doesn't address whether that *was* the reason that Voldemort attacked the Potters before the Longbottoms. All we currently know is that Voldie thinks that a boy born at the end of July will be his nemesis. Through Pettigrew's information, he saw the chance to attack the Potters first. It is entirely unclear what he knows about the Longbottoms - supposedly they were attacked later for information about Voldie's whereabouts, not anything to do with their child. Not that I think Neville is the One. I think he is a genuine side- plot, an alternative runner who isn't to be (though he could have been), and will probably die demonstrating that. Which is why I thought Elkins' bit of analysis was so good, and that the HBP character might be a good vehicle to work out such a plotline. Ginger now: I awoke with a start (no idea what I had been dreaming) and the thought in my head was "What if Alice's maiden name was Lestrange? Wouldn't that be BANG-y?" Just thought I'd throw that in here. CW: Alas, that would ensure she was pure blood, I think. Can't see Bella marrying into a muggle family. But how about she was Ted Tonks's sister? > Debbie > who has forwarded the update to the elves Ta ever so. From elfundeb at comcast.net Wed Feb 2 11:36:34 2005 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 06:36:34 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Questions/Neville References: Message-ID: <001401c5091b$72e319a0$3c02a8c0@TOSHIBALAPTOP> I wrote: > > 1. I couldn't find Prince of Lies in the category list. Is it > there? > CW: Erm, no. Reason is that it wasn't on the acronym list. Been > wondering whether to add it - does anyone have the post ref where it > was first mentioned? #34752. I wrote: > > 2. I had trouble cataloguing Harry and Neville as literary > doubles. Generational parallels wasn't quite accurate, but I didn't > find anything better. > > CW: I guess click on one of the lit categories most closely > corresponding to the supposed double. Is it a Wizard of Oz > comparison? In which case, children's classics..etc Except that the point is Harry and Neville as doubles (or mirror images) of one another. There is no reference to any other lit. Any ideas? Carolyn: > It's this kind of detail which separates MD enthusiasts from the > rest. This is still a war of misinformation. The tiresome boy has > just demonstrated how vulnerable he is to Voldie's manipulations, so > this is absolutely not the moment to go into details of Neville's > mother's parentage. It is essential that Harry continues to believe > he is the One for Dumbledore's many plans to work out. > > Dumbledore has shown himself quite capable of lying when he needs to, > and conveniently in this typically Delphic utterance he doesn't > address whether that *was* the reason that Voldemort attacked the > Potters before the Longbottoms. All we currently know is that Voldie > thinks that a boy born at the end of July will be his nemesis. > Through Pettigrew's information, he saw the chance to attack the > Potters first. We should be having this debate on Main. Stir up some interest in MD. ;-) Actually, I agree with most of this. Everything except the notion that DD lied to Harry, as it's inconsistent with the rules of engagement -- that is, the rules of the engagement between JKR and her readers. And the rule, as I see it, is that Dumbledore does not lie to those on his side. He withholds information, yes, but he does not outright lie, especially when he's having those end-of-book tete-a-tetes with Harry. From PS/SS ch. 17: "'I shall answer your questions unless I have a very good reason not to, in which case I beg you'll forgive me. I shall not, of course, lie.'" Ginger now: I awoke with a start (no idea what I had been dreaming) and the thought in my head was "What if Alice's maiden name was Lestrange? Wouldn't that be BANG-y?" Just thought I'd throw that in here. Heh! In the post I wrote that prompted the unprounounceable acronym, I had suggested that Alice was the former Miss Avery. In the post-OOP world, however, she would have to be Miss Lestrange (or Miss Crouch). Debbie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Feb 2 17:09:01 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:09:01 -0000 Subject: Prince of Lies/Talisman/Neville In-Reply-To: <001401c5091b$72e319a0$3c02a8c0@TOSHIBALAPTOP> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "elfundeb" wrote: > I wrote: > > > 1. I couldn't find Prince of Lies in the category list. Is it > > there? > > > CW: Erm, no. Reason is that it wasn't on the acronym list. Been > > wondering whether to add it - does anyone have the post ref where it > > was first mentioned? > > #34752. Carolyn: Ok, I have now added it to the Snape theories - 2.3.7.4.17 However, we now have a sub-problem. Post 34752 was rejected by Talisman on her most recent killing spree. Risking my life, I have now un-rejected it, and coded it to Prince of Lies. But there is a thread attached to it which has also been rejected, so, erm, Talisman do you want to revisit and resurrect any of 'em ?? > > I wrote: > Except that the point is Harry and Neville as doubles (or mirror images) of one another. There is no reference to any other lit. Any ideas? Carolyn: I would have thought clicking just Neville & Harry would be ok, but I could amend category 1.4.4 Generational parallels between characters, to read 'Generational and other parallels between characters' - would that do? > > We should be having this debate on Main. Stir up some interest in MD. ;-) Carolyn: You are joking? The only acceptable subjects are Snape, the Dursleys and child abuse, surely you know that. Any poster attempting more complex thought patterns is immediately reported to Admin (and probably Donald Rumsfeld) as un-American. Debbie: > Actually, I agree with most of this. Everything except the notion that DD lied to Harry, as it's inconsistent with the rules of engagement -- that is, the rules of the engagement between JKR and her readers. And the rule, as I see it, is that Dumbledore does not lie to those on his side. He withholds information, yes, but he does not outright lie, especially when he's having those end-of-book tete- a-tetes with Harry. From PS/SS ch. 17: "'I shall answer your questions unless I have a very good reason not to, in which case I beg you'll forgive me. I shall not, of course, lie.'" Carolyn: Hm, some dancing on the head of pin going on here. Epitome's of goodness can lie, but not to their nearest and dearest, only to baddies ? Apart from being a fairly dubious moral distinction, what if it's in Harry's best interest for Dumbledore not to go into the fine print here? Frank Longbottom's side of the family probably is pure blood, why go into the fact that Alice's side might have a muggle somewhere along the line? What if Neville's potential half blood status is part of one of those secret deep-laid plans, another barrier or protection for Harry that Voldemort doesn't know about, and may come in useful one day, like Pettigrew's life debt, and the shared Fawkes' feather wand cores? And as for JKR's rules of engagement with her readers - frankly, after all the equivocation in the interviews, and 'mistakes' on the website, and deus ex machina plot solutions like Crouch!Moody, I think she can wriggle out of anything if necessary. I don't trust her an inch. Carolyn 'It was a clue, sir' said Dobby, his eyes widening as though this was obvious. 'Dobby was giving you a clue. The Dark Lord, before he changed his name, could be freely named, you see?' 'Right', said Harry weakly. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Feb 2 17:24:11 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 12:24:11 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Prince of Lies/Talisman/Neville References: Message-ID: Carolyn: You are joking? The only acceptable subjects are Snape, the Dursleys and child abuse, surely you know that. Any poster attempting more complex thought patterns is immediately reported to Admin (and probably Donald Rumsfeld) as un-American. Potioncat: Well, shouldn't someone do something about it? I've only read a handful of posts over the past couple of weeks. And most of them because of the author rather than the topic. For Heaven's sake, I attempted a joke that makes me blush just to inject a bit of Kneasy-like humor in one of my posts today...and of course suffered all sorts of guilt that someone will be offended. (Hot chocolate is helping me recover.) I've just tried to revive a thread that Elkins, Porphyria and Pippin had going a couple of years ago. It was never a very long one, so we'll see how it flies now. (OK, OK, so it's about Snape.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kakearney at comcast.net Wed Feb 2 22:33:14 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 22:33:14 -0000 Subject: Next set, fanfic discussion, and a missing theory Message-ID: Just finished my set of posts. In this past set, there was a thread discussing the merits of fanfiction, and whether it was a valid interpretation of the books and consistent with authorial intent or not. I rejected it all as Fanfic-related, but on second thought, perhaps that rejection category is for discussion of specific fanfic rather than the topic of fanfic? Could those posts be valid discussion (authorial intent, reader response, etc)? Let me know what everyone thinks, and I'll go back and re-categorize those if necessary. Also, Carolyn, I couldn't find a theory on the list; perhaps it should be added? "Reverse Memory Charm Jobberknoll Variant With Optional Snape and Moody". :) Hey, it was capitalized, so it counts, right? Also, for a quick laugh, read the P.S. in post 38988. -Kelly From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 07:17:46 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 07:17:46 -0000 Subject: Prince of Lies/Talisman/Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote:> > However, we now have a sub-problem. Post 34752 was rejected by > Talisman on her most recent killing spree. Risking my life, I have > now un-rejected it, and coded it to Prince of Lies. But there is a > thread attached to it which has also been rejected, so, erm, Talisman do you want to revisit and resurrect any of 'em ?? > Talisman responds: I don't think you have a sub-problem. 34752 is regurgitation of what Cindy wrote in 34690, the gist of which had already been reiterated in 34728. (Both of which I coded up as keepers, by the way.) It got the "adds nothing new" ax because it didn't. Except for the nifty name. I suppose the introduction of a name is sufficient reason to keep it. Barely. Though I would have coded ONLY to the name myself, the rest of it being thrice repetative. The other posts that I see, which have been axed in that series, are merely agreeing (or rather "I can see your point, but I'm not sure") or, "Gee,I hope Jo hurries up and tells us." Unless we are giving certain cliques a free pass--under the guise of continuity?-- babbling or no, I'm not inclined to reserect anything. Let me know if you see somethng different. I'll help you see the error of your ways. If I go back I may whack a few more. After all, I kept 34749, which is all acronym and no theory, only because it introduced S.I.S.S.Y.C.O.W.A.R.D.: Sadistic, Immature Severus Snape; Yellow Coward, Offensive, With Absolutely Reproachable Demeanor. Pretty lame as a theory. I thought it was the standard, uninsightful,line. But what can you expect from Snape-haters? I really only kept it because you had included the acronym in the list. So, does coming up with a name or acronym insure retention? Talisman From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 3 09:05:42 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:05:42 -0000 Subject: Prince of Lies/Talisman/Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: Talisman takes the bait, You are an agent provocateur, aren't you, Carolyn? Well, lets get the party started... > --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "elfundeb" > wrote: >It's from a source that JKR herself has stated that she deems >reliable enough to use to convey information that the reader needs >to know, so I doubt he's the HBP. Hmmm, without regard to the HBP part of it, I believe you are referring to the Mzimba interview (Kloves and Rowling) from February 2003. Take another look at the actual exchange: Steve: Yeah, I mean, I like writing all three, but I've always loved writing Hermione. Because, I just, one, she's a tremendous character for a lot of reasons for a writer, which also is she can carry exposition in a wonderful way because you just assume she read it in a book. If I need to tell the audience something... JKR: Absolutely right, I find that all the time in the book, if you need to tell your readers something just put it in her. There are only two characters that you can put it convincingly into their dialogue. One is Hermione, the other is Dumbledore. In both cases you accept, it's plausible that they have, well Dumbledore knows pretty much everything anyway, but that Hermione has read it somewhere. So, she's handy. The word "reliable" is conspicuously missing. This passage has to do with how much explaining must accompany information the author wants to introduce, not whether the conduit is mistaken or dissembling. If you had some other quote in mind, steer me to it. Not that I'd necessarily believe it, considering the source (JKR). Deb continues: >Actually, I agree with most of this. Everything except the notion >that DD lied to Harry, as it's inconsistent with the rules of >engagement -- that is, the rules of the engagement between JKR and >her readers. And the rule, as I see it, is that Dumbledore does not >lie to those on his side. He withholds information, yes, but he does >not outright lie, especially when he's having those end-of-book tete-a-tetes with Harry. From PS/SS ch. 17: "'I shall answer your >questions unless I have a very good reason not to, in which case I >beg you'll forgive me. I shall not, of course, lie.'" Does this mean you believe Dumbledore's deepest heart's desire is a pair of socks? And, I have to agree with Carolyn's "dancing on a pin" comment here. Not only is lying by ommission equivalent to lying by assertion, but Dumbledore does plenty of both, to Harry or otherwise. Rules that can't be broken and truth that must be told? Regarding a series that demonstrates, book after book, not only the necessity, but the desirability, of breaking rules and telling lies? A bit too much irony for me. Lovely people though they are, Rowling Obviously Lies Like An Inveterate Dumbledore (R.O.L.L.A.I.D.) and Dumbledore Obviously Lies Like A Rug (D.O.L.L.A.R.). Talisman From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Feb 3 11:00:57 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 11:00:57 -0000 Subject: Prince of Lies/Talisman/Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" wrote: > > > Does this mean you believe Dumbledore's deepest heart's desire is a > pair of socks? > > And, I have to agree with Carolyn's "dancing on a pin" comment here. > Not only is lying by ommission equivalent to lying by assertion, but > Dumbledore does plenty of both, to Harry or otherwise. > > Rules that can't be broken and truth that must be told? Regarding a > series that demonstrates, book after book, not only the necessity, > but the desirability, of breaking rules and telling lies? A bit too > much irony for me. > > Lovely people though they are, Rowling Obviously Lies Like An > Inveterate Dumbledore (R.O.L.L.A.I.D.) and Dumbledore Obviously Lies > Like A Rug (D.O.L.L.A.R.). > > Talisman Ah. Um. Mostly I agree with you. However..... yes; possible, and it ties in with an idea I was pushing a year or more back. There could be a post in this..... on TOC of course. Barry From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Feb 3 11:38:31 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 06:38:31 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Next set, fanfic discussion, and a missing theory References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: corinthum To: HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 5:33 PM Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Next set, fanfic discussion, and a missing theory Kelly wrote: In this past set, there was a thread discussing the merits of fanfiction, and whether it was a valid interpretation of the books and consistent with authorial intent or not. I rejected it all as Fanfic-related, but on second thought, perhaps that rejection category is for discussion of specific fanfic rather than the topic of fanfic? Could those posts be valid discussion (authorial intent, reader response, etc)? Let me know what everyone thinks, and I'll go back and re-categorize those if necessary. Kathy W I had the same thought with a similar post. In that case, I decided the post wasn't worth keeping. Wouldn't it be similar to movie-related? If it had a canon related basis, it would be coded accordingly and if it were only about fan-fiction it would be rejected? Would it ever be possible to find posts based on the rejected headings? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/ b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Feb 3 16:07:35 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:07:35 -0000 Subject: TBAY or not TBAY Message-ID: I found the perfect post for those like me...there are those like me, aren't there?...who have a bit of trouble getting a handle on T- BAY. Dicentra, obviously a seer who knew someone would one day need to understand T-Bay, wrote this amusing introduction to a post: Number: 38561 From: dicentra63 Date: Wed May 08, 2002 05:45:59 PM UTC Subject: Re: TBAY: Stoned Harry <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< Dicentra looks at the subject line, then at the messages beneath it, then at the subject line again... Something is very wrong with all this. If this is a TBAY thread, then where is the water? The SHIPs, and other flotation devices? The CARPing? The ACRONYMS, fer peetsake! Amy said she was de-TBAYing this thread, but I bet it didn't even get mud on her doormat when she brought in inside. People! Chop! Chop! If you're gonna TBAY, you gotta get your feet wet! Dicentra resolves to, er, resolve this problem by grabbing the two- man kayak abandoned the Fourth Man crew and bringing it near the shore. Then she runs over to Stoned!Harry, gets a handful of his robes, and with surprisingly little effort drags him to the kayak. "Look," she says to Stoned!Harry. "Yeh gotta have a boat to use that TBAY prefix. Otherwise, there's no reason to use it." Stoned!Harry, looking a bit dazed, doesn't seem to understand. Dicentra grabs his right leg and shoves it in the kayak's opening. Stoned!Harry shifts his weight into the kayak, and upon feeling the vessel move into the bay, quickly swings his other leg out in front of the kayak. To Dicentra's surprise, his left foot doesn't sink into the water. Stoned!Harry doesn't seem to notice anything unusual about this, and he pulls his right leg from the kayak and begins to stride across the water, still looking as if he'd just awakened from a long nap. Dicentra, realizing that there needs to be a point to all this, runs over to a can(n)on sitting on the shore and takes careful aim at Stoned!Harry, who is now standing about 30 yards out, watching some fish swim under his feet. Kathy W again: Never mind that the rest of the post predicted gore and death in such a shocking manner that I ran from the room screaming. So of course, most of you will rush to post to read about it! :-) From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Feb 3 17:45:17 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:45:17 -0000 Subject: Fanfic/Coding theories/trusting DD.. Message-ID: Kelly: >>Just finished my set of posts.<< CW: Here's some more: 40401-45000 Kelly: >>In this past set, there was a thread discussing the merits of fanfiction, and whether it was a valid interpretation of the books and consistent with authorial intent or not. Also, for a quick laugh, read the P.S. in post 38988.<< CW: If 38988 was an example of the thread, there is an argument for coding to 1.3.1.3 What is canon? Amanda's posts are ones where I admit to giving the benefit of the doubt, especially for amusing PS's about vampires. Kelly: >>Also, Carolyn, I couldn't find a theory on the list; perhaps it should be added? "Reverse Memory Charm Jobberknoll Variant With Optional Snape and Moody". :) Hey, it was capitalized, so it counts,right?<< CW: Right, as in you're next to take up Barry's morning coffee... On the subject of other wild Cindy-theories, Talisman responds: >>I don't think you have a sub-problem. 34752 is regurgitation of what Cindy wrote in 34690, the gist of which had already been reiterated in 34728. (Both of which I coded up as keepers, by the way.) It got the "adds nothing new" ax because it didn't. Except for the nifty name. I suppose the introduction of a name is sufficient reason to keep it. Barely. Though I would have coded ONLY to the name myself, the rest of it being thrice repetative. I really only kept it because you had included the acronym in the list. So, does coming up with a name or acronym insure retention?<< CW (keeping a wary eye out for concealed WMD): Yes, for now, I think we should keep the posts which coin an acronym, as by definition that *is* something new (however crap). The reason I added the other codes is so that people who happened to be searching on categories other than the actual acronym would find it, eg Snape. Talisman: >>You are an agent provocateur, aren't you, Carolyn? Well, lets get the party started...<< Carolyn hums innocently, fooling no one. JKR: Absolutely right, I find that all the time in the book, if you need to tell your readers something just put it in her. There are only two characters that you can put it convincingly into their dialogue. One is Hermione, the other is Dumbledore. In both cases you accept, it's plausible that they have, well Dumbledore knows pretty much everything anyway, but that Hermione has read it somewhere. So, she's handy. Talisman: >>The word "reliable" is conspicuously missing. This passage has to do with how much explaining must accompany information the author wants to introduce, not whether the conduit is mistaken or dissembling. If you had some other quote in mind, steer me to it. Not that I'd necessarily believe it, considering the source (JKR).<< Carolyn: Good quote. I found the word 'plausible' particularly interesting. My OED defines it as: '[of argument, statement] specious, seeming reasonable or probable; [of person] persuasive but deceptive'. A fairly accurate word picture of DD, IMO. Talisman: >>And, I have to agree with Carolyn's "dancing on a pin" comment here. Not only is lying by ommission equivalent to lying by assertion, but Dumbledore does plenty of both, to Harry or otherwise. Rules that can't be broken and truth that must be told? Regarding a series that demonstrates, book after book, not only the necessity, but the desirability, of breaking rules and telling lies? A bit too much irony for me.<< Carolyn: And before someone digs up the 'epitome of goodness' quote, I'll do it for them, in context for once: J.K. Rowling Interview," CBCNewsWorld: Hot Type, July 13, 2000 JK: Well, you see, Harry is good. And I personally do not find Harry boring at all. I mean, he has his faults. Ron and Hermione are both very good characters but they're JK: No, I'm not bored by goodness. I'm not bored by goodness. E: Do you have more fun writing the evil characters? Because Voldemort [the sinister wizard who killed Harry's parents] is the quintessential evil character. JK: Yeah, he's a bad one. Do I have more fun? I loved writing Dumbledore and Dumbledore is the epitome of goodness. But I loved writing Gilderoy and I loved writing Rita. Because I just find them comic characters. E: So you don't have a favourite? JK: No, actually, I don't think I do. I really enjoyed writing Dudley as well. Dudley's great fun to write. The interview is about characterisation, about the writer's art. She enjoys depicting both goodies and baddies in her story, and in saying DD is an 'epitome' (OED: 'person who embodies a quality'), she is simply making a statement about his role in the story, as opposed to say, Voldemort's. What 'goodness' actually means in the Potterverse is still very much up for grabs, IMO. Talisman: Lovely people though they are, Rowling Obviously Lies Like An Inveterate Dumbledore (R.O.L.L.A.I.D.) and Dumbledore Obviously Lies Like A Rug (D.O.L.L.A.R.). Carolyn: Pleased to see T.A.L.I.S.M.A.N. in action (Torching All Listies In Savage Murder Attacks Nightly); and a founder member of D.U.S.T (Dumbledore Surveillance Team), as I recall. From kakearney at comcast.net Thu Feb 3 19:15:56 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:15:56 -0000 Subject: Fanfic/Coding theories/trusting DD.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Me: > >>In this past set, there was a thread discussing the merits of > fanfiction, and whether it was a valid interpretation of the books > and consistent with authorial intent or not. > > Also, for a quick laugh, read the P.S. in post 38988.<< Carolyn: >If 38988 was an example of the thread, there is an argument for > coding to 1.3.1.3 What is canon? Amanda's posts are ones where I > admit to giving the benefit of the doubt, especially for amusing PS's > about vampires. Yes, actually, all of the participants in the thread were posters I usually give the benefit of the doubt: Jo Serenadust, Heidi Tandy, Amanda Geist, lexicon Steve, Penny Linsenmeyer, and Finwitch. I thought it was an interesting discussion, and I fall into the never- read-or-have-any-interest-in-reading-fanfiction group. The thread continues into Corinne's set, and she rejected them as well. I'll leave them as rejected for now; but I may go back and change them at a later date. -Kelly From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Feb 3 19:20:22 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:20:22 -0000 Subject: Kelly's posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > Kelly: >>Just finished my set of posts.<< > > CW: Here's some more: 40401-45000 > Erm, I meant 40401-40500 ! From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 6 11:56:28 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 11:56:28 -0000 Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 6th February Message-ID: PROGRESS To date, we have coded/allocated for coding 48815 posts. Of these, we have actually coded 47175 posts, and rejected 25634 of these (54.3%). We are currently at post 41000 on the main list, and this week, with 11 people coding we did 970 posts. CODING ERRORS: Could people take a look at the following posts and decide on their reject/non-reject status: 40527, 39293, 39245, 39206, 39232 - KathySnow 36834, 36831, 36775 - Dot 38954 - Kelly TECH STUFF First, an appeal for help on behalf of Eva. She has begun to have problems accessing the catalogue via her home computer, which is networked to two others in her house. As far as we can determine the problem is unrelated to Paul's firewall or anything he can fix his end, so if anyone knows about networking computers, or about anything that might be causing an intermittent Internet connection, please email Eva direct (Severely Sigune), as she is quietly tearing her hair out and might even have to give up if she can't solve it. Second, just to let you know that Paul, Tim and I are currently actively discussing the design of the search screens, but if anyone has any ideas they want to contribute, please do let us know. FEEDBACK LIST People might be interested to read the discussion paper which has just been posted on the Feedback list about improving posting quality on HPfGU, as, among other things, it makes mention of the catalogue project. This is the first time the catalogue has been made public to the general membership. NEW CATEGORIES 2.3.7.4.17 Prince of Lies 3.8.4.16 Confundus charm Carolyn Who really liked Laurasia's time turner post and Dot's snake post yesterday! From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Feb 6 12:46:20 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 07:46:20 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] UPDATE, Sunday 6th February References: Message-ID: TECH STUFF First, an appeal for help on behalf of Eva. She has begun to have problems accessing the catalogue via her home computer, which is networked to two others in her house. As far as we can determine the problem is unrelated to Paul's firewall or anything he can fix his end, so if anyone knows about networking computers, or about anything that might be causing an intermittent Internet connection, please email Eva direct (Severely Sigune), as she is quietly tearing her hair out and might even have to give up if she can't solve it. Potioncat/Kathy: Sigune, pulling her hair out? The irony of that is overwhelming. Well, I "think" my computer is on a network, but I haven't had any troubles. Of course, I really don't trust a machine that tears my words into a million tiny bits and sends them across space to boldly go....nevermind. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zanelupin at yahoo.com Tue Feb 8 15:03:17 2005 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:03:17 -0000 Subject: Finished My Batch Message-ID: Hello! Carolyn, I have finished with the posts you gave me. Might I have more? KathyK From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Feb 8 15:28:23 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:28:23 -0000 Subject: Finished My Batch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "KathyK" wrote: > > Hello! > > Carolyn, I have finished with the posts you gave me. Might I have > more? > > KathyK Hi there, KathyK..quite in here isn't this week? Party must be somewhere else. Here's some more: 41301-41400 Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Feb 8 18:43:59 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:43:59 -0000 Subject: Terrific post - on the main list! No really.. Message-ID: Just picked up 124195 by Phoenixgod2000... someone with the right idea From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Feb 8 20:07:14 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:07:14 -0000 Subject: Philip Nel question 10.. Message-ID: As an example of a post or two from the past which should galvanise the current list, can I draw people's attention to: 41210 - Porphyria A really good way of not only stating the question, but also providing background references to get people going 41399 - Elkins A simply masterly essay which summarises some extremely unsettling questions about JKR and the Potterverse. The two, if updated a little to draw in OOP references, should seriously annoy quite a lot of people. Carolyn talking to herself in an empty catalogue office.. From paul-groups at wibbles.org Tue Feb 8 22:07:53 2005 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:07:53 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] UPDATE, Sunday 6th February In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If the problem continues, have her visit the IP mailer link and email me about it. The last IP email I received was last week. And it could be that Yahoo has been filtering them out. On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 07:46:20 -0500, Kathy Willson wrote: > > > > TECH STUFF > First, an appeal for help on behalf of Eva. She has begun to have > problems accessing the catalogue via her home computer, which is > networked to two others in her house. As far as we can determine the > problem is unrelated to Paul's firewall or anything he can fix his > end, so if anyone knows about networking computers, or about anything > that might be causing an intermittent Internet connection, please > email Eva direct (Severely Sigune), as she is quietly tearing her > hair out and might even have to give up if she can't solve it. > > > Potioncat/Kathy: > > Sigune, pulling her hair out? The irony of that is overwhelming. > Well, I "think" my computer is on a network, but I haven't had any troubles. > Of course, I really don't trust a machine that tears my words into a million > tiny bits and sends them across space to boldly go....nevermind. > > ________________________________ > 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 stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Feb 9 03:55:58 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 03:55:58 -0000 Subject: Terrific post - on the main list! No really.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > Just picked up 124195 by Phoenixgod2000... someone with the right idea "Who was that, where is that disembodied voice coming from?" *looks around* "Oh! It's Carolyn talking to herself again." Hehe, just wanted you to know you aren't alone in the Catalogue office. I found this post incredibly insightful too, not that the material was new, but just the way the poster constructed it. Makes me want to pull out my dh's copy of "The Art of War" and see if I'm missing anything. I particularly liked the visual of DD showing up for war with "hearts, flowers and the song Imagine." Jen, who has been away from her cupboard for various reasons, none of which need to be repeated in detail as they include a virus, stolen credit card, and other vagaries of life. :( From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Feb 9 05:46:11 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 05:46:11 -0000 Subject: batch done Message-ID: Potioncat hits the button on the last post of her so-long-ago- assigned-batch. She looks up and is surprised to see both Jen and Carolyn. "Back from the parties?" Carolyn asks, looking from one to the other. Potioncat smiles, trying to ignore the glitter and confetti that float from Carolyn's hair. "Yeah, some fun, weren't they?" From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Feb 9 09:07:30 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:07:30 -0000 Subject: DD's agenda/more posts for Potioncat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" > wrote: > > > > Just picked up 124195 by Phoenixgod2000... someone with the right > idea > > > "Who was that, where is that disembodied voice coming from?" *looks > around* "Oh! It's Carolyn talking to herself again." > > Hehe, just wanted you to know you aren't alone in the Catalogue > office. I found this post incredibly insightful too, not that the > material was new, but just the way the poster constructed it. Makes > me want to pull out my dh's copy of "The Art of War" and see if I'm > missing anything. I particularly liked the visual of DD showing up > for war with "hearts, flowers and the song Imagine." C - Hey, Jen - shall we take this to TOC? Kneasy's keen on flower people too, as in dead-heading them with an industrial strimmer. I'll try and scrawl something. The Philip Nel question/Elkins essay I mentioned is also pretty relevant to this question, as is the MD debate we started a little while back - it all revolves on what is DD's agenda (assuming there is one). >Potioncat hits the button on the last post of her so-long-ago- >assigned-batch. She looks up and is surprised to see both Jen and >Carolyn. >"Back from the parties?" Carolyn asks, looking from one to the >other. >Potioncat smiles, trying to ignore the glitter and confetti that >float from Carolyn's hair. "Yeah, some fun, weren't they?" C - (purring quietly), tries to look innocent. Now the whole point of doing this cataloguing is to re-start debate, erm, didn't I mention that? Here you go: 41501-41600. From kakearney at comcast.net Wed Feb 9 16:29:09 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 16:29:09 -0000 Subject: The Safe House Message-ID: I just reached post 40421, where Pip!Squeak introduced the Safe House. I coded it to TBAY and MAGIC DISHWASHER... just wanted to check that the Safe House didn't require its own category. I don't think it really symbolizes anything other than conspiracy theories in general, which is covered by other categories, but perhaps people would like to find all TBAY discussion that takes place here? -Kelly, handing Carolyn a few strings of beads to match the confetti. Happy belated Mardi Gras! From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Feb 9 17:38:25 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:38:25 -0000 Subject: The Safe House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "corinthum" wrote: > > I just reached post 40421, where Pip!Squeak introduced the Safe > House. I coded it to TBAY and MAGIC DISHWASHER... just wanted to > check that the Safe House didn't require its own category. I don't > think it really symbolizes anything other than conspiracy theories in > general, which is covered by other categories, but perhaps people > would like to find all TBAY discussion that takes place here? > > -Kelly, handing Carolyn a few strings of beads to match the > confetti. Happy belated Mardi Gras! Um.. thanks. Might need to shut myself in the Safe House for a while... I am ok with it going under the MD & TBAY headers, if everyone else is, as it's unlikely to come up in any other context. Carolyn From boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com Fri Feb 11 14:46:11 2005 From: boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com (Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:46:11 -0600 Subject: More, more, more... Message-ID: A figure stands alone in the dark, silent office, surrounded by chocolate and empty soda cans. His eyes dart swiftly through the gloom, then he suddenly begins *dancing*. First, it's the electric slide, then the hustle, then an apparent solo square dance. The only sound is the rustling of his clothes as he works up a sweat doing his best Napoleon Dynamite impression. Suddenly, he freezes in the beam of a flashlight. "Having fun, are we?" says Carolyn mirthlessly. "Um, s-s-sorry, m-m-mistress of the Catalogue. Just finished and inexplicably got this Andrea True Connection song stuck in my head." "And what song is that, pray tell?" More, more, more! Boyd From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Feb 11 15:31:36 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:31:36 -0000 Subject: Coffee shop chatter Message-ID: Potioncat rubs her forehead wearily. She reaches for her bottle of "Headache Pills for Grown Ups" but remembers the instructions say "Limit: three per day." Sighing she sets it down. She's done with her batch, except for number 41592 which she did not understand at all. It was an enjoyable read, none the less. She rises and stretches, thinking a break would be nice. But she recalls a conversation overheard at the coffee shop this morning. Valky clearly said: >>Aside: [The catalogue created by Carolyn and co could certainly help this process, if it is finished by then, and especially if Archive message numbers are a part of it, which I imagine they are.] So instead she goes to look for another batch of posts. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Feb 11 16:07:27 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:07:27 -0000 Subject: More, more, more... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}" wrote: > > Suddenly, he freezes in the beam of a flashlight. > > "Having fun, are we?" says Carolyn mirthlessly. > > "Um, s-s-sorry, m-m-mistress of the Catalogue. Just finished and > inexplicably got this Andrea True Connection song stuck in my head." > > "And what song is that, pray tell?" > > More, more, more! > Carolyn snapped on the main light abruptly. In the harsh glare she suddenly looked old, very old. 'I thought..' she paused 'well, never mind, ... I might have known it would be you.' She consulted the huge chart stuck up on the wall.. 'Hm - Laurasia is clearly looking for displacement activities this week...and all the Kathy's are beavering away. How about 41801-41900 for you? Something for the weekend...' 'Say, you ok Missy C?' said Boyd, continuing to bop around in an annoying way. 'Well, it gets a bit wearing, only being able to come out at night. The safe house is all very well, but it's a bit crowded, to tell you the truth. There's a lot of conspiracists locked up at the moment.' 'And then I come down here, thinking I could get a bit of a kip on the sofa, and find I can't get a wink of sleep here either.' They both paused. Somewhere up on the battlements there was the sound of another explosion, as Kneasy, with Peeves-like concentration sent another round of high velocity canon into the night. 'Picked one up on the way here' said Boyd, 'Nearly knocked me out, damn him - look at it'. He stopped prancing about and carefully lifted the still smoking bomb from his backpack. Scrawled on its pitted surface was one word 'Think'. 'Well, serves you right', said Carolyn, smiling at last. 'Finally we have a Defence Against Dullness teacher who knows his remedies'. Cheered she disapparated back to N8 and the tedium of earning a living. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Feb 11 16:46:00 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:46:00 -0000 Subject: Coffee shop chatter - GARBAGE SCOW In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Potioncat rubs her forehead wearily. She reaches for her bottle > of "Headache Pills for Grown Ups" but remembers the instructions > say "Limit: three per day." Sighing she sets it down. > Mid-way through apparating the hell out of here, Carolyn is splinched by Potioncat, who has a tale of woe that cannot be ignored. 'Now three a day is really quite a lot of posts if you put some thought into them', Carolyn says firmly. 'Just think about all those posts you've been rejecting..didn't have a problem with that did you?'. Carolyn paused..'You have actually been rejecting them, haven't you?' Potioncat nods feverishly, if slightly unconvincingly. 'Well, those are the ones you just don't write in the first place, ok? Just think 'adds nothing new', and you will be fine.' Another round of canon shot goes off from the battlements above, coupled with a maniacal peal of laughter. > She's done with her batch, except for number 41592 which she did not understand at all. It was an enjoyable read, none the less. Carolyn cranks the post machine, and displays 41592, and giggles. Erm, yes, well. Look, you have to understand that Cindy really took against some bits of the books, and together with Dicentra they started chucking bits into a skip that they thought boring and pointless. The skip is called GARBAGE SCOW (Gibberish Altogether Redundant Blather And Gobbledegook Everywhere! Superfluous Can(n)on Obtains Welcome), so what you do is tick that acronym, plus the chapter(s) they are currently victimising. You will find that there are various counter-raids as other people indignantly reclaim bits of text, and for those you click the chapter referred to. For all raids of this sort, also click 'Narrative style' and 'Plot development'. It's all an argument about JKR's writing abilities. Just to confuse you further, the second half of this post is coining an unrelated theory about Sirius - SOIL HOCKEY. Not for the first time, Carolyn wonders if the main list will ever have any interest in what we are collecting together here..it always sounds so insane when you try and explain any aspect of TBAY. >She rises and stretches, thinking a break would be nice. But she recalls a conversation overheard at the coffee shop this morning. Valky clearly said: > > >>Aside: [The catalogue created by Carolyn and co could certainly > help this process, if it is finished by then, and especially if > Archive message numbers are a part of it, which I imagine they are.] > So instead she goes to look for another batch of posts. Well, we can always have a partial launch with what we have done by then - we are getting on quite fast comparatively speaking with so many more people working on it. Let's face it, anything is better than Yahoo!Mort. Courage, and here's some more: 41901-42000. Carolyn who is very sorry to put Potioncat through all these mindgames..you probably didn't sign up for it! From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Feb 11 18:09:49 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:09:49 -0000 Subject: Coffee shop chatter - GARBAGE SCOW In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > 'Now three a day is really quite a lot of posts if you put some > thought into them', Carolyn says firmly. > > 'Just think about all those posts you've been rejecting..didn't have a problem with that did you?'. > > Carolyn paused..'You have actually been rejecting them, haven't you?' > > Potioncat nods feverishly, and she hopes convincingly. She suddenly wonders if she's gotten mixed up. She mustn't let on. Carolyn is mometarily distracted by canon fire. Potioncat wonders if that's the clerk from Great Expectations..all these sites and books are beginning to blur. Carolyn goes on:...Just think 'adds nothing new', and you will be fine.' Potioncat sighs, Good, that must mean it's code three a day, and reject the rest. > > Carolyn > who is very sorry to put Potioncat through all these mindgames..you probably didn't sign up for it! Games? Will there be cake and ice cream and party favors too? Carolyn frowns, "I really don't have time to chat, and neither do you," she walks back to her office and makes a note, "See that Potioncat starts reading Fford." Potioncat (who seemed to reject a higher rate of posts in the last batch and thinks it's probably due to all the "quality vrs quantity" posts she's read lately.) From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Fri Feb 11 22:24:41 2005 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:24:41 -0000 Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 6th February In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Potioncat/Kathy: > > Sigune, pulling her hair out? The irony of that is overwhelming. Sigune/Eva: I SAW THAT, Kathy! From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Feb 11 23:16:46 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:16:46 -0000 Subject: New & horrid task - our first review Message-ID: I have just tried to use our database to answer a query on TOC, and I have to say, running quickly through what had been filed under various headings, erm, you could say it is a little variable. Sometimes it was hard to know why a post had ended up there! So, as a small exercise, I'd like each of us to take a category at random, and just quickly eyeball the full text version, to see what you get (just click 'p' next to the name of the category). I've allocated people in the following list without checking how many hits there are. If it turns out to be a very big section and gets rather wearisome, just do as much as you can. I'd like us to share our impressions. What you have to do is think only about the category that you've clicked, and decide whether the posts you are seeing are relevant to that heading. Remember, in effect you are being a test user of the database - what would you expect to find there.. Sorry about tasking you with this, but I think it will be useful. Carolyn 1.1.1 Good vs evil - Anne 1.1.1.5 Morality vs immorality - Laurasia 1.1.2 Freewill, choice & fate - Boyd 1.1.4 Equality & fairness - Eva 1.1.7 Bravery/courage - Kelly 1.3.1 Authorial intent - Debbie 1.3.1.2 Reader response - Jen 1.3.2 Narrative style - KathySnow 1.3.3 Plot development - Talisman 1.3.4 Foreshadowing - Potioncat 1.3.5.2 Shrieking Shack - Ginger 1.4.0 Originality & use of stereotypes - Dot 1.4.2 Effect of POV narration - Corinne 1.4.7.3 Dursleys - KathyK 1.5.8 Alchemy -Doug 1.6.2 CS Lewis - Jo 1.6.8 Classic plot themes - Carolyn PS - Barry - will you do a section? How about 1.2.4 Spying, espionage & betrayal ?? From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Feb 12 15:19:33 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:19:33 -0000 Subject: New & horrid task - our first review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > 1.3.4 Foreshadowing - Potioncat I've reviewed 75 out of 291 posts assigned to foreshawdowing. 45 are in the right place. 30 did not seem to fit, but seemed to be predictions of readers rather than foreshadowing on JKR's part. A few posts could easily be rejected...given that rejecting comes much easier to me now than it did before. Best line from the bunch...on characters who might join DD in his war against LV: I wouldn't want him (Aragog) in my army, no matter how nasty my enemy is! Would you like me to run through the rest of that batch? Kathy/Potioncat From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Feb 12 17:26:32 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 17:26:32 -0000 Subject: Finished my posts and my 1.3.5.2 report Message-ID: Ginger, taking advantage of a rare free moment in the office, snuck towards Kneasy's liquor cabinet. The door wasn't locked, at least not well enough to keep her out. Pouring a glass of amber liquid, Ginger was startled by the sudden arrival of Carolyn, who didn't seem to approve of innocent pilfering. "Ah, Carolyn, I was hoping to find you here!" said Ginger, adding "although not quite at this moment" under her breath. "I finished my last batch..." Carolyn still wore a disapproving look. "I know it took a while, but, well, they were long, and complicated, and it's MD, so I wanted to be very careful, you know, for the sake of the children, er, posterity....and I was incapacited for a couple of days. Long story, has to do with space aliens. I'll spare you the details." "Drat," thought Ginger, "should never have brought that up. Some things are kept better to onesself." Changing tack, Ginger thrust a paper into Carolyn's hand. "My report on 1.3.5.2: the Shreiking Shack (not PoA)." she explained. "Thank you." said Carolyn, "I'll read it shortly." With a cloying smile, Ginger decided to take the bull by the horns. "Um, Carolyn, as I'm not British, could you help me? I'm sure you noticed that I was, erm, purchasing some of Kneasy's wares, but I'm not at all sure of how much to leave in payment. Is this enough?" Carolyn looked at the note with a peculiar smile. "Yes," she said, "I think 20 pounds will do nicely." Ginger flashed another (she thought) winning smile and made a hasty exit, being careful not to slosh. Carolyn shook her head, sat down at her desk and read: My Report on 1.3.5.2: the Shreiking Shack (not POA) by Ginger There are 142 posts in this category. Most are about the "Prank". Several are about themes closely tied to the Prank, such as Snape's lifedebt to James. Some found parallels between the Prank and the Shreiking Shack scene in PoA, such as how the Prank effected Snape's feelings towards Sirius and Remus, and how that played out in the PoA scene. There were, however, some which talked only about the Shack scene in PoA with no reference to the Prank. I feel these were placed there in error. In all, this was a pretty easy subject to check. The other ones which are more ambiguous, such as Plot Development, are the ones in which I must admit I'm not very consistant. The End Carolyn looked up to see Ginger's head peeking around the door of the office. "I forgot to ask," she said, "May I have more posts?" From kking0731 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 12 23:02:57 2005 From: kking0731 at hotmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:02:57 -0000 Subject: New & horrid task - our first review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The majority of the 307 posts placed under Narrative Style are representative of the heading. There were a few posts that may have been better served under Plot Development, Characterization or Effect of POV Narration (but those boxes may have been ticked as well?) that could also be seen as a technique that the author uses which is also included under this heading. I did have one concern looking at the catalogue threads as a member attempting to utilize the site efficiently. I noticed that the post numbers were not in sequence, which could be frustrating if you are following a thread from the club and intermittently you have a group response to a different topic. In one instance the newer post came before the older one. Is there a program that can arrange the numbers of the posts in numerical order, like arranging desktop icons by name? All in all, I like the system and believe that as a user it will be very accommodating even with any unintended flaws. KathySnow From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Feb 12 23:19:21 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:19:21 -0000 Subject: New & horrid task - our first review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > 1.6.8 Classic plot themes - Carolyn > My section turned out to have 54 posts. Of these, about 70% were on what I expected - theories of archetypes like Joseph Campbell, and other analyses of the role of the hero, baddies etc in literature. However, there were a fair number of posts about what the end of the Potter series should be about. Some maybe should be here in that they stayed on the theme of what classic endings should be and compared and contrasted with other books. Some were just predictions though, and should not be here. There were also some posts which belonged under the science fiction or fantasy headings rather than this one. There were one or two that did mention classic themes, but the mention was so small that it probably did not justify being coded here. Some thoughts which occur to me: How long would it take for us to pause and do a quick edit of what we have already coded? To help think about this I have uploaded a Word file called 'Current categories'. This lists the categories in descending order of number of hits. Alarmingly, there are currently 999 categories. The good news is that: - 174 have no entries as yet - 545 have under 50 entries - 132 have between 50-100 entries - 80 have between 100-200 entries - 61 have between 200-1000 entries - 7 have over 1000 entries Once we have reviewed the categories, if we then went to correct a post - ie remove a code, by doing this you replace the name of the original reviewer with your own. Does this matter? Does anyone mind? When you had the post up in front of you for correction, if it was one coded in the early days before some current categories were created, you might want to change its coding generally, not just the category you were looking at. Would this create havoc with those reviewing other sections? Before starting any particular section, it is probably as well to review and agree what its definition is supposed to be. Looking down the list of sections, there are categories where strictly speaking there should be no posts coded, but some have crept in. These would need to be moved. Although this review might slow us down, would it be valuable in that it would reinforce in our own minds what should go where? Thoughts?? Carolyn From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 00:19:29 2005 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 00:19:29 -0000 Subject: New & horrid task - our first review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > 1.1.1.5 Morality vs immorality - Laurasia I have only read through the first few posts in this category because there was absolutely no continuity in the posts being coded to it and it was a truly arduous experience. I'll have to be faced with doing some truly revolting task if I am to resort to this as a displacement task... hehe. I can not imagine any HPfGU member reading this category for entertainment... The problem isn't that the posts *don't* deal with the theme, it's just that the mere appearance of the word 'moral' in the text somewhere is enough for this heading to be selected. You feel as though you haven't got what you picked. >From the other comments so far, it sounds like the biggest problem is not that these headings have been clicked for posts when they absolutely should not have been (they are *almost* right, and it can be assumed that the better headings have *also* been clicked), the problem is that it is misleading to think that every post in the Category "1.1.1.5" will be *directly* about "Morality vs Immorality." What of those posts that have 25 categories? Because all 25 categories appear equally in one giant list, one might think that MemoryCharm!Neville is actually a Snape post, just because his heading is also clicked. I think the problem with perusing some posts according to a heading is that there is no way of knowing if the posts will be *directly* about that topic, or just *peripherally.* It would be nice if we could pick 1 main heading to code something under, and then a whole host of secondary headings. That way we wouldn't mislead anyone into thinking they were getting a nice post about Morality and Immorality when all they are really getting is one throwaway reference to Lockhart casting a memory charm. It would also make posts that have dozens of categories allocated to them are easier to understand. MAGIC DISHWASHER is, essentially, about Dumbledore's Agenda, no matter how many other categories it gets. Would we end up with two sets of boxes next to each category, and click the first row for the Main Subject, and then the second row for everything else? It would also be less painful if each post's complete category list was displayed with it, but I pressume that's what will happen in the published version of the catalogue. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 04:21:35 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:21:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: New & horrid task - our first review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050213042135.67496.qmail@web60501.mail.yahoo.com> sevenhundredandthirteen wrote: > 1.1.1.5 Morality vs immorality - Laurasia The problem isn't that the posts *don't* deal with the theme, it's just that the mere appearance of the word 'moral' in the text somewhere is enough for this heading to be selected. You feel as though you haven't got what you picked. >From the other comments so far, it sounds like the biggest problem is not that these headings have been clicked for posts when they absolutely should not have been (they are *almost* right, and it can be assumed that the better headings have *also* been clicked), the problem is that it is misleading to think that every post in the Category "1.1.1.5" will be *directly* about "Morality vs Immorality." Ginger now: This is one of those categories that I tend to click with reckless abandon. If they are discussing the morality of any topic, there goes a click on the box: the Prank, Slytherin's pureblood preference, HouseElf rights, they all involve a question of morality vs. immorality. In the beginning, I tended to overcode, and I am trying to cut back. Is this one of those categories where the additional click is supurflous? (And how does one spell that?) I had understood that in the second go-round, each topic would be pruned. Would we be wise to wait and see what topics we end up with in the end or should we do periodic reviews which would make that task easier when we get to it? Up in the air on that one, Ginger __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Feb 13 05:50:54 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 05:50:54 -0000 Subject: New & horrid task - our first review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The wind is whipping the shutters against the side of the building with resounding force, and a driving rain beats down on the roof of the Catalogue office. Inside, a rather large group of coders has formed a ring around the fire, sipping stolen libations and chatting about the latest decree from Carolyn Havisham. The door blows open and a figure walks in. The dim light from the fire makes it impossible to see who it is. The talk dies away and the coders hear the sound of water dripping on the floor, and a distinctive "squeesh, SQUISH, squeesh" as the figure moves closer. Swiftly the figure pulls the hood from her head and the coders laugh in relief. It's just Jen, back from her tour of duty on Theory Bay. "Didn't mean to break up the chit-chat, sorry about that. Oh....and sorry for this as well," Jen motions with her hand to the storm outside. "Theory Bay, you know. Elkins and Cindy were whipping up the Bay again and caused a change in the barometric pressure. Barely made it out alive, not to mention nearly starved to death. Kool-aid and Ritz crackers with cheese whiz--that's all they had to eat!" Jen surveys the food laid out on the table and a vast selection of drinks on the counter. "But I'm going in again as soon as the rain lets up. Load me up with some more posts!" ***************************************************************888 I just started looking over the posts in my category of "Reader response/subversive reading" so not much to report on that yet. Carolyn: > Alarmingly, there are currently 999 categories. The good news is that: > - 174 have no entries as yet > - 545 have under 50 entries > - 132 have between 50-100 entries > - 80 have between 100-200 entries > - 61 have between 200-1000 entries > - 7 have over 1000 entries > > Once we have reviewed the categories, if we then went to correct a > post - ie remove a code, by doing this you replace the name of the > original reviewer with your own. Does this matter? Does anyone > mind? Jen: I don't mind. I do think it's a good idea to review the early posts when the Catalogue was in draft form because the categories changed pretty drastically from then until now. As for later posts, would it really make a big difference? There will definitely be subjectivity in the coding since there are so many people involved. I've read some posts in my category that I wouldn't immediately code under there, but once I attempted to understand why the post was coded there, I realized the problem was my interpreting the category in a very narrow way, and someone else interpreting it broadly. Carolyn: > Before starting any particular section, it is probably as well to > review and agree what its definition is supposed to be. Jen: I would like to get consensus on how to interpret some of the more ambiguous categories. Like mine for Reader response/subversive reading. In my mind this category is for things like arguing over the canon interpretation of ESE!Lupin or wondering if there are clues for Draco's redemption. Theories that try to prove that certain canon examples are not as they seem, or are leading the reader to false conclusions. How do other people view this category? From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Feb 13 09:52:32 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:52:32 -0000 Subject: Overcoming the buggeration factor Message-ID: Muttered curses and imprecations came in a steady stream. The Floo Network was on the blink and except for just three hours in the past 36 the world had been deprived of contact with Schloss Kneasy. This was bad. The dipstick in the gin tank was barely registering, supplies of cholesterol were nearly exhausted and a nicotine famine loomed. Owls to the Network wizard had resulted in little but apologies and the feeble excuse that there was a blockage somewhere. "Blockage? Soon see about that!" He lifted his megaphone. "Boozy! Leave them toads alone and get down here this minute!" Thumps and crashes echoed through stone passages as the diminutive and permanently pissed elvish emanuensis forgot where the doorways were - again. "Yesh, mashter?" "Here! Strap this lavatory brush to yer head, stand in the fireplace - hang on a minute, I'll just screw this pole in the appropriate aperture. You're going up in the world, my lad!" "Blockage? I'll show 'em!" He heaved on the pole. Squeaks and a shower of soot cascaded down the chimney. Kneasy cautiously peered up the flue. "Ah! a little behind, I see. Can't be helped." From zanelupin at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 10:35:48 2005 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 10:35:48 -0000 Subject: New & horrid task - our first review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 1.4.7.3 Dursleys - 66 posts I did a quick skim of these posts. I do believe nearly every one that is there belongs there. Yep, great place for reading up on whether the Dursleys are abusive to Harry and Dudley. Or if you want to know how or why Dumbledore left Harry with them and whether or not he's been keeping tabs. There are a couple posts that either mention the Dursleys almost in passing or really have more to do with one specific Dursley (usually Petunia). One was a post I coded so I just went ahead and corrected that error. Otherwise this one looks good to me. KathyK From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 13 14:33:19 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:33:19 -0000 Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 13th February Message-ID: PROGRESS To date, we have coded/allocated for coding 50015 posts. Of these we have actually coded 48529 and rejected 26147 of these (53.8%). This week, with a record 16 people coding, we did 1354 posts and have reached post 42200 on the main list. CODING ERRORS Could you fix the reject/non-reject status on the following: 38888 - Jen 36831, 36834, 36775 - Dot 36131 - Doug 35624 - Jo 38954 - Kelly 40896 - Boyd 41566 - Kathy (Potioncat) In addition, I noticed there were quite a lot of posts uncoded in Eva's, Doug's and Dot's posts, but I have not recorded them as errors in case you are working up and down threads, rather than systematically through the numbers - ?? Post # on request if not!! NEW CATEGORY 2.14.8 Trolls From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 13 15:51:02 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:51:02 -0000 Subject: drinking on Sundays In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > >>The wind is whipping the shutters against the side of the building with resounding force, and a driving rain beats down on the roof of the Catalogue office. << Carolyn apparates into the office on a Sunday afternoon and is surprised to find the weather in Theory Bay is exactly the same as that in the muggle world. And reports from the Big Bang Destroyer and Schloss Kneasy are bad. >>Barely made it out alive, not to mention nearly starved to death. Kool-aid and Ritz crackers with cheese whiz--that's all they had to eat!" << >>The dipstick in the gin tank was barely registering, supplies of cholesterol were nearly exhausted and a nicotine famine loomed.<< Regrettably, responses from different sections of the catalogue group to this crisis could not be more different. Whereas Jen bravely stuffs herself with food and then says: "But I'm going in again as soon as the rain lets up. Load me up with some more posts!" Kneasy merely stuffs his helpless and inebriated house elf up a chimney. Carolyn doles out a new helping of posts for Jen into a special water- resistant tupperware box, labelling the lid: 42101 - 42200, and slips in an extra large bar of Honeydukes chocolate as a reward. 'As for you', she says, watching helplessly as Kneasy settles himself down in the most comfortable chair closest to the fire and within easy reach of the bottles on the table.. 'I'd report you to SPEW, except Hermione's too young to understand the charge..I suppose you spent yesterday evening with Lucius?' >From the evil grin on his face, it was hard to decide who might have led who astray. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 13 15:52:14 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:52:14 -0000 Subject: New & horrid task/replies & suggestions Message-ID: Results of the review so far: RELEVANCE OF POSTS > 1.3.4 Foreshadowing - Potioncat I've reviewed 75 out of 291 posts assigned to foreshawdowing. 45 are in the right place. 30 did not seem to fit, but seemed to be predictions of readers rather than foreshadowing on JKR's part. >1.3.5.2: the Shreiking Shack (not POA) - Ginger There are 142 posts in this category. Most are about the "Prank". Several are about themes closely tied to the Prank, such as Snape's lifedebt to James. Some found parallels between the Prank and the Shreiking Shack scene in PoA, such as how the Prank effected Snape's feelings towards Sirius and Remus, and how that played out in the PoA scene. There were, however, some which talked only about the Shack scene in PoA with no reference to the Prank. I feel these were placed there in error. KathySnow: The majority of the 307 posts placed under Narrative Style are representative of the heading. There were a few posts that may have been better served under Plot Development, Characterization or Effect of POV Narration (but those boxes may have been ticked as well?) that could also be seen as a technique that the author uses which is also included under this heading. > 1.6.8 Classic plot themes - Carolyn My section turned out to have 54 posts. Of these, about 70% were on what I expected - theories of archetypes like Joseph Campbell, and other analyses of the role of the hero, baddies etc in literature. > 1.1.1.5 Morality vs immorality - Laurasia I have only read through the first few posts in this category because there was absolutely no continuity in the posts being coded to it and it was a truly arduous experience. I'll have to be faced with doing some truly revolting task if I am to resort to this as a displacement task... hehe. I can not imagine any HPfGU member reading this category for entertainment... The problem isn't that the posts *don't* deal with the theme, it's just that the mere appearance of the word 'moral' in the text somewhere is enough for this heading to be selected. You feel as though you haven't got what you picked. Carolyn: It does seem as though we have some problems, unfortunately. Not surprisingly, it seems to be with the more subjective categories. Laurasia made the following suggestion about allocating a primary code. I don't know if this would work or not. I am slightly more in favour of clarifying in our own minds what a category is supposed to be about, and being rather ruthless in pruning out posts that only tangentially refer to that particular topic. Laurasia: >>I think the problem with perusing some posts according to a heading is that there is no way of knowing if the posts will be *directly* about that topic, or just *peripherally.* It would be nice if we could pick 1 main heading to code something under, and then a whole host of secondary headings. That way we wouldn't mislead anyone into thinking they were getting a nice post about Morality and Immorality when all they are really getting is one throwaway reference to Lockhart casting a memory charm. It would also make posts that have dozens of categories allocated to them are easier to understand. MAGIC DISHWASHER is, essentially, about Dumbledore's Agenda, no matter how many other categories it gets. Would we end up with two sets of boxes next to each category, and click the first row for the Main Subject, and then the second row for everything else?<< DEFINITIONS Jen: I've read some posts in my category that I wouldn't immediately code under there, but once I attempted to understand why the post was coded there, I realized the problem was my interpreting the category in a very narrow way, and someone else interpreting it broadly. I would like to get consensus on how to interpret some of the more ambiguous categories. Like mine for Reader response/subversive reading. In my mind this category is for things like arguing over the canon interpretation of ESE!Lupin or wondering if there are clues for Draco's redemption. Theories that try to prove that certain canon examples are not as they seem, or are leading the reader to false conclusions. How do other people view this category? Carolyn: I have said a couple of times that some topics need their main & sub- category definitions reviewing. Things that seem jerky and disjointed jumbled together, when reviewed could be sorted into sensible groups, with their own sub-headings. We have tried to do that as we go along, but inevitably, stuff from the past won't fit the current headings etc etc. If we tried to do that with some of the problematic headings (like morality/immorality) it might help a lot. ORDER OF POSTS KathySnow: I did have one concern looking at the catalogue threads as a member attempting to utilize the site efficiently. I noticed that the post numbers were not in sequence, which could be frustrating if you are following a thread from the club and intermittently you have a group response to a different topic. In one instance the newer post came before the older one. Is there a program that can arrange the numbers of the posts in numerical order, like arranging desktop icons by name? Laurasia: It would also be less painful if each post's complete category list was displayed with it, but I pressume that's what will happen in the published version of the catalogue. Carolyn: Glad to say we can solve this one quite easily. I spoke to Paul about this last week, and have just sent him an email about it. I don't know why the posts are not currently in date order within the categories, but it is quite easy to make them so. I have also asked him to display all the categories a post is coded to when you are reading the full text (having clicked 'p'), in the same way that you can see them when you are coding up. These two improvements will be a big help when reviewing I think. CORRECTING MISTAKES/PROCESS Carolyn: > Once we have reviewed the categories, if we then went to correct a > post - ie remove a code, by doing this you replace the name of the > original reviewer with your own. Does this matter? Does anyone > mind? Jen: I don't mind. I do think it's a good idea to review the early posts when the Catalogue was in draft form because the categories changed pretty drastically from then until now. As for later posts, would it really make a big difference? There will definitely be subjectivity in the coding since there are so many people involved. Ginger: I had understood that in the second go-round, each topic would be pruned. Would we be wise to wait and see what topics we end up with in the end or should we do periodic reviews which would make that task easier when we get to it? Carolyn: Whether to press on now, or pause and do an interim edit.... I think it would be fairly straightforward and quick to do some types of category - the more factual ones, as it will be obvious what should or shouldn't be there. The more ambiguous ones will require a significant amount of work and thinking, and need to be done in groups of topics, rather than picking off one subject after another. Also, some people might be keener on sorting out some subjects than others (!). Is there anyone prepared to sort out the SHIP section for instance? I have suggested Barry as the ideal candidate a number of times, but unfortunately his responses so far, though entertaining, are quite unrepeatable, and everyone else I ask suddenly seems very busy... One approach is that a sub-group does a review while the rest carry on coding - and share the results of the sort out with everyone, explaining new definitions and new sub-categories. More input from y'all - ? Carolyn From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Feb 13 16:51:14 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 08:51:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] New & horrid task/replies & suggestions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050213165114.85103.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> Carolyn: One approach is that a sub-group does a review while the rest carry on coding - and share the results of the sort out with everyone, explaining new definitions and new sub-categories. Ginger: This sounds like a winner to me. May I suggest that the sub-group be comprised of more experienced members of the group who have a better acquaintance with the categories? I'm not sure how you intend for it to be done. Can you just uncode that one part (and add a new code if necessary), or do you have to recode the whole post? As for the SHIPs, don't hesitate to send them my way. Inexact, oft-mindless, single-mindedly opinionated redundancy is my forte (see my published works). To be honest, it is what got me started searching the internet: to see if there were any other Potter fans out there (little did I know!) who thought that maybe Ronny and Herm might have feelings for each other. Ginger --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Feb 13 17:02:55 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:02:55 -0000 Subject: New & horrid task/replies & suggestions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn: > Whether to press on now, or pause and do an interim edit.... > I think it would be fairly straightforward and quick to do some > types of category - the more factual ones, as it will be obvious > what should or shouldn't be there. Jen: Maybe we should just dig in for a complete interim edit. Can't hurt anything, right? Carolyn: > The more ambiguous ones will require a significant amount of work > and thinking, and need to be done in groups of topics, rather than > picking off one subject after another. Jen: These topics definitely need to be sorted and a general understanding reached of what to code in each category. We're doing ourselves a disservice to keep coding 16 different ways, even if all are valid interpretations. There will always be subjectivity, but perhaps not so wide-spread. And we can always count on the end-user to tell us about lingering mistakes!! The process of coding never ends...*Jen's eyes glaze over at the thought* Carolyn: > Also, some people might be keener on sorting out some subjects > than others (!). Is there anyone prepared to sort out the SHIP > section for instance? I have suggested Barry as the ideal > candidate a number of times, but unfortunately his responses so > far, though entertaining, are quite unrepeatable, and everyone > else I ask suddenly seems very busy... Jen: Odd, I can't think of a better topic for Barry unless it's the section on parenting and child-abuse. "Perhaps if he doesn't choose a topic, one will be assigned for him?" Jen says *nastily*, wand in hand for a hasty apparation. Carolyn: > One approach is that a sub-group does a review while the rest > carry on coding - and share the results of the sort out with > everyone, explaining new definitions and new sub-categories. Jen: Good idea. > More input from y'all - ? > > Carolyn Jen: "Ya'll?" Oh dear, I'm worried Carolyn is slipping. We've been a bad influence on her. Soon she'll renounce her idyllic walks in the countryside and fine wine/adult conversation for a day watching American football and drinking beer. And then the urge to visit Texas will strike her, and it's all over....pity. "Well, dear, our guestroom is always open. You don't mind children or yappy dogs, do you? Excuse the mess. There's Diet Coke and juice in the fridge, and plenty of tissues for when that first cold hits. Kids! Walking germ magnets they are, but don't you worry; we'll have so much fun...." Jen From kakearney at comcast.net Sun Feb 13 19:08:31 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:08:31 -0000 Subject: New & horrid task - our first review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Preliminary results for 1.1.7 Bravery/courage I've looked at the first 40 posts in this category. Of them, I only found 3 that I thought were mis-categorized. Two of these dealt with PTSD and I felt should have been placed under 1.4.8 Psychological assessments (but were probably placed in 1.1.7 before the creation of that category), and one was a blatant Me Too post that should have been rejected. In addition to those three, seven other posts were ones that I may not have immediately placed in this category in and of themselves, but were part of a thread that did belong there. I think it would be a good idea to run throught the catalogue by category and purge, to get rid of the obviously-wrong posts. Perhaps we should start with the straightforward ones (characters, chapters, etc.) and debate the meta-themes later? -Kelly, who would like to point out that the proper southern use of "ya'll" is as a second person singular pronoun. The plural form is "all ya'll". :) From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Feb 13 20:00:56 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:00:56 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: New & horrid task - our first review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Spying, espionage and betrayal. Sounds like a nice straight-forward group to review. Just the opposite. Think of the number of times posters have used any of those three words, sometimes in the vaguest of contexts with no canon backing at all. Ron/Ginny/Percy/Obediah Polkinghorn *might* betray Harry; *if* Snape is a spy it might explain this; James was not a spy; were these the actions of a spy? and so on. The specific word has appeared, so categorise the post accordingly. Fair enough. But although I'm only part way through, I'm beginning to suspect that the category itself needs to be more closely defined. There are too many casual, non-specific references to dirty deeds in the files, most of which could be stuffed under this heading. Unless it gets tightened up the category will end up as a rag-bag of nothing very much and not be of much use to anyone. Advise please. Barry From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 13 20:01:43 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:01:43 -0000 Subject: Yee ha! Message-ID: > More input from y'all - ? > > Carolyn Jen: "Ya'll?" Oh dear, I'm worried Carolyn is slipping. Kelly, who would like to point out that the proper southern use of "ya'll" is as a second person singular pronoun. The plural form is "all ya'll". :) Carolyn: Ahem, this will be why you have Y'all - the Magazine of Southern People, then? and the Miriam Webster online American dictionary's listing says: Main Entry: y'all Pronunciation: 'yol' variant of YOU-ALL ..tee hee, chortle etc. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 13 20:12:20 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:12:20 -0000 Subject: New & horrid task - our first review/Spying etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: Unless it gets tightened > up the category will end up as a rag-bag of nothing very much and not > be of much use to anyone. > > Advise please. > > Barry Mm, this was entirely my feeling when I searched some other categories the other day. The more responses that come in from people, the more I am inclined to say lets all finish up our particular post allocations, and spend some time sorting things out. Although it will slow us down in the short term, I think the benefits outweigh this. There's nothing to be ashamed of having coded stuff wrong. Until we have a body of posts to analyse, it is very hard to say in advance what sub categories should be. At least now we are only having to sort out a few hundred posts in each category instead of trying to find them within thousands and thousands of unrelated garbage. Carolyn From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Feb 13 21:56:23 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:56:23 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: New & horrid task - our first review/Spying etc References: Message-ID: Potioncat bounds into the catalogue office, "What youse guys up to?" > >Carolyn continues speaking, "I am inclined to say lets all finish up our particular post allocations, and spend some time sorting things out. Although it will slow us down in the short term, I think the benefits outweigh this. There's nothing to be ashamed of having coded stuff wrong." "Get outta here!" Potioncat exclaims. Puzzled, several staff members start for the door. Potioncat smiles, "Ya'll come back now." Uncertain, they return and take their seats. Potioncat looks around, "What? Did I just speak in an accent or something?" I'm happy to oblige in any way. I can continued coding, or I can go to reviewing, but I can't do both. I'm already trying to code the main list and respond to the archives... Potioncat, born southern, married northern, started a family in New Jersey near Philly. (This would be a reject, adds nothing new post.) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/ b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Sun Feb 13 22:42:06 2005 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:42:06 -0000 Subject: New & horrid task - our first review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > 1.1.4 Equality & fairness - Eva This category comprised 104 posts when I looked it through. The great majority of those deal with the House Elf Question. Then there are also smaller numbers dealing with: - racism (race; blood; werewolves) - class - male/female - stereotyping - favouritism (Snape; Dumbledore) - House rivalry - treatment of Squibs - wizard/Muggle relations, interaction, disdain - power abuse (Snape; Moody; the Dursleys) - rule breaking Only one post didn't seem to belong in the category at all (but I may just have missed the whole point of it, of course :-). Most of the posts in 1.1.4 have also been coded under more specific labels, such as 1.1.1.5.1 (rule breaking); 1.1.1.5.3 (respect for authority); 1.1.6.1 (Child abuse & mistreatment); 1.4.0 (originality & use of stereotypes); 1.4.3 (Portrayals of males/females/gays); 3.2.2 (relationship with Muggle world); and 3.2.6 (Class system, racism & bigotry). Does the more specific category make their coding under 1.1.4 redundant, or do we want to adopt the system 'general'+'specific'? BTW, Carolyn: I have finished my batch and have, I think, picked up all the posts that were still 'open'; I patiently await my next ration :-). Eva From kakearney at comcast.net Sun Feb 13 23:08:27 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:08:27 -0000 Subject: Yee ha! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Kelly, who would like to point out that the proper southern use of > "ya'll" is as a second person singular pronoun. The plural form is > "all ya'll". :) > > Carolyn: > > Ahem, this will be why you have > > Y'all - the Magazine of Southern People, then? > > and the Miriam Webster online American dictionary's listing says: > > Main Entry: y'all > Pronunciation: 'yol' > variant of YOU-ALL Okay, so I can't spell it. :) But regardless of what dictionaries say, around here, y'all is definitely used to address a single person. -Kelly, determined to stay as northern as possible, despite current location. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 03:26:38 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:26:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: New & horrid task - our first review/Spying etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050214032638.34781.qmail@web60503.mail.yahoo.com> carolynwhite2 wrote: Carolyn: Mm, this was entirely my feeling when I searched some other categories the other day. The more responses that come in from people, the more I am inclined to say lets all finish up our particular post allocations, and spend some time sorting things out. Although it will slow us down in the short term, I think the benefits outweigh this. There's nothing to be ashamed of having coded stuff wrong. Until we have a body of posts to analyse, it is very hard to say in advance what sub categories should be. At least now we are only having to sort out a few hundred posts in each category instead of trying to find them within thousands and thousands of unrelated garbage. Ginger: Since some of the additional categories were made after y'all had categorized a good number of posts, I'd agree with that. Perhaps the newer ones could take on the more straight-forward categories, and leave the more subjective categories to you'uns who've been around a bit. Of course, this would put a full stop to the progress, but it may be worth it in the long run. Another thing to consider would be whether a post is totally coded wrong, or just had an additional click that didn't belong there. If the latter is the case, and all one has to do is remove it from that particular category, and perhaps add it to one that was created later, then it shouldn't take too long with all of us'uns working on it. Ginger, who thought that y'all was the nominative case and you'uns was the objective case, but was informed that "you" is plural and "thou" and "thee" are singular. Let's get our grammer up to code. (note: This is one of the rare occasions where "you is" and "thee are" is actually proper grammer!) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Feb 14 03:35:49 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 03:35:49 -0000 Subject: Yee ha! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn: > > Ahem, this will be why you have > > > > Y'all - the Magazine of Southern People, then? > > > > and the Miriam Webster online American dictionary's listing says: > > > > Main Entry: y'all > > Pronunciation: 'yol' > > variant of YOU-ALL Kelly: > Okay, so I can't spell it. :) But regardless of what dictionaries > say, around here, y'all is definitely used to address a single person. > > -Kelly, determined to stay as northern as possible, despite current > location. Jen: Where are you at the moment, Kelly? I didn't notice Carolyn's spelling. I've never seen it written as y'all to be quite honest, or knew there was a difference between addressing a single person or group. 'Cause if you're addressing a single person you just say 'you'. Jen, quite pleased we've been a bad influence on Carolyn no matter how she spelled it ;). From elfundeb at comcast.net Mon Feb 14 04:19:59 2005 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:19:59 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] New & horrid task - our first review References: Message-ID: <001c01c5124c$7289dfe0$3c02a8c0@TOSHIBALAPTOP> Reporting on Authorial Intent, 1.3.1: There were 427 posts in this category, and I read the first 120. The first 30 or so included a surprising number of posts I would have rejected, as they did little more than direct the reader to one or another JKR interview transcript. There were also a couple of canon-free predictions. A much greater number of the early posts were almost entirely about other issues (such as whether JKR has or would write a gay character, her treatment of women) that have their own headings. It appears we got better at coding to the category, though. By the 100th post, most all of them seemed to fit the category. I stopped at 120, pending a final decision whether to go back and fix now. Debbie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kakearney at comcast.net Mon Feb 14 04:49:10 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 04:49:10 -0000 Subject: New & horrid task - our first review/Spying etc In-Reply-To: <20050214032638.34781.qmail@web60503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Ginger, who thought that y'all was the nominative case and you'uns was the objective case, but was informed that "you" is plural and "thou" and "thee" are singular. Let's get our grammer up to code. (note: This is one of the rare occasions where "you is" and "thee are" is actually proper grammer!) Well, let's get the full story, shall we? All you never wanted to know about English second person pronouns (courtesy of http://www.etymonline.com/columns/thee.htm): THEE and THOU The pronoun of the second person in English grammar used to break down like this: Nominative singular: THOU Nominative plural: YE Objective singular: THEE Objective plural: YOU In the Middle Ages, people began to use plural forms in all cases, at first as a sign of respect to superiors, then as a courtesy to equals. By the 1600s, the singular forms had come to represent familiarity and lack of status, and fell from use except in the case of a few dialects, notably in the industrial north of England. People in Lancashire north of the Rossendale Forest and Yorkshire used to be well known for their use of the singular second person pronouns tha (nom.) and thee (acc.). For religious reasons, the Quakers also retained the familiar forms, though generally in such a way that thee was used in all cases, along with the third person of the verb (thee has where grammar would dictate thou hast), and they brought it to America, where it was current in entire neighborhoods of Philadelphia till the 1890s and in some farms in the hinterland for perhaps another generation after that. So what began as a clear distinction based on number turned into a distinction based on formality and social status. Languages like Japanese and (especially) Indonesian have a variety of words for "you" depending on the social status of the speaker and addressee(s). "It's a nightmare trying to determine which form to use so that you won't offend anyone," an online friend once told me. Otto Jespersen, in "Philosophy of Grammar" (1924), briefly traced the reason that the plural came to mean the formal in the second person pronoun in Indo-European languages. "When a person speaks of himself as "we" instead of "I" it may in some cases be due to a modest reluctance to obtrude his own person on his hearers or readers; he hides his own opinion or action behind that of others. But the practice may even more frequently be due to a sense of superiority, as in the 'plural of majesty.' This was particularly influential in the case of the Roman emperors who spoke of themselves as nos and required to be addressed as vos. This in course of time led to the French way of addressing all superiors (and later through courtesy all equals, especially strangers) with the plural pronoun vous. In the Middle Ages this fashion spread to many countries." Jespersen gives several instances of the "plural of social inequality" from Italian, Danish and Russian, along with illustrations of the grammatical irregularities that often result, and concludes, "Politeness and servility are not always free from a comic tinge." An author from 1653 wrote that the use of "thou" was generally contemptuous, or "familiar caressing," and that custom required the plural "you" when addressing one person. In English, the shift can be illustrated by the persistence of the Quakers in using thee when speaking to one person, which began as a provocative and deliberate flouting of custom in the name of social equality and ended up being a mere peculiarity of speech, not recognized as anti-social by themselves or by non-Quakers. "God is no respecter of persons" was one of the Quakers' favorite lines from the Bible. In their own apologies, their speech peculiarity was lumped with other social causes. Robert Proud, in his "History of Pennsylvania in North America" (1797), wrote of, "Their disuse of vain compliments, and flattering titles, bowing, kneeling, and uncovering the head to mankind; and their using the singular language, thou and thee, to a single person, in discourse, according to the true form of speech, though so contrary to the general practice of people in common; believing all tokens of adoration and worship belong to God only; and that plain, but civil language, and true speeches are most becoming to professors and followers of truth." William Penn hinted that that early Quakers found this deliberate flouting of linguistic convention a useful way to provoke their enemies: "They also used the plain language of thou and thee to a single person, whatsoever was his degree among men. And, indeed, the wisdom of God, was much seen, in bringing forth this people, in so plain an appearance: for it was a close and distinguishing test upon the spirits of those, they came among; shewing their insides, and what predominated, notwithstanding their high and great profession of religion. This among the rest, sounded so harsh to many of them, that they took very great offence at it; forgetting the language they use to God, in their prayers, and the common stile of the scriptures; and that it is an absolute and essential propriety of speech." ("Rise and Progress of the Quakers," 1694) By the early 1800s, however, the use was no longer felt as disrespectful, merely quaint. In the King James Version, God is addressed in the familiar -- "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done," etc. Someone said this is to emphasize that the God of the Bible is not an unapproachable ruler but a God who has a relationship with his people. I don't know, but many modern people only encounter thee and thou in biblical speech, and, since people seem to think of God as mighty and remote, they probably hear thee as a marker of servility and respect. Thus the once-too-familiar pronoun now has the reputation of being servile. In the Quaker communities it had the same effect, I think. They were a serious, weighty sect, usually well-off, always from the oldest families. Their gravity commanded respect, and non-Quakers in 19th century Pennsylvania almost always seem to have used "thee" when addressing them. The awkwardness of not having a true singular "you" has led some languages and dialect to invent one. According to a posting on a listserv that I subscribe to, The Dutch plural, jij, was used as polite singular until by the 16th century the true singular, du, was a literary rarity. But then jij itself began to be felt as too intimate or condescending for a "plural of social inequality," and it was replaced by Uwe Edelheid, meaning "Your Nobility," later shortened to U E and then U, and recently in spelling lowercased to u. Meanwhile, a new familiar plural jullie has appeared, and a dialect singular form, gij, has got into standard Dutch as dialectal/biblical/poetic. In the American South, there is a real grammatical difference between "you" (singular) and "you all" (plural). Other regions of the nation ridicule this as redneck ignorance, but it compensates well for the loss of the distinction between the singular and plural second person pronouns. It is accepted even among the most educated and literate Southerners. Douglas Harper From kakearney at comcast.net Mon Feb 14 04:51:30 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 04:51:30 -0000 Subject: Yee ha! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > > Carolyn: > > > Ahem, this will be why you have > > > > > > Y'all - the Magazine of Southern People, then? > > > > > > and the Miriam Webster online American dictionary's listing says: > > > > > > Main Entry: y'all > > > Pronunciation: 'yol' > > > variant of YOU-ALL > > > > Kelly: > > Okay, so I can't spell it. :) But regardless of what dictionaries > > say, around here, y'all is definitely used to address a single > person. > > > > -Kelly, determined to stay as northern as possible, despite current > > location. > > > Jen: Where are you at the moment, Kelly? I didn't notice Carolyn's > spelling. I've never seen it written as y'all to be quite honest, or > knew there was a difference between addressing a single person or > group. 'Cause if you're addressing a single person you just > say 'you'. I'm in Mississippi, on the Gulf Coast. From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 10:55:25 2005 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:55:25 -0000 Subject: New & horrid task/replies & suggestions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I've now read through about 165 of the 237 "Morality vs Immorality" posts. My initial reaction was somewhat exaggerated, but the posts in the category stretch far and wide. Morality is a subjective category because there is no consensus on whose morals we should use to judge incidents by. God's? The law's? The reader's? Some posts deal with whether JKR is writing a Morality Tale, others debate how characters' actions fit with Christian Morals (some posts from the dreaded Abanes Thread are here), many are to do with breaking Hogwarts School rules, some with ethics regarding Dementors and Unforgiveables, some stretch well into the realm of Good vs Evil, a lot question characters' actions in various scenes. The most obvious problem is that the category `Following/Breaking Rules' wasn't invented until many posts had already been coded. A significant number of the early posts should probably be switched to this category. Otherwise, I have no idea how to clarify this category. >From my own observations, "Morality vs Immorality" is most often used to add a greater meaning to other categories. By that I mean, the post could be coded without it, but using it makes the moral issues explicit. For instance, there are a small number of Dursley Abuse posts in the category. But, I would assume that most Dursley Abuse posts went without this extra category because it is assumed that the "Child Abuse/Mistreatment" category already had enough of a moral/immoral gist in it. Posts about the Unforgiveables don't always *need* this extra category, because the category `What is Dark Magic?' already seems to have a sense of Morality inbuilt into it. There are posts about Class and Prejudice and Justice and Religion, but I would also contend that these topics already have a degree of inbuilt "Morality vs Immorality" and don't always *need* the extra click. HOWEVER, adding this extra click strengthens these existing categories. It doesn't do any harm. (It just makes reading everything under this heading less helpful than you may have previously expected.) There are, naturally, some posts that fit perfectly in this category and would be refugees without it. How many people would read an entire category like this, anyway? I think that my discomfort is something that very few catalogue users would ever experience. If we do decide to go back and review existing posts, I'd prefer to be on the team of people who just continued to code posts. I prefer believing that any mistakes or dodgy decisions I may make will be corrected by another person later on. ~<(Laurasia)>~ Whinge, whinge, whinge. The Poms are meant to be the bloody whingers, not the Aussies. But I've finished my batch, so all this moaning and complaining is compensated for. From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Mon Feb 14 11:05:42 2005 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:05:42 -0000 Subject: "It wuz Snape" Message-ID: I just came across a Pip!Squeak post proposing a (great) theory saying Snape was in Godric's Hollow when the Potters were murdered, #42 211. Is this an 'official' theory? It is not really an acronym, but in subsequent posts "It wuz Snape" is used like one. It's not in the Snape list. Shall I just code it under Snape and Godric's Hollow, with a dash of LOLLIPOPS? Eva From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Feb 14 14:00:21 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:00:21 -0000 Subject: Interim replies/Paul are you around?? Message-ID: Some interim replies, but Paul if you catch this, could you get back to me about putting posts in date order etc (see email)? Thanks! Ginger: Can you just uncode that one part (and add a new code if necessary), or do you have to recode the whole post? Carolyn: I think the principle would have to be only correct the category you were dealing with, or we'd go nuts. Eg, if you thought that 20 posts under 'Hippogriffs', were not about hippogriffs at all, you would make a list of them, and go and take that code off the post, but leave whatever else codes were there. Ginger: As for the SHIPs, don't hesitate to send them my way. Perhaps the newer ones could take on the more straight-forward categories, and leave the more subjective categories to you'uns who've been around a bit. Carolyn: I am all for people working on the categories they feel most comfortable with, because that way the posts will receive proper consideration, rather than being treated impatiently by people who don't care much for a subject. And in that respect, a big thanks for being prepared to take on the SHIP category - there's not many here who are that kindly disposed, and it's been worrying me (really! I can be fair-minded, honest). Carolyn: > One approach is that a sub-group does a review while the rest > carry on coding - and share the results of the sort out with > everyone, explaining new definitions and new sub-categories. Jen: Good idea. ...quite pleased we've been a bad influence on Carolyn no matter how she spelled it ;). Kelly: I think it would be a good idea to run throught the catalogue by category and purge, to get rid of the obviously-wrong posts. Perhaps we should start with the straightforward ones (characters, chapters, etc.) and debate the meta-themes later? ..Well, let's get the full story, shall we? All you never wanted to know about English second person pronouns ... Carolyn: Right, so that's you two volunteering is it? (...waving white flag...I don't mind how you spell it..!). Potioncat: I'm happy to oblige in any way. I can continued coding, or I can go to reviewing, but I can't do both. I'm already trying to code the main list and respond to the archives... Carolyn: Suggest reverting to coding for now, whilst I try and think of an efficient and methodical way of tackling this review. Debbie: Reporting on Authorial Intent, 1.3.1: There were 427 posts in this category, and I read the first 120. The first 30 or so included a surprising number of posts I would have rejected, as they did little more than direct the reader to one or another JKR interview transcript. There were also a couple of canon- free predictions. A much greater number of the early posts were almost entirely about other issues (such as whether JKR has or would write a gay character, her treatment of women) that have their own headings. It appears we got better at coding to the category, though. By the 100th post, most all of them seemed to fit the category. I stopped at 120, pending a final decision whether to go back and fix now. Laurasia: I've now read through about 165 of the 237 "Morality vs Immorality" posts. My initial reaction was somewhat exaggerated, but the posts in the category stretch far and wide. Morality is a subjective category because there is no consensus on whose morals we should use to judge incidents by. God's? The law's? The reader's? How many people would read an entire category like this, anyway? I think that my discomfort is something that very few catalogue users would ever experience. Carolyn: These are just the kind of problems I found when I looked through these sections briefly the other day. It worried me.. especially that I might have done some of the mis-coding early on as we began this task. However, I think we should bear in mind that some people are likely to do just that - read right through an entire collection. Having all the posts in date order will be a big help, because it is interesting to see how ideas evolved as the books were published. However, there is also no doubt that we need to split things up, so people can follow themes more easily. Laurasia: If we do decide to go back and review existing posts, I'd prefer to be on the team of people who just continued to code posts. I prefer believing that any mistakes or dodgy decisions I may make will be corrected by another person later on. Whinge, whinge, whinge. The Poms are meant to be the bloody whingers, not the Aussies. But I've finished my batch, so all this moaning and complaining is compensated for. Carolyn: This is a pity - you show a great understanding of the problem. Maybe I can tempt you do a section closer to your own interests - maybe plot development or narrative style for instance?? Anyway, here's some more posts: 42301-42400. Eva: I just came across a Pip!Squeak post proposing a (great) theory saying Snape was in Godric's Hollow when the Potters were murdered, #42 211. Is this an 'official' theory? It is not really an acronym, but in subsequent posts "It wuz Snape" is used like one. It's not in the Snape list. Shall I just code it under Snape and Godric's Hollow, with a dash of LOLLIPOPS? Carolyn: Now Eva, this is exactly the sort of coding problem that has caused the diversity we are looking at. Yes, I would put it under 'Godric's Hollow', and no, we don't have an official theory code, but it could easily become a sub-category there. When we come to look at that bunch of posts, it will probably be helpful to sort them into groups as there are already 421 of them. Further, there is an argument that maybe it should also be coded to Snape. However, I could easily be argued out of this, because it's the reason there are 1000s of hits on Snape already. Sorting out the Snape category is really a major undertaking (looks at queue which immediately forms, headed by Talisman, still twirling bat shapes in her hair after all these years..will the ladies duel for the pleasure...??). From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Feb 14 14:11:59 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 06:11:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: New & horrid task - our first review/Spying etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050214141159.11598.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com> Well, let's get the full story, shall we? All you never wanted to know about English second person pronouns (courtesy of http://www.etymonline.com/columns/thee.htm): THEE and THOU The pronoun of the second person in English grammar used to break down like this: Nominative singular: THOU Nominative plural: YE Objective singular: THEE Objective plural: YOU Ginger replies: I thank thee. That was a most interesting read. Thou art mine hero! --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Feb 14 14:11:01 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:11:01 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Interim replies/Paul are you around?? References: Message-ID: answering a question about#42 211,Carolyn wrote: Further, there is an argument that maybe it should also be coded to Snape. However, I could easily be argued out of this, because it's the reason there are 1000s of hits on Snape already. Potioncat: Sorry, why wouldn't that post be under Snape? (Real question.) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/ b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Mon Feb 14 15:08:09 2005 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:08:09 -0000 Subject: Interim replies/Paul are you around?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: carolyn wrote: > Further, there is an argument that maybe it should also be coded to > Snape. Eva: That's what I would have done... Carolyn: > However, I could easily be argued out of this, because it's > the reason there are 1000s of hits on Snape already. Eva: Yes, this is obviously a problem, not only for the Snape category; and reviewing my own cataloguing would definitely be a good thing as I'm afraid, right now, that I haven't been terribly consistent. In the beginning I clicked every possible category that a post might fit into ("oh! it *mentions* Snape! Let's code it under..."), with the search engine idea at the back of my head; but it is a debatable practice, and I find that recently I have been much less detailed - also in view of time pressure (*blushes scarlet at the thought of other cataloguers' speed and her own procrastination*). I have to say, when I joined I didn't realise this cataloguing would be so complicated :-)... It's a very subjective thingy, and it seems really hard to sort of efficiently streamline it. Carolyn: > Sorting out the > Snape category is really a major undertaking (looks at queue which > immediately forms, headed by Talisman, still twirling bat shapes in > her hair after all these years..will the ladies duel for the > pleasure...??). Eva: Duel?! Without fail! Just warning the other contestants that I'm a fencer... From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Feb 14 15:11:15 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:11:15 -0000 Subject: coding questions and thoughts on the review Message-ID: I've come across a thread on "pearls of wisdom" which I think will mostly be quotes. I'll choose: Reject, polls, correct? Unless of course there is something more to the post. I've come across a thread about Harry's eyes, that part is clear cut. But at least one post (41912) lists characters and eye color. In this thread the colors aren't listed as symbolic, but as protective or magical. It reminds me of posts that have to do with hair color, or body type as reflective of magic or of connections. OK, now that I've muddied the issue, how would I code that post? And I certainly wouldn't check the name of each character. I was thinking about the review. The current method of reviewing the coded posts will identify any post put into the wrong heading, but it won't find any post incorrectly omitted from a heading. Kathy/Potioncat From boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com Mon Feb 14 19:05:56 2005 From: boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com (Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 13:05:56 -0600 Subject: New & horrid task - 1.1.2 Freewill, choice & fate Message-ID: 1.1.2 Freewill, choice & fate - Boyd There are 236 posts in this category, and I have read them *all*. [Casts a killing glance in Carolyn's direction.] It was enough to permanently discombobulate my groove. Oh, wait, never mind...here comes my favorite KC and the Sunshine Band song, 'Get Down Tonight.' [Begins jitterbugging interspersed with bits of funky chicken.] Anyway, on to the posts! Overall, they were quite well coded. Many had over 20 codes, and one had over 30! In general, Freewill is addressed in many of the best posts on the list. Main Topics Covered: * Does Weapon!Harry really have choices, or is he being connivingly manipulated? * Other choices (of good vs. evil, proffered fate vs. chosen reality, religious/historical/generational parallels). * Prophecies/dreams, Heirs, the Hogwarts Quill, the Sorting Hat and other expressions of fate. * _Lots_ of time-travel discussions of "changing the past" or how the past has already been changed. (Is that redundant or an oxymoron?) * Child development & abuse--what makes someone evil? Did they ever really have a choice? * House elf servitude--nature or nurture? Awards for Most Obtuse Post Topics in this Category: * Club #4575: Do these have free will: images of Harry's parents in the Priori Incantatem and Mirror of Erised, and Diary!Riddle. Or are they merely relativistic reflections of a past reality upon our current perceptions? [OK, I added that last part.] Ouch, my brain. * #19564: French edition translation of "[i]t is our choices far more than our abilities that determine who we are." In French, "abilities" became "actions." Aha, a clue! Yes, it is now so obvious what will happen in Book 7, isn't it? * #18996: "...[t]hey have a class exercise of changing a hedgehog into a pincushion. A hedgehog that one assumes was not created by magic for use in class. Where does its soul go? Where does its life go? Is it murder? Lee indicated that its soul just hangs around waiting for it to be Transfigured back into some living being..." Ah, yes, *that* worn old theory! * #38414: "How DARE they use Memory Charms? Seriously, I can think of nothing more evil -- they ought to be Unforgivable." A few responses later came this (#38426) on ethics for using Memory Charms, "Here's a question then. How do you know _what_ are the ethics that guide you if you have lost the memories of learning them and acting on them in the past? What if your original guiding principles are no longer in your mind because they've been stolen from you along with the other knowledge and memories?" I'm sure that was a good point, but I seem to have forgotten why. Of note: * #17156: Morag's FP on Socks--do they symbolize freedom? Love? You decide! Very amusing. And just *possibly* the key to the whole series. [cue ominous organ chord] Questions/Issues: * Quite a few posts that I would have categorized as 'Adds Nothing New.' Does very short + no new points = Reject? * How about where the "choices" quote is used to refute another's argument, with nothing else of value in the post? Keep these repeated quotings due to the varying contexts or chuck 'em as saying nothing new? * A few said essentially, "I think that..." and never supported their view--at all. Are these keepers if the thought is new? * A few that were more personal reactions to the whole idea that Harry is the One with the power to defeat LV, lamenting the lack of his choice in that. At what point does such a personal reaction become rejectable (from a coding standpoint)? * Many posts discussed only time-travel. While the repercussions on freewill of going back in time are obvious, should we continue marking both categories in such cases? Note that the funniest of these by far is Joywitch in post #1500. * Post #1350 said in its entirety, "[o]f course Heinlein did a ton of stuff about this in his Future History books." Why keep it? * Post #18048 was in a good ongoing thread, but the post itself contained rather useless responses/personal reactions. Shall we reject those posts that Add Nothing New even if they come in the middle of a good debate? [Please say yes!] Wow, that was exhausting! Now, has anyone seen my A Taste of Honey CD? --Boyd "boogie, oogie, oogie...." From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Feb 14 22:39:03 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:39:03 -0000 Subject: More interims & big thanks to Paul Message-ID: Carolyn, cheered by the intelligence in this group compared with the people she has been dealing with all day, responds: Paul: million thanks for implementing post order by date and adding codes so quickly. People - if you now click 'p' that's all been done, and it makes a huge difference in following the sequence. Carolyn, re Snape: > However, I could easily be argued out of this, because it's > the reason there are 1000s of hits on Snape already. Potioncat: Sorry, why wouldn't that post be under Snape? (Real question.) Eva: Yes, this is obviously a problem, not only for the Snape category; and reviewing my own cataloguing would definitely be a good thing as I'm afraid, right now, that I haven't been terribly consistent. Carolyn: I think what it boils down to is not over-coding. For instance, I very rarely click Harry - everything is about Harry. In this instance, it sounds like a Snape theory, so probably yes, but it's not necessary to click every character mentioned in a post. The important thing is to concentrate on the core subject matter being addressed. > Sorting out the Snape category ...will the ladies duel for the pleasure...??). Eva: Duel?! Without fail! Just warning the other contestants that I'm a fencer... Carolyn: aha..so you actually want to sort out 2391 posts do you...lucky you are back on line is all I can say.. Potioncat: I've come across a thread on "pearls of wisdom" which I think will mostly be quotes. I'll choose: Reject, polls, correct? Unless of course there is something more to the post. Carolyn: Definitely. Sounds dire. Usual Dumbledore claptrap I expect. Potioncat: I've come across a thread about Harry's eyes, that part is clear cut. But at least one post (41912) lists characters and eye color. In this thread the colors aren't listed as symbolic, but as protective or magical. It reminds me of posts that have to do with hair color, or body type as reflective of magic or of connections. OK, now that I've muddied the issue, how would I code that post? And I certainly wouldn't check the name of each character. Carolyn: Oh dear, sounds even worse, but you could code to 1.5.2 Colours, as it sounds as though that's is the point they are making (?) Potioncat: I was thinking about the review. The current method of reviewing the coded posts will identify any post put into the wrong heading, but it won't find any post incorrectly omitted from a heading. Carolyn: Yes, you are right. I am meditating on the best way of approaching the problem. It is easy enough to take things out, but as you say, at what point do we review what should be there....cogitate, cogitate... 1.1.2 Freewill, choice & fate - Boyd There are 236 posts in this category, and I have read them *all*. [Casts a killing glance in Carolyn's direction.] It was enough to permanently discombobulate my groove. Oh, wait, never mind...here comes my favorite KC and the Sunshine Band song, 'Get Down Tonight.' [Begins jitterbugging interspersed with bits of funky chicken.] Anyway, on to the posts! Overall, they were quite well coded. Many had over 20 codes, and one had over 30! In general, Freewill is addressed in many of the best posts on the list. Carolyn: You were lucky - Paul's fixed up the categories overnight. I just went in to check, and it makes a hell of a difference to see things in date order with their categories listed. Boyd: Main Topics Covered: CW: Of note: * #17156: Morag's FP on Socks--do they symbolize freedom? Love? You decide! Very amusing. And just *possibly* the key to the whole series. [cue ominous organ chord] CW: Now Boyd, I've highlighted this one to you before - it's a major favourite of mine, the theory of socks. You will remember my prognostication on TOC that the HBP will have purple ones. Questions/Issues: Ok, you've blown your cover; no good pretending to be a red neck rap artist (erm, probably a contradiction in terms, but there you go)..you are hereby commandeered (sp?) onto the sub-committee for dealing with difficult subjects. Your call-up papers will be issued shortly. Wow, that was exhausting! Now, has anyone seen my A Taste of Honey CD? --Boyd "boogie, oogie, oogie...." Carolyn, who can forsee that having Boyd on any committee will require patience, understanding and a baseball bat. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Feb 15 00:54:55 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 00:54:55 -0000 Subject: More interims & big thanks to Paul In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn: > Ok, you've blown your cover; no good pretending to be a red neck > rap artist (erm, probably a contradiction in terms, but there you > go)..you are hereby commandeered (sp?) onto the sub-committee for > dealing with difficult subjects. Your call-up papers will be > issued shortly. Jen: Just clarifying here. So far Kelly, Boyd and myself have been remanded...uh, politely requested to be on this sub-committee. And we're not to start doing anything besides our regularly scheduled coding until we hear more from you on how to proceed? > Carolyn, who can forsee that having Boyd on any committee will > require patience, understanding and a baseball bat. Jen: And not necessarily in that order. :) Jen, who has worked with Boyd on a project before and is allowed to needle him a little, as well as hold his Taste of Honey CD for ransom if he stirs up trouble. From paul-groups at wibbles.org Tue Feb 15 06:57:56 2005 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 00:57:56 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Interim replies/Paul are you around?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: sorted On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:08:09 -0000, severelysigune wrote: > > carolyn wrote: > > Further, there is an argument that maybe it should also be coded to > > Snape. > > Eva: > That's what I would have done... > > Carolyn: > > However, I could easily be argued out of this, because it's > > the reason there are 1000s of hits on Snape already. > > Eva: > Yes, this is obviously a problem, not only for the Snape category; > and reviewing my own cataloguing would definitely be a good thing as > I'm afraid, right now, that I haven't been terribly consistent. In > the beginning I clicked every possible category that a post might fit > into ("oh! it *mentions* Snape! Let's code it under..."), with the > search engine idea at the back of my head; but it is a debatable > practice, and I find that recently I have been much less detailed - > also in view of time pressure (*blushes scarlet at the thought of > other cataloguers' speed and her own procrastination*). > > I have to say, when I joined I didn't realise this cataloguing would > be so complicated :-)... It's a very subjective thingy, and it seems > really hard to sort of efficiently streamline it. > > Carolyn: > > Sorting out the > > Snape category is really a major undertaking (looks at queue which > > immediately forms, headed by Talisman, still twirling bat shapes in > > her hair after all these years..will the ladies duel for the > > pleasure...??). > > Eva: > Duel?! Without fail! Just warning the other contestants that I'm a > fencer... > > > > > 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 quigonginger at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 12:59:59 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 04:59:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] More interims & big thanks to Paul In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050215125959.91405.qmail@web60504.mail.yahoo.com> Carolyn: Carolyn, cheered by the intelligence in this group compared with the people she has been dealing with all day, Ginger: I could let you deal with the guy I work with who is convinced that I have angered the good space aliens. Carolyn: I think what it boils down to is not over-coding. For instance, I very rarely click Harry - everything is about Harry. In this instance, it sounds like a Snape theory, so probably yes, but it's not necessary to click every character mentioned in a post. The important thing is to concentrate on the core subject matter being addressed. Ginger: On this matter, let me now apologize to anyone who has to go through any post I have coded, especially the one P. Nel question where I coded it to absolutely everything mentioned with the thought that the full post would be preserved intact no matter which aspect of it was addressed. The question was the last in my assigned posts, so I never got to code the answers. I am trying to cut back on the clicking, but the first ones I did on my own are way overcoded. Ginger, who had no idea that people with initials after their names were such great dancers, and can't get Funky Town out of her head. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Feb 15 13:19:33 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:19:33 -0000 Subject: More interims & big thanks to Paul In-Reply-To: <20050215125959.91405.qmail@web60504.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Ginger: > I am trying to cut back on the clicking, but the first ones I did on my own are way overcoded. Potioncat: Sometime ago, I coded one to at least 30 codes. Now I'm looking at a post as "this is perfectly valid, and well stated, but it's all been said before," and possibly rejecting it. I'm also thinking, is this a post I'd want to see if I clicked this heading?....does that sound about right? Then again, there are those mornings,that I'll just about reject anything that doesn't get out of my way. I'm running into a lot of "silver color" posts, shall we add it to the coding list? Or do we really think someone will say, "I wonder what others have written about silver?" Potioncat...wondering if we're just thinking too much about this? From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 15 16:39:08 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:39:08 -0000 Subject: er...or, I could come back another time... Message-ID: Talisman stumbles into the Catalogue office, where the leavings of yet another party she wasn't invited to are sadly in evidence: Egad. I forge through the murky waters of unresolvable inference and bitter, endless niggling about the Prank, to tell Carolyn that I've completed my set (though I might not, now that it comes to it) and find a deluge of messages to catch up with. And what's this? The dread review is already upon us? Who instigated this? Kneasy? Is this revenge for the socks? I was counting on the opportunity to be out of town by the time this poo-poo came sailing back. I suppose I'll have to settle for keeping my head down and suggesting right now that someone else misappropriated my name. Naturally I call dibs on grooming Snape's, er, category (takes a look at Eva's epee and tucks a few more grenades in her belt), `course you'll have to add a reject code for "rude and insensitive remarks" about His Luscious Darkness. As to the "morality" category, I believe I *may* (I'm admitting nothing)have hit that one a few times in the first batch of posts, but now would only use it if a post were to focus on morality as an explicit theme. Otherwise the majority of posts will end up there due to the moral questions inherent in characters and events. >Jen: I would like to get consensus on how to interpret some of the >more ambiguous categories. Like mine for Reader response/subversive >reading. In my mind this category is for things like arguing over >the canon interpretation of ESE!Lupin or wondering if there are >clues for Draco's redemption. Theories that try to prove that >certain canon examples are not as they seem, or are leading the >reader to false conclusions. How do other people view this category? I would prefer to eliminate this category. I think we all know that a subversive reading is one that deliberately subverts the author's intent, as opposed to a perceptive reading that recognizes the author's subversive message. Throw in merely bad readings, and you've got the potential for every reading to be considered subversive/reader-response in someone else's eyes. I don't like the idea that some readings end up under this discredited heading merely because the coder disagrees with the theory. Technically, subversive readings require intent, and reader-response is a process, not a theory, which falls along a continuum depending on the theory employing it. What they have in common is the idea that the reader, not the author, is generating the meaning of the text. Sorting to this category allows the coder to be the arbiter of what Rowling means, and to opine that the poster is not true to that meaning. If this category is employed at all I think it should be limited to posts where the authors present their ideas as intentionally subversive or as having been generated using a reader-response process. (There was one poster who essentialy used to do this. Was it linlou?) But what's REALLY important here, is a little more information on that whole Kneasy-Lucius-House-elf scenerio. Not that it isn't perfectly shameful and everything, but how are we to avoid accidentally doing the same thing if we don't have more details? Please? Talisman, Shifting through sheaves of review documentation in hopes of finding incriminating video. From jmmears at comcast.net Tue Feb 15 17:58:50 2005 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:58:50 -0000 Subject: New & horrid task - our first review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > 1.6.2 CS Lewis - Jo Many days late (and even more dollars short), Jo stumbles in to report that out of the 87 posts presently coded to CS Lewis, I found 7 which IMO don't belong there at all. As in many of the other reviews, I've also found quite a few coded to this category which don't actually discuss Lewis' work, but merely mention his name in passing. As I'm still far behind in my coding, I'll try to get back to it and complete the current batch. Are we still considering the notion of reviewing the Catalogue to date at this point? Jo S. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Tue Feb 15 20:09:28 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:09:28 -0000 Subject: New & horrid task - our first review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry I'm late - I'm getting on with it, honest. Got stranded in the Quantocks for want of a fanbelt. Would have been nice, (was staying with an ex-chef), but it was blowing a bloody gale. And I've had a horrible cold. And apparently I missed an important meeting because nobody told me about it. There are 393 posts in Originality & use of stereotypes. So I'll get cracking... From elfundeb at comcast.net Wed Feb 16 03:36:59 2005 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (Debbie) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 03:36:59 -0000 Subject: er...or, I could come back another time... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Debbie enters the Catalogue office, knowing she is way too far behind on her coding to be writing TBAY style, especially for such mundane topics as this. Potioncat, theorizing about coding philosophies, wrote: Now I'm looking at a > post as "this is perfectly valid, and well stated, but it's all been > said before," and possibly rejecting it. I'm also thinking, is this > a post I'd want to see if I clicked this heading?....does that sound > about right? That's what I do. Except I do find that some seeming retread thread on a topic often approaches that topic from a unique angle, so I'm less likely to reject if I'm not certain. [At this, the other cataloguers nudge one another, whispering "So *that's* why her reject rate is so low!] I also ask whether the post only provides information I could get from another source, and if it does, I give it the axe. > >Jen: I would like to get consensus on how to interpret some of the > >more ambiguous categories. Like mine for Reader response/subversive > >reading. In my mind this category is for things like arguing over > >the canon interpretation of ESE!Lupin or wondering if there are > >clues for Draco's redemption. Theories that try to prove that > >certain canon examples are not as they seem, or are leading the > >reader to false conclusions. How do other people view this category? Talisman: > Throw in merely bad readings, and you've got the potential for every > reading to be considered subversive/reader-response in someone > else's eyes. > > I don't like the idea that some readings end up under this > discredited heading merely because the coder disagrees with the > theory. > If this category is employed at all I think it should be limited to > posts where the authors present their ideas as intentionally > subversive or as having been generated using a reader-response > process. (There was one poster who essentialy used to do this. Was > it linlou?) Or for threads discussing reader response and subversive readings as a concept. In addition to Joe Average Reader using the catalogue to look up posts, if there's ever enough time to update the Fantastic Posts essays, I think this category could be very useful, if its use is properly limited as Dungrollin suggests. I tend to do this with other categories, too; for example, I use Authorial Intent only for posts that actually discuss what they believe JKR intended and why. And, it seems to make more sense applied to Big Themes rather than plot-based theories. > Talisman, > Shifting through sheaves of review documentation in hopes of finding > incriminating video. Incriminating videos? Where? Debbie imagining a grainy videotape in which shadowy cataloguers pick up bags of unmarked bills as consideration for their seemingly arbitrary cataloguing decisions From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Feb 16 18:20:09 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:20:09 -0000 Subject: er...or, I could come back another time... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Talisman: > > Throw in merely bad readings, and you've got the potential for > > every reading to be considered subversive/reader-response in > > someone else's eyes. > > I don't like the idea that some readings end up under this > > discredited heading merely because the coder disagrees with the > > theory. Jen: Perish the thought! Nobody in this esteemed establishment is guilty of choosing personal preference over critical thinking skills ;). But seriously, here's the definition we're working with: "What are the limits of allowable reader interpretation of JKR's writings?" I'm wondering if the "Reader Response" aspect needs to be removed or made as a category by itself. In my limited review of the "reader response/subversive reading" category, many posts discuss why HP is so popular and what aspects of HP in particular make the series unique. These I would be more inclined to put in plot development, narrative style, humour or character development, depending on the post (and many are already coded as such, in addition to Reader Response. And as for subversive readings, well it is subjective like Talisman said. Many people see no canon whatsoever for Redeemed!Draco and others can read the exact same canon and see quite a few reasons why this might be true. Which reading is subversive? Aack, frustrating. Of the 377 posts in this catergory so far, a fair few discuss whether fanfic or certain SHIPS are subversive readings. These posts will be better served in the SHIP category, authorial intent, perhaps the canon category, depending. Rejected as fanfic if no canon discussion. Talisman: > > If this category is employed at all I think it should be limited > > to posts where the authors present their ideas as > > intentionallysubversive or as having been generated using a > > reader-responseprocess. Jen: Possibly we could do without the category, or prune the posts in it. The problem is the range of posts which can conceivably fall under it. Right now it looks more like a dumping ground for every possible reader response to any part of canon. What we need is a more narrow definition. It will be difficult to limit it to posts defining themselves as subversive, though. Authors who believe their interpretations are a solution to a mystery don't consider their reading subversive! And why should they? It could be correct. Debbie: > Or for threads discussing reader response and subversive readings as a concept. Jen: Yes, I've run across several threads about this topic and they seem to be around the time TBAY is taking off, perhaps even a response to TBAY. Jen, drowing in relativism. From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 16 20:04:34 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:04:34 -0000 Subject: er...or, I could come back another time... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: >It will be difficult to limit it to posts >defining themselves as subversive, though. Authors who believe their >interpretations are a solution to a mystery don't consider their >reading subversive! And why should they? It could be correct. Hey, Jen: That's just it. I don't go for Redeemed!Draco, myself, but I KNOW Guilty!Dumbledore is the ultimate perceptive reading of the text. Someday, the rest of the world will come to know it, too. (sigh) Let every theory stand on it's own merits, as understood by each reader. Where is the harm in that? I do believe there are demonstrably wrong theories. But, the way to deal with them is to *demonstrate* that they are wrong. When the basic cataloguing is done--and the series is over--an index could be provided to link theories and debunking analyses, if it's helpful. Hey, have the theorists/debunkers code their own work into it--to the extent they are still around.. Alternatively, perhaps Kneasy would volunteer to inhabit your category. I believe he's been known to scribble "I'm subversive. Try me." on his Meet`n Greet name tag. But then, that's probably something else, altogether. Talisman, who doesn't think we should presume to tell future readers/researches what the "allowable limits of reader interpretation are," at all, and certainly not before we've read the ending. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Feb 16 20:34:57 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (arrowsmithbt) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:34:57 -0000 Subject: er...or, I could come back another time... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" wrote: > > I do believe there are demonstrably wrong theories. But, the way to > deal with them is to *demonstrate* that they are wrong. > > When the basic cataloguing is done--and the series is over--an index > could be provided to link theories and debunking analyses, if it's > helpful. Hey, have the theorists/debunkers code their own work into > it--to the extent they are still around.. > > Alternatively, perhaps Kneasy would volunteer to inhabit your > category. I believe he's been known to scribble "I'm subversive. > Try me." on his Meet`n Greet name tag. > Damn right. If fact righter than you realise. Long, long ago, on a list far, far away, Kneasy posted a suggestion to the Elves. That they create a site prophecy bank and at the end of the series all prophecies would be assessed and accorded 'Golden Balls' or 'A Load of Balls' status. Something nice and simple. Silly me. Nothing that happens round here is ever simple. Meanwhile I sit dreaming of murder, mayhem, treason and betrayal. And some of it even refers to canon. Happy days. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Feb 16 21:35:54 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:35:54 -0000 Subject: The review plan ... Message-ID: Ok, peoples. Have spent rather a lot of time thinking how to do this - see what you think. I have just uploaded a new Word file to the file section - 'Current categories for 1st Review', which replaces the one I put up the other day. I was going to try and post it here, but I think it is too long, and might get snipped by Yahoo!Mort (which is lashing its tail dangerously at this daring attempt to thwart its domination over us). (Apologies to Mac users who may have to fiddle with the tabs to fix the layout when you convert - but it's not a table, just straight text, so hopefully you will win in the end). This new file is not ranked in order of the number of hits on categories like the last version, but is more recognisably in the order of the categories we are using every day (although not quite). What I have done is to try and organise the categories into sub- groups which can be tackled by individuals, or groups of people. They are not all exactly the same size - I have tried to pursue an association of ideas in each case. The number of hits in each group range in size from as low as 1 (Grindylows, Katie Bell), to the largest category of all, the magnificent Snape at 2787. In short, I have reduced the overall list of about 1000 individual topics to several hundred smaller groups. This is still very large and daunting. If we are not to go mad, I think the way we should go about a systematic review is as follows. 1. Allocating groups. Although I hear the screams of protest from various people, I have to say that the task is too big if we don't all muck in to a certain extent. To ease the pain, could you each look through the list and decide on the kind of topics which you wouldn't mind doing. There are many which should be fairly straightforward anyway - the book chapters, various beings and beasties, minor characters, aspects of the WW etc. Once the bids are in, I'll compile a list of who is doing what, try and even up the size of the allocations between people. Then we'll deal with the problem of who does the inevitable few ghastly topics which no one wants to touch with a barge pole... I think that despite this, some topics are still too big for one person on their own to tackle. This is where the Difficult Subjects Committee comes in - which is open to anyone who *really* enjoys semantics..... (the office is filled with pops and bangs as cataloguers apparate like no tomorrow..). 2.Deciding on definitions Once we have divvied up the sections, then we have to agree on definitions for what goes in them. The way I suggest we do this is to start from the definitions which already exist for each category, then dip in and review what is coming up in the sections you are tackling (much as we have done in this initial look-see). It is then up to the person doing the section to question whether the definition is right in the first place, or alternatively whether the right things have been coded there, and to propose an alternative layout. It is for this reason that I think it is important we work on groups of topics at a time rather than individual post categories. For example, it clearly makes no sense to review one section of Snape at a time (no matter how pleasant). You have to look at everything under all his sub-codes, and decide whether the structure of the Snape section makes sense or not before sorting out the posts. Similarly, the good vs evil category has to be reviewed alongside the morality vs immorality sections and the sins & virtues codes, but the freewill/prophecy discussions could be looked at separately. Once someone has reviewed a section, their recommendations should be posted to us in the group before changing things, both for comment and to make sure we are all on the same page on different topics. I am very aware that the categories at the moment very much reflect my logic when I devised them, and this might not be immediately apparent to everyone else (!). By the time we have finished this exercise, everyone should have a much clearer idea of what belongs where. I will also update my definitions list to reflect our discussions, so it is less a redundant document and more something that is useful to refer to. 3. Reviewing & correcting posts Once the definition is collectively agreed, then it is time to go ahead and sort through the section, removing posts that don't fit the spec, and also probably removing posts that 'add nothing new' *to that topic*. This may mean the post gets ditched altogether if that is the only thing it is coded to, but if there are other codes on a post, then leave it for the review that takes place against that other code. Does that make sense? Then there is the question of posts which don't have the right codes on because they were done early on in the process before some categories were invented. I am really not sure what to do about this, because if we just go ahead and add the codes, it mucks up what someone else may be doing on another category. The same problem arises if people carry on cataloguing whilst we do the review. Any ideas? 4. Timing I don't know how long this will take - maybe a couple of weeks. Is that ok, can you stand it? Carolyn PS Categories You will notice when you look through the list of categories that I have moved around a few sections. I have not done this in reality on the catalogue proper, but I would like some input on whether these changes make sense. The main changes proposed are: -moving some genre sections up into the lit crit group -moving some acronyms into the reader response section (I am posting separately on the discussion that has gone on about this) -moving some extra sections into narrative style -proposed re-apportioning of war & military strategy section Finally, not all categories need sorting out - these are marked. And some categories (main heads) should not have posts coded to them. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Feb 17 00:05:59 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:05:59 -0000 Subject: Definitions/space aliens/Talisman posts/bribery&corruption Message-ID: This is a fascinating discussion...at last, some debate on what my categories might mean and how they might be used! AUTHORIAL INTENT Debbie: There were 427 posts ... did little more than direct the reader to one or another JKR interview transcript. A much greater number of the early posts were almost entirely about other issues (such as whether JKR has or would write a gay character, her treatment of women) that have their own headings. Carolyn: I had intended this category in the strict lit crit sense, for posts attempting any kind of formal analysis of what JKR might or might not have intended (eg intentional fallacy, ambiguity, reader response, deconstruction etc etc). And as I've coded there have been a handful of posters who deal with the subject like this - Luke Caliburncy and Elkins come to mind, and although we have not got there yet, some of Nora's guff probably belongs here. Where I know the category comes unstuck is the difference between it and 'reader response/subversive readings', because the two are a continuum in theoretical analysis terms. As a compromise, I am probably guilty of putting some of those 'would JKR write this' posts there - the kind of furious responses Naama puts up to ESE!Lupin, for instance. The rationale for this is that I am very conscious that few readers are experts in this area, and this isn't a lit crit list. It is not possible to over-satirise academic analysis (Fforde does a magnificent job), and what matters at the end of the day is making the arguments real and accessible to people. So, good, canon-based exchanges on what JKR *may* have intended on XYZ subject have crept in there. I would be the first to agree that the section could easily be pruned and made more precise. READER RESPONSE/SUBVERSIVE INTENT >Jen: In my mind this category is for things like arguing over >the canon interpretation of ESE!Lupin or wondering if there are >clues for Draco's redemption. Theories that try to prove that >certain canon examples are not as they seem, or are leading the >reader to false conclusions. How do other people view this category? Talisman: I would prefer to eliminate this category. Technically, subversive readings require intent, and reader-response is a process, not a theory, which falls along a continuum depending on the theory employing it. What they have in common is the idea that the reader, not the author, is generating the meaning of the text. Sorting to this category allows the coder to be the arbiter of what Rowling means, and to opine that the poster is not true to that meaning. If this category is employed at all I think it should be limited to posts where the authors present their ideas as intentionally subversive or as having been generated using a reader-response process. (There was one poster who essentialy used to do this. Was it linlou?) Debbie: Or for threads discussing reader response and subversive readings as a concept. I use Authorial Intent only for posts that actually discuss what they believe JKR intended and why. And, it seems to make more sense applied to Big Themes rather than plot-based theories. Carolyn: Debbie's reading is closest to my original thought about this category, though Talisman nails what the actual problem is. There is a magnificent series of definitive posts from Elkins on the subject of when is a reading subversive. Frankly, not a lot else needs to be said, IMO. Her thesis - that nothing is subversive until the fat lady sings - is not original to Elkins, of course, but she does a great job of applying it to the Potterverse. So, I would be reluctant to lose this category, but I could live with it being merged with Authorial Intent, and stripped of anything that didn't focus on what the nature of subversion was. We could lose all the posts that are simply exercising their right to play with so- called subversive ideas, because they can be easily coded elsewhere, eg to a character, a theory acronym or whatever. Jen: In my limited review of the "reader response/subversive reading" category, many posts discuss why HP is so popular and what aspects of HP in particular make the series unique. The problem is the range of posts which can conceivably fall under it. Right now it looks more like a dumping ground for every possible reader response to any part of canon. What we need is a more narrow definition. It will be difficult to limit it to posts defining themselves as subversive, though. Authors who believe their interpretations are a solution to a mystery don't consider their reading subversive! And why should they? It could be correct. Carolyn: The section should certainly not be used for posts about why the HP series is so popular! I have, however, used it sometimes for well- written whinges about why people *don't* like some aspect of HP, or HP fandom - eg that they don't like to see subversive theories discussed, or that they think some other types of theory are really good. I would not include the theories themselves here, ever. MORALITY/IMMORALITY Talisman: As to the "morality" category, I believe I *may* (I'm admitting nothing)have hit that one a few times in the first batch of posts, but now would only use it if a post were to focus on morality as an explicit theme. Otherwise the majority of posts will end up there due to the moral questions inherent in characters and events. Carolyn: The problem I know that we will have to sort out are different flavours of morality - what is a sin, what is a virtue, are breaking rules the same thing or not. Why should rashness & anger always be a sin... But I agree the section must be tightly limited to discussions about these moral questions, and be pruned of passing references, or unfocused examples. FREEWILL, CHOICE & FATE Boyd: Main Topics Covered: * Does Weapon!Harry really have choices, or is he being connivingly manipulated? * Other choices (of good vs. evil, proffered fate vs. chosen reality, religious/historical/generational parallels). * Prophecies/dreams, Heirs, the Hogwarts Quill, the Sorting Hat and other expressions of fate. * _Lots_ of time-travel discussions of "changing the past" or how the past has already been changed. (Is that redundant or an oxymoron?) * Child development & abuse--what makes someone evil? Did they ever really have a choice? * House elf servitude--nature or nurture? Carolyn: Of the list here, Boyd, in my view the first four are properly relevant to the topic. I am not so sure about the child abuse one, and I wonder if the elf topic is more thoroughly covered elsewhere. Boyd: Questions/Issues: * Quite a few posts that I would have categorized as 'Adds Nothing New.' Does very short + no new points = Reject? * How about where the "choices" quote is used to refute another's argument, with nothing else of value in the post? Keep these repeated quotings due to the varying contexts or chuck 'em as saying nothing new? * A few said essentially, "I think that..." and never supported their view--at all. Are these keepers if the thought is new? * A few that were more personal reactions to the whole idea that Harry is the One with the power to defeat LV, lamenting the lack of his choice in that. At what point does such a personal reaction become rejectable (from a coding standpoint)? * Many posts discussed only time-travel. While the repercussions on freewill of going back in time are obvious, should we continue marking both categories in such cases? Note that the funniest of these by far is Joywitch in post #1500. * Post #1350 said in its entirety, "[o]f course Heinlein did a ton of stuff about this in his Future History books." Why keep it? * Post #18048 was in a good ongoing thread, but the post itself contained rather useless responses/personal reactions. Shall we reject those posts that Add Nothing New even if they come in the middle of a good debate? [Please say yes!] Carolyn: Most of these criticisms would definitely mean that the post should be dropped from this category - not necessarily dropped altogether, depending on where else it was coded. On the time-travel/freewill debate, there are a lot of them, and I think they might justify a new sub-category, alongside the prophecy discussions. The general answer on when to reject is it depends on context. What we are engaged in now is putting a bit bigger context round a post than the day to day coding we have been doing up to now. Seen in the context of a whole section, many posts are not going to make it through the night, when in isolation we may have stayed our hand, just in case... Boyd (offlist): Had a thought about the Catalogue codes, BTW: perhaps we could rename "Admin Flags" to "Filter Flags" and place there a few other categories that folks would like to have as filters as they search their results. E.g. "Just The Facts" (no interesting theorization, just simple answers to simple questions), "Cites Canon" (which would overlap Just The Facts, but include any post that directly quotes canon), move the JKR interviews code there (dump the JKR interview questions one--it's not terribly useful), and put FILKs in its own area (6) or move to a sub-code within rejects, since few FILKs have other codes. Carolyn: We'd have to go back and look at all the posts we have so far done in order to consider them for a 'just the facts' category - how would you reckon we should do that ? Actually, I tend to reject all posts which just find a canon quote and don't add analysis unless it makes a big difference to a thread. The Filks we have decided to keep just as they are, and we certainly don't need to sort them out as Ginger and CMC have done a very good job on another site. I never know the songs myself, but lots of people do - hey, you're the one with the walkman. Speaking of which: Ginger: I could let you deal with the guy I work with who is convinced that I have angered the good space aliens. Carolyn: I want to talk to you about space aliens.. the wife of one of my business partners has just turned out to be one, judging by her emails. What do good aliens do when they are angry? Any different from bad aliens, usual death-ray guns etc? I should probably find out in advance, as I plan to make her very cross if she carries on much longer. Talisman: I forge through the murky waters of unresolvable inference and bitter, endless niggling about the Prank, to tell Carolyn that I've completed my set (though I might not, now that it comes to it) C - Ah..nearly missed this, here you go: 42601-42700 Talisman: > Shifting through sheaves of review documentation in hopes of finding incriminating video. Debbie: Incriminating videos? Where? imagining a grainy videotape in which shadowy cataloguers pick up bags of unmarked bills as consideration for their seemingly arbitrary cataloguing decisions Carolyn: There's a couple of nice little lines we've got going. Vids, protection rackets, hush money..you name it, someone's suggested it. Well, we have to fund it somehow. You see, the whole thing was a simple, sure-fire vote winner that went horribly wrong: Kneasy: Damn right. If fact righter than you realise. Long, long ago, on a list far, far away, Kneasy posted a suggestion to the Elves. That they create a site prophecy bank and at the end of the series all prophecies would be assessed and accorded 'Golden Balls' or 'A Load of Balls' status. Something nice and simple. Silly me. Nothing that happens round here is ever simple. Carolyn: It was his stupid suggestion that gave me the beginning of the idea for this catalogue. When it comes down to it, most things are his fault. Never hesitate to blame him. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Feb 17 02:17:10 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 02:17:10 -0000 Subject: The review plan ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: First, I just have to say this is an impressive catalogue, Carolyn. And I'm not saying that just to get the categories I want *ahem*. Kudos to you and all the early coders who took on the task of categorizing Potterverse and coming up with definitions. Except for those few highly ambiguous categories, the rest fall neatly into place. Must be that Listo Organisio charm again. Carolyn: > 1. Allocating groups. > Although I hear the screams of protest from various people, I have > to say that the task is too big if we don't all muck in to a > certain extent. To ease the pain, could you each look through the > list and decide on the kind of topics which you wouldn't mind > doing. There are many which should be fairly straightforward > anyway - the book chapters, various beings and beasties, minor > characters, aspects of the WW etc. Once the bids are in, I'll > compile a list of who is doing what, try and even up the size of > the allocations between people. Jen's first choices: 1.4-1.4.8 Characterisation, character development and psychological assessment. 1.8-1.12.38 Chapters. (I've been coding quite a bit to chapter categories and look up everything I'm not absolutely certain about, so I have a good feel for what belongs where.) 1.5-1.5.8.1 Symbolism Others: Any of the characters or anything from catergory 3.0, The Wizard World. Carolyn: > Then we'll deal with the problem of who does the inevitable few > ghastly topics which no one wants to touch with a barge pole... > > I think that despite this, some topics are still too big for one > person on their own to tackle. This is where the Difficult Subjects > Committee comes in - which is open to anyone who *really* enjoys > semantics..... (the office is filled with pops and bangs as > cataloguers apparate like no tomorrow..). I'll be on the Difficult Subjects Committee, but I'm not very fond of Lit crit. Don't get it, don't want to get it...might interfere with my enjoyment of Potterverse. "What else is filed under the 'no one wants to touch with a barge pole' category?" Jen asks, wondering if she should ask questions first and volunteer later. OK, the rest of your plan looks fairly straight-forward. No questions or proposed changes on my part. From kking0731 at hotmail.com Thu Feb 17 04:33:51 2005 From: kking0731 at hotmail.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:33:51 -0000 Subject: The review plan ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn: 3. Reviewing & correcting posts Once the definition is collectively agreed, then it is time to go ahead and sort through the section, removing posts that don't fit the spec, and also probably removing posts that 'add nothing new' *to that topic*. This may mean the post gets ditched altogether if that is the only thing it is coded to, but if there are other codes on a post, then leave it for the review that takes place against that other code. Does that make sense? Then there is the question of posts which don't have the right codes on because they were done early on in the process before some categories were invented. I am really not sure what to do about this, because if we just go ahead and add the codes, it mucks up what someone else may be doing on another category. The same problem arises if people carry on cataloguing whilst we do the review. Any ideas? KathySnow: My first thought when I read this was to make a temporary tick box for all posts that should not belong under a particular subject. When reviewing a category and you come across a post that is questionable you would tick the box; lets call it sorting mess, and write in the comment box at the bottom what subject code needs to be addressed along with the suggested proposal of where it should be placed. This way you would not be moving the post completely from the category until everyone in each category is done, eliminating any confusion by actually moving the post into a category that has yet to be checked. Once all categories are reviewed you would move on to the temporary tick box and make the necessary adjustments by checking the comment box to see the category that was in question and the recommendations, take off the unwanted category plus the temp tick box and add the recommended new category (if applicable) and erase the comment box. In the end you only have to deal with the sorting mess box, which should be quick and painless. Jen: First, I just have to say this is an impressive catalogue, Carolyn. And I'm not saying that just to get the categories I want *ahem*. Kudos to you and all the early coders who took on the task of categorizing Potterverse and coming up with definitions. KathySnow: I would just like to say Ditto to this sentiment! I would offer up the standard reward of a large bar of Honeydukes finest but I think it better to offer a master key to the locked liquor reserves which we all may need access to by the end of this project. :-) Hiccup From dk59us at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 04:50:18 2005 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:50:18 -0000 Subject: Review of 1.5.8 Alchemy Message-ID: It was another dark and stormy night on the bay. Doug was about to give up and slip beneath the waves when a shadowy figure appeared walking briskly on the water towards him. Doug squinted at the figure through the fog...but before he really knew what was happening, Stoned!Harry himself had grabbed him around the shoulders and dragged him to shore. Coughing up sea water and shivering, he didn't even have a chance to thank Stoned!Harry before the latter strode back off across the water in search of a Big Bang or perhaps some conversation with the crew of the good ship LOLLIPOPS. As he stood alone on the beach, Doug slipped a soaked piece of parchment out of his pocket, a new and horrid review of category 1.5.8, Alchemy. Erm, well first of all it wasn't really all that horrid. I was a little surprised that only 59 posts have been coded to 1.5.8 Alchemy, because it seems I've seen tons of posts related to alchemical symbolism in the books during my time on HPfGU...but since that's only the past year and a half or so, maybe the subject's come up more in more recent times. Anyway, many of the posts so-coded overlap with biographical questions about Nicholas Flamel (muggle or wizard? partnered with Dumbledore when and to do what?) Of the 59 posts in the category I felt that about 80% were posts I would definitely expect to find if I searched the category. The other 20% were a bit off--some were mostly about Flamel but didn't really discuss alchemy except to mention that Flamel was an alchemist. It's probably fair to code those to 1.5.8, but one searching for discussion _about_ alchemy wouldn't find much to chew on. I found the exercise quite interesting, though I really should get back to my rather pitiful coding efforts! (I will look over the new list of review categories, Carolyn!) Cheers, Doug From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Feb 17 13:28:14 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:28:14 -0000 Subject: The review plan ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: To ease the pain, could you each look through the list and > decide on the kind of topics which you wouldn't mind doing. Kathy (Potioncat) I wouldn't mind anything in 2, 3, or 4. I can take some of section one topics, but would prefer not to have lit crit, parameters, narrative style or plot development. Mostly, I want to know where the endless supply of chocolate will be found. Great job, Carolyn. Kathy From quigonginger at yahoo.com Thu Feb 17 13:43:55 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:43:55 -0000 Subject: picking posts Message-ID: As I said before, I'll take ships. Now for the strings that you knew would come attached to that. Please, pretty please, don't give me anything that takes a real strong literary mind. If I see a post about the loquaciousness of post-Neo-modern Ferberism in the context of mass hypnotic tranquility according to Van Hewertsingson, I will run into the hills screaming. And I live in "the Great Plains" region of the US. In other words, if it involves more than a working knowledge of HP, leave it to someone who has a clue! One query that sprang to mind: On those occasions where we are not supposed to code to the main heading, what do we do if the specific person isn't identified? If, for example, someone wrote about Ali Basheer (sp) but he wasn't under "Other Wizards". That's all from here. Of course, if an avid shipper wants to take ships, I'll gladly take something else. Live long and prosper, Ginger From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Feb 17 14:55:24 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:55:24 -0000 Subject: picking posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Ginger wrote: > One query that sprang to mind: On those occasions where we are not supposed to code to the main heading, what do we do if the specific person isn't identified? Potioncat: Me too. Also, are there some categories where you are supposed to click both? For example would you click Harry Potter and Stoned! Harry? or Harry Potter and Harry's eyes? I've come across several posts that refer to Lexicon or where Steve explains something in the Lexicon. So far I've been able to code to other headings. Does that sound right? My batch is done. Kathy From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Feb 17 17:54:37 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:54:37 -0000 Subject: Dbase & other stuff Message-ID: NEW DATABASE To make it easier for you all to pick topics, I have summarised the available sections in a new database called (imaginatively) 'Allocation of review sections'. Please feel free to go in to the table and put your name down for whatever you would like to do. I have put in the names of some people who have contacted me already with definite choices. BTW - sorry about the order of the database. I cannot understand why it won't organise itself in numerical order. If anyone else knows why, please suggest a solution. I mean, correct me if I am wrong here, but 1.1.1 is a lower value than either 1.2 or 4.7 is it not ?? Am I going mad? Jen: > First, I just have to say this is an impressive catalogue, Carolyn. >Must be that Listo Organisio charm again. You know, Jen..relatively few people have detected that charm factor; it's a constant mystery to me, but there you go... Jen: >I'll be on the Difficult Subjects Committee, but I'm not very fond of Lit crit. Don't get it, don't >want to get it...might interfere with my enjoyment of Potterverse. Ginger: >Please, pretty please, don't give me anything that takes a real strong literary mind. If I see a >post about the loquaciousness of post-Neo-modern Ferberism in the context of mass >hypnotic tranquility according to Van Hewertsingson, I will run into the hills screaming. Carolyn: You are neither the first nor the last to think this! Never fear, I am going to ask Talisman to be my guide, and maybe Debbie, too, if she can bear it. There is a kind of point to this sort of analysis, but it is usually well-hidden in verbiage. We'll ruthlessly keep only the posts that make sense. KathySnow: My first thought when I read this was to make a temporary tick box for all posts that should not belong under a particular subject. When reviewing a category and you come across a post that is questionable you would tick the box; lets call it sorting mess, and write in the comment box at the bottom what subject code needs to be addressed along with the suggested proposal of where it should be placed. Carolyn: I will ask Paul how difficult this might be, and if he has any other technical suggestions that might help solve this problem. The only other way I could think of was to keep a written list of problem posts, compiled as everyone worked through sections, then go through them all in one fell swoop at the end of our review process. Clunky.. Ginger: One query that sprang to mind: On those occasions where we are not supposed to code to the main heading, what do we do if the specific person isn't identified? If, for example, someone wrote about Ali Basheer (sp) but he wasn't under "Other Wizards". Carolyn: I think the reason that quite a few posts have just got coded to the main heads in a lot of categories is because we don't have a 'Miscellaneous' or 'General' category to click. I'm somewhat averse to creating such heads, because they can be too much of a bin to put things in. I guess we should just create more categories rather than try and dodge this issue? Potioncat: Also, are there some categories where you are supposed to click both? For example would you click Harry Potter and Stoned! Harry? or Harry Potter and Harry's eyes? Carolyn: Now, actually the answer to this is a tad complicated. I discussed it with Paul and Tim a week or so ago, because I was concerned that sometimes this might have been done a bit randomly. Paul said it didn't matter because clicking any sub-category under any main head automatically meant that you were (technically-speaking) clicking the main head, even if you didn't actually do that. There are some search issues connected with this which I won't go into now, but the upshot of the discussion was that we were to focus on clicking relevant sub- categories, and not worry about the main heads. I am going to email him to try and clarify this a bit more for everyone. Potioncat: I've come across several posts that refer to Lexicon or where Steve explains something in the Lexicon. So far I've been able to code to other headings. Does that sound right? Carolyn: Frankly I just treat Steve's opinions in the same way as anyone else's. If he has made a contribution to some thread that you find helpful, then click it in to the subjects you are dealing with. IMO, there's plenty to disagree with in the Lexicon, it's not necessarily the be all and end all of arguments, though of course it is very useful for many things and more accurate that many sources. My batch is done. Kathy Here you go: 42701-42800 Carolyn From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Feb 17 18:38:29 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:38:29 -0000 Subject: Dbase & other stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn: Please feel free to go in to the table and put your name down for whatever you would like to do. I have put in the names of some people who have contacted me already with definite choices. Potioncat: Are we to put our name down and start reviewing, or wait for further directions? And, are we to continue coding as well, or would you prefer all our catalogue time to be spent on reviews? Potioncat, ever the good little Hufflepuff. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Feb 17 19:25:29 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:25:29 -0000 Subject: Dbase & other stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Carolyn: > Please feel free to go in to the table and put your name down for > whatever you would like to do. I have put in the names of some > people who have contacted me already with definite choices. > > > Potioncat: > Are we to put our name down and start reviewing, or wait for further > directions? And, are we to continue coding as well, or would you > prefer all our catalogue time to be spent on reviews? > > Potioncat, ever the good little Hufflepuff. Carolyn: I would choose some categories and start reviewing. The sooner we make a start... Sorry to inflict this on everyone, but I think it is the right thing to do at this stage. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Feb 17 19:36:35 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:36:35 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Dbase & other stuff In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Right. Been there, done that. 'Volunteered' for 6 categories totalling something over 3,000 posts. Does that sound equitable? No idea when I'll complete - heavy hints that I'll be expected to work next week - perhaps away from home, most unreasonable, and then there's these 15 books that have just arrived from Amazon. Who's in charge of forward planning round here? Only I'd like a word.... Barry From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 00:55:51 2005 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:55:51 -0000 Subject: Dbase & other stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I've gone an picked my review catagories, like every good little girl should. I've also completed four small categories: 1.5.9 - 1.5.9.3 Anagrams 1.5.10 Astrology 1.5.11 -1.5.11.4 Numbers 2.3.3 Flitwick I rejected some posts because there were repeating ideas already found in the category (eg. there were a few which just said 'Is Flitwick part Goblin?'). A few of the anagram posts were not about anagrams found in the HP series at all, rather posts saying 'Can someone make me an anagram for my theory?' I removed the code from these ones. Others were actually about Etymology so I swapped them over. Also, some of the posts coded to TAGS had only a tiny mention like 'P.S. TAGS does it again' at the very end. I removed the code from these. TAGS is an OT acronym anyway and I believe it should be removed entirely. But seeing as there are only three posts actually about it, I guess it won't hurt anyone. There was a post that speculated Neville being a Pisces (in the context of MemoryCharm!Neville), but because we now know this is wrong I removed the Astrology code to avoid confusion. These were very easy categories to do. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Feb 18 10:31:18 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:31:18 -0000 Subject: Dbase & other stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > No idea when I'll complete - heavy hints that I'll be expected to work > next week - perhaps away from home, most unreasonable, and then > there's these 15 books that have just arrived from Amazon. > > Who's in charge of forward planning round here? > Only I'd like a word.... > > Barry So the offer of barrels of beer and unlimited virgins was finally successful in getting you out of the house then? In chilly February too... From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Feb 18 11:02:30 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:02:30 -0000 Subject: Dbase & other stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carolyn: > I would choose some categories and start reviewing. The sooner we > make a start... > > Sorry to inflict this on everyone, but I think it is the right thing > to do at this stage. Can we clarify exactly what we're doing? Are we changing codes as we review, or making notes? What if we have posts that were coded before certain categories came into existance? I don't want to start adding codes and find that I'm messing up somebody else's section by adding posts while they're in the middle of it. How about we remove all unnecessary codes (which won't upset anyone else's categories), but make a list of posts where extra codes should be added, along with clearer definitions of categories and potential new categories, to be discussed, and then have a sweep through adding categories at the end? Alternatively, we could have an extra category called 'reviewed' (which could be removed afterwards) that gets ticked for all posts that have had codes added in this review. Then you can identify the new posts that turn up in a category that you're working on, and you don't need to repeat somebody else's work. Dot From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Feb 18 12:13:53 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:13:53 -0000 Subject: Dbase & what we are meant to be doing..(IMPORTANT) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > > Can we clarify exactly what we're doing? Are we changing codes as we review, or making notes? What if we have posts that were coded > before certain categories came into existance? I don't want to start adding codes and find that I'm messing up somebody else's section by adding posts while they're in the middle of it. > > How about we remove all unnecessary codes (which won't upset anyone > else's categories), but make a list of posts where extra codes > should be added, along with clearer definitions of categories and > potential new categories, to be discussed, and then have a sweep > through adding categories at the end? > > Alternatively, we could have an extra category called 'reviewed' > (which could be removed afterwards) that gets ticked for all posts > that have had codes added in this review. Then you can identify the > new posts that turn up in a category that you're working on, and you don't need to repeat somebody else's work. > Carolyn: A word of clarification here. What we are doing is as follows: 1. First consider the definitions which currently exist for the category you are dealing with. That's simple if it is one sub- category, but if your review group consists of several related sub- categories (as most do), we need to review what the differences in definitions are within that sub-group before cleaning up the posts themselves. In order to do this it is probably necessary to do a fast eye-ball of the posts in the sections to see the extent to which they fit the definitions or not, and whether any extra categories are needed to reflect the range of what you see, or whether existing ones should be changed. 2. Once you've done this, please first post to the group about how you plan to sort out a category or group of categories. This is important because one huge benefit of this exercise is to build common agreement on what different categories mean. 3. If everyone is in agreement, then go ahead and do the sort out as proposed. 4. Re the problem of adding/changing codes other than those you are specifically dealing with, I think that having another category to tick in the admin section is a brilliant idea, Dot, so simple and why didn't I think of this! SO: I am going to add a category - *********5.6 Review coding********* under section 5, Admin Flags, and could everyone, *without fail*, religiously tick this if they make a change to a post that could affect categories other than the ones they are supposed to be dealing with at the time ? Then, although it might be rather a long list, at least we have in one place all the ones to double check at the end of this process. Everyone happy with this? Large quantity of Honeydukes best to Dot.. Carolyn From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Feb 18 12:36:13 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 07:36:13 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Dbase & what we are meant to be doing..(IMPORTANT) References: Message-ID: *********5.6 Review coding********* under section 5, Admin Flags, and could everyone, *without fail*, religiously tick this if they make a change to a post that could affect categories other than the ones they are supposed to be dealing with at the time ? Potioncat: But we won't be making any changes on the site until after discussing with group, correct? So no 5.6 yet. I'm working with the very straight forward Minerva McGonagall...all business that lady...so it's pretty much, "is this post about her or did someone just mention her name?" but I've also seen a few posts that could be completely rejected. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/ b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Feb 18 13:56:58 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:56:58 -0000 Subject: McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Kathy Willson" wrote: > Potioncat: > But we won't be making any changes on the site until after discussing with group, correct? So no 5.6 yet. > > I'm working with the very straight forward Minerva McGonagall...all business that lady...so it's pretty much, "is this post about her or did someone just mention her name?" but I've also seen a few posts that could be completely rejected. > Carolyn: No - try to give people an idea of your thoughts before going ahead. For McGonagall, probably a question to consider is whether you should have an ESE!McGonagall sub-head, as it's been a popular theory over the years. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Feb 18 14:26:57 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:26:57 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Dbase & what we are meant to be doing..(IMPORTANT) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A question. I'm reviewing 4.4 British Terms, Culture. Are what were previous sub-groups 4.4.1 - 4.4.5 now included under this single code? The number of posts allocated to 4.4 in the database suggests that they are. Yes. It's looks as if I'm to be dragged, kicking and screaming out of my lair. It seems the presence of my corporate entity is essential in order to foil the foul machinations of an interloper intruding himself into the contract. A likely story. The only virgins in evidence will be supplied by Branson - and I bet they don't perform as advertised. Oh God. Stuck in Wolverhampton - again. Barry From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Fri Feb 18 14:46:44 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:46:44 +1100 Subject: intro and review. Message-ID: <20050218144644.GA21081@aardvark.net.au> While I await admission into the catalogue and shove armfuls of past posts into my mouth, I'll post an intro. But first, I'll clear up the matter of review subject: I'll take on Hermione Granger. My special subject is insufferable know-it-alls. Some of you have met me on TOC, but my intro there was frankly embarrassing so I hope to remedy that here. * Name: Sean Dwyer Well actually my first name is Anthony but my mother was somehow convinced by a nurse that calling me Sean Anthony Dwyer would make the letters SAD and that wouldn't do. So it took another 17 years before I dropped the Anthony. * Nicks: ewe2. It's always been that. I made up the nick as a bad joke and it haunts me to this day. My previous attempt was boing. Noone seems to want to help. * Age: 41 * Family: dotted around Australia. * Home: Bendigo, central Victoria, fun capital of Australia. * Birthday/PoB: 20th July, in Melbourne. * Education/Job/Role: Currently fulltime carer and tenant of charge, which is handy. Also part-time admin of the network for a support org, so I get to fix computers and manage the website. * First HP Contact: Heard about this phenomenon from friendly local booksellers where I spend way too much money, could only pick up PoA and absolutely *demanded* that PS, CoS and GoF be delivered posthaste. Was 2nd in line for OotP and intend to be 1st in line for HBP. * Extent of Potter Obsession: Just when I think it's gone away it comes back sevenfold. This is from a diehard Tolkien fan, so you can imagine the shock. * Other interests/activities: computers, reading about computers, reading anything, playing and creating music, creating pictures and looking at them, walking, movies, cryptography, programming, Mayan calendars, and a small dog called Snowy. * Current/recent reading: biography of Eisenhower by Stephen Ambrose, TCP/IP Illustrated (Vol 1) by W. Richard Stevens, Introduction to Algorithms by various worthy incomprehensible math geeks, and I just finished the last volume of the Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson. * Current/recent listening: I've rediscovered a They Might Be Giants album called Apollo 18 which is my new favourite TMBG album after Flood. I'm beginning to recover from The Fat Of The Land by Prodigy (high rotation), and MishMash! by Regurgitator. Have recently begun seriously converting my CD collection to binary form, and so I've revisted Brian Eno, The Beatles, Talking Heads, and XTC to name a few. * Current/recent viewing: The Corporation DVD, the latest (series V) Red Dwarf DVD, naturally the latest LoTR extended DVD, and I'm currently in negotiation for series 2 of Blakes 7 from a fellow blakes7 mailing-list member. It is an honour to join you lunatics. ewe2 -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Feb 18 15:14:36 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:14:36 -0000 Subject: British terms & culture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > A question. > > I'm reviewing 4.4 British Terms, Culture. > Are what were previous sub-groups 4.4.1 - 4.4.5 now included under this > single code? > > The number of posts allocated to 4.4 in the database suggests that they > are. Currently, they still are sub-groups unless you think they should be changed or altered. The problem is that things have sometimes been put places on a hope-for-the-best basis, and this needs sorting out. By the time you have glanced through all the subsections in this group, it might be clear that some more sub-sections are required, or the existing ones should be more accurately named, or some could be merged. If that's the case, tell us, and I'll create new sections for you, or merge things, whatever. Or they might be ok as they are. Once the right structure is established, then it's a case of whizzing through the sections making sure they have the right stuff in them, sometimes moving stuff between sub-sections, or chucking things altogether redundant to those codes etc. PS everyone should check their number of posts to see the range of sections included. I'll go over the database this evening to make sure it is crystal clear. This is another reason that I'd like everyone to post their proposed changes first, so we can double-check that everything relevant is being reviewed together. > > Yes. It's looks as if I'm to be dragged, kicking and screaming out of > my lair. It seems the presence of my corporate entity is essential in > order to foil the foul machinations of an interloper intruding himself > into the contract. A likely story. > > The only virgins in evidence will be supplied by Branson - and I bet > they don't perform as advertised. Oh God. Stuck in Wolverhampton - > again. > > Barry I already feel sorry for the interloper. Probably he's all perky and confident thinking he's about to make a successful pitch to some new clients. Then in rolls Arrowsmith, furious from being dragged out of his house before June, and livid from being exposed to screaming children, students with backpacks and other hoi polloi on what passes for a railway system in this country. Nope, not even virgins are going to save the day. I'd get the hell out of there if I were him. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Feb 18 15:41:22 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:41:22 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: British terms & culture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <798832fdbe110b781e5e417bf95eb9a4@btconnect.com> On 18 Feb 2005, at 15:14, carolynwhite2 wrote: > > Currently, they still are sub-groups unless you think they should be > changed or altered. The problem is that things have sometimes been > put places on a hope-for-the-best basis, and this needs sorting out. > By the time you have glanced through all the subsections in this > group, it might be clear that some more sub-sections are required, or > the existing ones should be more accurately named, or some could be > merged. > Try merging - there are a lot of posts, well, some, that are duplicated within this group of categories. Some of the categories have few posts anyway. Second thoughts - keep the schools section - it's substantial enough to stand on it's own; but culture, food, slang, geography (only about 3 real posts in there, the rest are OT) overlap quite a bit and could be lumped together. Besides having to flip through a few posts looking for what you want is good for the soul - and you might learn something new. > > > I already feel sorry for the interloper. Probably he's all perky and > confident thinking he's about to make a successful pitch to some new > clients. Then in rolls Arrowsmith, furious from being dragged out of > his house before June, and livid from being exposed to screaming > children, students with backpacks and other hoi polloi on what passes > for a railway system in this country. > > Nope, not even virgins are going to save the day. I'd get the hell > out of there if I were him. > > Worse. He's been getting at the client behind our backs, telling him that we and especially me, are doing it wrong. I suspect he has an unofficial connection to some possible equipment suppliers/manufacturers and is on a promise of a commission of some sort. Retribution will be swift and terrible. And forcing me to travel..... unforgivable. For that alone - the curry colonic, I think. Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 2177 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Feb 18 16:21:34 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:21:34 -0000 Subject: British terms & culture In-Reply-To: <798832fdbe110b781e5e417bf95eb9a4@btconnect.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > Try merging - there are a lot of posts, well, some, that are duplicated > within this group of categories. Some of the categories have few posts > anyway. > > Second thoughts - keep the schools section - it's substantial enough to > stand on it's own; but culture, food, slang, geography (only about 3 > real posts in there, the rest are OT) overlap quite a bit and could be > lumped together. > Besides having to flip through a few posts looking for what you want is > good for the soul - and you might learn something new. > Ok, done. Now you've got just two sections: 4.4 British terms, culture (108 posts) 4.4.1 British school traditions (84 posts) Hope you were sure about that! Carolyn From quigonginger at yahoo.com Fri Feb 18 17:09:36 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:09:36 -0000 Subject: AHOY from the SHIPping world. Message-ID: Ginger, dressed in a captain's uniform, with matching featherboa (some preferences are best allowed to remain without comment) marches into Miss Carolyn's office. She plunks down a nice glass of wine, a couple of pain relievers, and a mild sedative. "Yes," she says, allowing a scroll to fall to the floor, "I have questions." ------- I have done a preliminary reading of a portion of the posts under the relationSHIP heading, and I have noticed that most fall into certain categories: GOOD AS THEY ARE: no questions here. CODED ONLY TO SHIP CATEGORIES, BUT NEED REJECTING/RECODING: 1) There are many which say in their entirety: Bob asked: "What is FITD" (or other acronym) Now me: FITD is..... Should I just reject these outright without bothering anyone else? 2) Many posts are coded to both the main heading and FITD, or OBHWF, or trio ships. Should I uncode the main heading if it only deals with FITD (or other shipping category)? 3) Many posts are under FITD or OBHWF and also under trio ships, even though they only deal with FITD or OBHWF. Since FITD and OBHWF are by definition ships which involve the trio, should I uncode trio? CODED TO SHIP BUT BELONG ELSEWHERE: 1) When we get to sex in the WW, there are some that aren't shipping, but are more along the lines of gender roles in the WW. 2) In gay ships, there are posts discussing whether or not JKR would write one, but don't discuss an actual ship. Question: I am not clear on how we are to move things to other people's categories. I read the memo about 5.6 but am unclear if this is something we should be doing at this time or later. MULTIPLE POSTS: Several have valid points in other areas, but the only relevant part to shipping is a comment such as "I like the H/H ship too!" Uncode shipping and leave the rest as is? REPEATED IDEAS: Basicly glorified "me too's" (other than those mentioned above). Reject now? DISCUSSION OF THE SHIPS AS NAUTICAL DEVICES: "We are an intertube" or the like. Some are also coded to TBAY. Reject as shipping, but leave as TBAY? Or reject totally? (assume nothing valid is added) FANFIC: Common under the gay ships. No canon or canon interpretation, just "I read a really cool Draco/Neville fic...." Reject as fanfic? ANTISHIPPING: 1) Lots of "I really don't care who ends up with whom. I think the story is more about (fill in blank)." Many are also coded to the blank filled in, in which case they should stand in those areas, but should they be rejected as SHIP posts? 2) Others stop at "I don't care who ends up with whom". Reject? Note: This still leaves quite a bit of good discussion about why posters don't ship for such reasons as the ages of the trio and the unlikelyhood that they will pair for life. PERSONAL PREFERRENCE, NO CANON: Alltogether too many "I like Ron and Hermione. They would be cute together" and the like. Shall I take a cleaver to them? In summary, there are quite a few that I think I could whack right now without effecting anyone else's category, either by unchecking the ship part of it or by rejecting a post totally coded to ship categories. Shall I commence? Could I get a clarification on how to go about doing something that might effect someone else's category? ------- "On the brighter side," Ginger adds smiling, "I have figured my personal finances and have discovered that I can quit my second job in the beginning of May, at which time I will have more free time to devote to the project! Thank all that is good for company profit sharing plans!" Remembering her captain's uniform, Ginger barks to the office personnel, "As you were!" and leaves. The office awakens. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Feb 18 18:26:18 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:26:18 -0000 Subject: AHOY from the SHIPping world. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" wrote: > Ginger, dressed in a captain's uniform, with matching featherboa (some preferences are best allowed to remain without comment) marches into Miss Carolyn's office. She plunks down a nice glass of wine, a couple of pain relievers, and a mild sedative. "Yes," she says, allowing a scroll to fall to the floor, "I have questions." ------- Carolyn, gulping down wine, pain relievers and sedative in one go, sighs heavily. She knew it would come to this in the end. There was no avoiding the SHIPpers in Theory Bay. Weakly, she pinned a Cataloguing Group Order of Honour for Extraordinary Courage and Bravery onto Ginger's featherboa, 'Just as long as I don't have to read them, right? That's the deal?' she muttered incoherently, the lethal cocktail kicking in. Ginger nodded brightly. 'I think they are fun! But since you didn't read them in the first place when you coded them, they are in a right mess.' Carolyn nodded. The criticism was unarguable..and she wasn't alone either. She glared round at Boyd, Kneasy, Anne, Kelly...well, everyone really. They didn't look very sorry. 'Now listen everyone..if Ginger sorts out this stuff for us, we've got to play the game in future, right? She's going to write us a list of rules for dealing with these...things...' Carolyn paused to look at the heaps of curling pink parchment that Ginger had lugged in, and was enthusiastically piling into different groups all over the office floor. Worryingly, Carolyn's oldest and baddest cat was lashing his tail and making a beeline for the largest and most precarious collection..good game! -------- I have done a preliminary reading of a portion of the posts under the relationSHIP heading, and I have noticed that most fall into certain categories: GOOD AS THEY ARE: no questions here. CODED ONLY TO SHIP CATEGORIES, BUT NEED REJECTING/RECODING: 1) There are many which say in their entirety: Bob asked: "What is FITD" (or other acronym) Now me: FITD is..... Should I just reject these outright without bothering anyone else? 2) Many posts are coded to both the main heading and FITD, or OBHWF, or trio ships. Should I uncode the main heading if it only deals with FITD (or other shipping category)? 3) Many posts are under FITD or OBHWF and also under trio ships, even though they only deal with FITD or OBHWF. Since FITD and OBHWF are by definition ships which involve the trio, should I uncode trio? Carolyn: What we want to achieve is two sections which keep the best of FITD and OBHWF posts, which I would describe as those which clarify what the theory acronyms mean and discuss them with some semblance of intelligence. Posts which just say 'Oh, I so hope Harry ends up being part of Molly's wonderful family' should be totally and utterly banned. Personally, I think they should not also be checked to Trio ships - others may like to comment on this. CODED TO SHIP BUT BELONG ELSEWHERE: 1) When we get to sex in the WW, there are some that aren't shipping, but are more along the lines of gender roles in the WW. 2) In gay ships, there are posts discussing whether or not JKR would write one, but don't discuss an actual ship. Question: I am not clear on how we are to move things to other people's categories. I read the memo about 5.6 but am unclear if this is something we should be doing at this time or later. Carolyn: The approach should be to de-check the shipping codes you are currently dealing with if you think they are irrelevant to a post, then add the gender roles or authorial intent codes if you think those more appropriate, **BUT then click 5.6 Review Post**. This will alert us to look at that post at the end of this exercise, to double check whether it is correctly coded, given all the alterations that will have been made to all the sections by then. MULTIPLE POSTS: Several have valid points in other areas, but the only relevant part to shipping is a comment such as "I like the H/H ship too!" Uncode shipping and leave the rest as is? Carolyn: Yes, this is the right thing to do. REPEATED IDEAS: Basicly glorified "me too's" (other than those mentioned above). Reject now? Carolyn: yes please ! (Assuming there are no other codes involved other than the ones you are dealing with). DISCUSSION OF THE SHIPS AS NAUTICAL DEVICES: "We are an intertube" or the like. Some are also coded to TBAY. Reject as shipping, but leave as TBAY? Or reject totally? (assume nothing valid is added) Carolyn: This is a bit tricky. We had a discussion a while back about whether to keep posts which chart the origin of TBAY ships, and the various preferences of the people involved. It can be quite fun, and we did decide to be a bit lenient. Could you consider carving a new sub-category out for these maybe? What do other people think? I do want to try and preserve the history of how HPfGU evolved if at all possible. FANFIC: Common under the gay ships. No canon or canon interpretation, just "I read a really cool Draco/Neville fic...." Reject as fanfic? Carolyn: yes, these should not be there. ANTISHIPPING: 1) Lots of "I really don't care who ends up with whom. I think the story is more about (fill in blank)." Many are also coded to the blank filled in, in which case they should stand in those areas, but should they be rejected as SHIP posts? 2) Others stop at "I don't care who ends up with whom". Reject? Note: This still leaves quite a bit of good discussion about why posters don't ship for such reasons as the ages of the trio and the unlikelyhood that they will pair for life. Carolyn: For the same reason as above on TBAY, I'd like to preserve the anti-shipping objections if we can, but obviously only the best of the arguments, which should be more than the one-liners. If you can take off SHIP codes, I think that is right, to try and make this section self-contained and not to overlapping with others. PERSONAL PREFERRENCE, NO CANON: Alltogether too many "I like Ron and Hermione. They would be cute together" and the like. Shall I take a cleaver to them? Carolyn (grinning very happily now): Oh yesh...where's the rest of the bottle.... In summary, there are quite a few that I think I could whack right now without effecting anyone else's category, either by unchecking the ship part of it or by rejecting a post totally coded to ship categories. Shall I commence? Could I get a clarification on how to go about doing something that might effect someone else's category? Carolyn: Please start whacking without delay, don't think anyone is going to stop you in this section. See 'coded to SHIP but belong elsewhere' for clarification on the treatment of things which might affect other people's categories. ------- "On the brighter side," Ginger adds smiling, "I have figured my personal finances and have discovered that I can quit my second job in the beginning of May, at which time I will have more free time to devote to the project! Thank all that is good for company profit sharing plans!" Remembering her captain's uniform, Ginger barks to the office personnel, "As you were!" and leaves. The office awakens. Carolyn: ..company profit sharing plans? Dream on if you are self-employed.... Goes off to drown her sorrows.. these wine and sedative combos are quite good really... From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Feb 18 20:28:43 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:28:43 -0000 Subject: intro and review/Sean In-Reply-To: <20050218144644.GA21081@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > While I await admission into the catalogue and shove armfuls of past posts > into my mouth, I'll post an intro. > > But first, I'll clear up the matter of review subject: I'll take on Hermione > Granger. My special subject is insufferable know-it-alls. > I've put you down for little Miss Whiplash, although I hate to break it to you that she's the 4th most popular character in terms of posts! > > * Education/Job/Role: > Currently fulltime carer and tenant of charge, which is > handy. Also part-time admin of the network for a support org, so I get to fix > computers and manage the website. Hm dangerous to admit you know your way around a computer in this group, as most of us don't....could come in handy. > > * Current/recent reading: I just finished the last > volume of the Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson. > I acquired Quicksilver a while ago on Barry's recommendation. Alas, one of a large pile of books I have not got around to yet, but it looks good. > > > It is an honour to join you lunatics. > You may come to regret that remark... Carolyn From kakearney at comcast.net Fri Feb 18 20:55:29 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:55:29 -0000 Subject: vacation, then review Message-ID: Just checking in to let you know I'll be out of town until Feb 26, so I'll pick up a category to review when I get back. Don't have any real preferences, so surprise me. -Kelly, who knows she just opened herself to attack :) From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Sat Feb 19 00:25:06 2005 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 00:25:06 -0000 Subject: Muggle Trouble Message-ID: There are 16 posts in the main heading for 'Muggles,' despite the instruction not to code anything there. What are these mysterious 16 posts that we defiantly put where we were told not to? None of them were wrong, so to speak. The fall into four categories: PORTRAYAL OF MUGGLES How are Muggles are portrayed by the books? How do Wizards view Muggles? (esp. in relation to class. Are Wizards elite?) Specifically Arthur's fascination with Muggles and how he interacts with them. MUGGLES AND WIZARDS Specifics about the Muggles/Wizard separation (memory charms to keep it secret) How aware are Muggles of the Wizarding World (eg, Can Muggles see Dementors, Can Muggles be bitten by Werewolves?)? MUGGLES GENETICS What actually distinguishes a Muggle from Wizard? Do Muggles have a genetic link with Squibs? MUGGLE-BORNS Muggle parents sending their children off to Hogwarts. We have a heading "3.5.2 ????Purebloods & half bloods," should there be a Muggleborn heading? Or should that heading just be expanded? Could "3.4.7 ????WW lifespans, genetics & population estimates" also be explanded to include Muggle genetics? These posts don't ask what makes a wizard, but what makes a muggle. "3.2.2 ????Relationship with muggle world" would seem to be enough to cover the separation between Wizard/Muggles worlds. But these posts tend to be about social relations, not political. But as to the question of how Muggles are portrayed in the books, especially in relation to class, I don't see any other category which could be sufficient. "3.2.2 ????Relationship with muggle world" is a start, but there are no headings for talking about what Muggles are like as a group. Should these posts be left in the main heading? This would mean you only coded a post to "2.13 ??Muggles" if the post was talking about how JKR portrays Muggles (as a group), what the general opinion of Muggles (as a group) is, or how specific characters (Arthur, Dumbledore, etc) view Muggles (as a group). Sound alright? And onto the more specific Muggles... Most of these characters have less than 30 posts coded to each. So there is no need to redefine their defintions. Vernon, Petunia and Dudley, however, have a few hundred each. Mostly about Child Abuse and invoking Ancient Magic. Some about sterotypes and hidden magical ability and a few about Petunia's name. However, there aren't any prevalent themes which could warrant their own sub-categories. The only minor problem is that some posts discuss how the Durselys treat Harry and what they believe as a family unit, not as individuals. Are these more approporate for "1.4.7.3 ??????Dursleys" because they are about family beliefs, attitudes and joint actions? Or alternatively, will there be some posts from that heading being recoded to Vernon, Petunia and Dudley? KathyK, I see you've elected to do Family Dynamics. What do you think? ~<(Laurasia)>~ From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sat Feb 19 01:15:50 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:15:50 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: intro and review/Sean In-Reply-To: References: <20050218144644.GA21081@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: <20050219011550.GB27548@aardvark.net.au> On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 08:28:43PM -0000, carolynwhite2 wrote: > I've put you down for little Miss Whiplash, although I hate to break > it to you that she's the 4th most popular character in terms of posts! It's a dirty job but someone has to do it. > Hm dangerous to admit you know your way around a computer in this > group, as most of us don't....could come in handy. In my experience, it is always dangerous to admit you know anything about computers :) > I acquired Quicksilver a while ago on Barry's recommendation. Alas, > one of a large pile of books I have not got around to yet, but it > looks good. Well you and Barry are the only others I know to even get the book, so that makes me feel slightly less geeky. Stephenson is a geek's geek. Really, if he wrote the Joy of Geek, he'd be the authority :) -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Feb 19 02:48:27 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 02:48:27 -0000 Subject: AHOY from the SHIPping world. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > (Remembering her captain's uniform, Ginger barks to the office > personnel, "As you were!" and leaves. > > The office awakens. Potioncat, previously deep in her reviewing work, jumps to attention, sees the office members staring at her, and remembers: 1. She isn't in the Navy anymore. 2. She never met a Navy Captain from any nation who wore a featherboa (not in uniform, anyway) and 3. "As you were" is not "Attention". She glances at the posts on her desk and strides up to Carolyn's desk. "Yes," she says, "I have questions." She pauses a moment for the feeling of deja vu to evaporate and goes on: Posts on McGonagall are either OK or they aren't. Some of the latter make good points within the other codes, but aren't really about the Deputy. So, I suggest deleting the McGonagall code on those. That may leave 1.4.3 Portrayal of males/females/gays without a specific person for a few posts. Would that be OK? A few question her age prior to JKR's revealing it. Do we need to keep a few of those for posterity? Ginger wrote: > 2) In gay ships, there are posts discussing whether or not JKR would > write one, but don't discuss an actual ship. I've come across a few under McGonagall. Ginger is welcomed to whack away. She may also do as she will with McGonagall and Snape....erm, you know what I mean. I assume I'm free to reject the posts that are only about McGonagall but don't really add anything? I did see a few, very few ESE!McGonagall. Should we make a code anyway or hold off on that? Now, the important part. "How" do we go about making these changes? I went into catagoize posts and typed in a post number just to get to the codes. I clicked on McGonagall, and the "p"....but at that location, you cannot make changes. So is it a case of noting the affected posts and going back into the catalogue to get to them? Or have I found a very difficult way to do some simple computer commands? Potioncat ignores the pills but looks longingly at the now empty wine glass, but really wishes she had chocolate. From dk59us at yahoo.com Sat Feb 19 04:18:55 2005 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 04:18:55 -0000 Subject: The Trouble with Puffskeins Message-ID: Hi all, Round about message 36137, a thread that touches on Weasley family dynamics focuses in on Ron's puffskein and what exactly Fred may have done to it (see FB&WTFT, p.34). I've coded this to the book and Weasley family dynamics--but there's no specific listing for Puffskeins (or Tribbles (which seem to have more than a passing resemblance to Puffskeins) for that matter). There's no category in Beasts for Puffskeins. Not sure if there is sufficient demand, but thought I'd ask. If not, should it just be coded to 2.15, the main Beasts category? Cheers, Doug From kking0731 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 19 05:59:36 2005 From: kking0731 at hotmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 05:59:36 -0000 Subject: Quick review of Death Eater topic 2.10 (only) Message-ID: I started to review the Death Eater category code 2.10 (only) and after looking over the first 40 posts realized there was going to be a conflict. The majority of the posts dealt with the dark mark insignia, which 99% of the time will involve the death eaters as a collective group. Now that's ok but being suspicious of the situation I looked at 3.9.4 the Dark Mark category and it has many of the same posts or ones that are very similar in nature. It's almost like there are two different categories representing the same ideas. My suggestion would be to combine the Death Eater/Dark Mark into one category. The Dark Mark category however, is also used for the Morsmordre spell creating the symbolic dark mark, which I would suggest, moving to symbolism. Input please! One of the other idea's that was talked about under the Death Eater category was name origin. Here is an example: "Has anyone noticed that the Astronomy professor, Prof. Sinistra, has not played a role in any of the books so far? I had been thinking about this, and wondering whether she might come up more in future books, and if so, what does her name say about her? I know in Latin 'sinister' means "left," but its obvious cognate in English is 'sinister.' So... she's either a DeathEater, or she just has very liberal ideas (hee hee) Any thoughts on this?" Is it necessary to code to the subject matter when talking about the origin of a name? Posts discussing name origins often go off on a tangent or in this example make a brief reference to the subject matter. Also I hate to bring this up again but the post numbers are out of whack. The first post is 16000 and the next one is 15993 and three posts later its 6558. KathySnow From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 19 09:26:26 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 09:26:26 -0000 Subject: Subcategories ( was Quick review of Death Eater topic 2.10 (only) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > The Dark Mark category however, is also used for the > Morsmordre spell creating the symbolic dark mark, which I would > suggest, moving to symbolism. Input please! Talisman: Hi Snow. I'm not sure I would move the Morsmordre Spell to symbolism. I can see how you would want to put it there, after all it produces a "symbol" that is used to indicate that the DE's have struck again, but I think it is still primarily a spell, and one that has (apparently) exclusive DE meaning. It's magic, it's a spell, it's likely a Dark Art, it definitely sends a message, but, all in all, it seems to be a DE artifact, so closely related to them as to belong as a DE subgroup. That's not to say the spell isn't going to be discussed in a symbolic context, and thus appropriately cross-referenced to the symbolism category, which may be what you are finding. But, I can also imagine posts discussing it's effect and use as a terrorist device; whether LV invented it; whether all DE's know how to produce it; why it scared them so; whether it requires LV's authorization, etc.,that really aren't focused on symbolism. I don't think there is any problem with one post being coded to DE's, Morsmordre, and the Dark Mark, if it actually pertains to all categories, which wouldn't be unlikely. There is going to be overlap in a cross-indexed catalogue. Actually, I'd rather each topic have its own category (DE's/Dark Mark/Morsmordre) The problem would be if people were checking the DE category just because it's a DE spell, when the post is confined to discussion of a discrete topic, such as how the symbolism of the snake coming out of the mouth relates to parsletongue; how long the spell lasts; whether Muggles can see it; or other topics where any mention of either DE's or, in the later cases, the Dark Mark, is incidental. You may be saying that the extant posts break out along DE/Dark Mark vs Morsmordre/symbolism lines, but who knows what is yet to come? I have a feeling we will see the Morsmordre again before this saga is through. The solution would be, in such an instance, to remove the code from any superfluous category. I'm tempted to say the same with the Dark Mark question. Many posts may deal with both the Dark Mark and DE's, they are so closely related, but all posts regarding DE's do not involve the Dark Mark. The effect of combining the groups is that someone researching the Dark Mark has to wade through all DE-related posts, rather than pulling up the specific subgroup. And we all know how individual subject lines clarify everything. I guess that would be my vote as pertains to any subgroup situation: i.e. we may well expect many posts to belong to more that one related subgroup, but that doesn't mean it isn't helpful to be able to separate them to the extent that not all posts pertain to all related subgroups. Talisman, who can't believe she is suggesting more categories, and suspects it has something to do with thinking about Anne this afternoon. P.S. While I'm at it, I also vote for coding to general groups such as "Muggles" or "DEs," because there are posts that deal with these groups in exactly such a general fashion. P.P.S. Eva, it seems we share a number of tastes, including a soft spot for Sir Gawain. In consideration of your enlightened state of being-- if you actually want to work on Snape--I'll be happy to team up. Afterall, with our Dark Knight around there are enough nicks in the neck for everyone. "What schuld I wonde / Of destin?s derf and dere? / What may mon do bot fonde?" From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 19 09:52:10 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 09:52:10 -0000 Subject: Quick review of Death Eater topic 2.10 (only) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > > > One of the other idea's that was talked about under the Death >Eater category was name origin. Here is an example: about Professor Sinistra> Posts discussing name origins often go >off on a tangent or in this example make a brief reference to the >subject matter. Talisman: I agree that this name origin example should not be coded to DE's. I don't think the brief reference is sufficiently substantive to put it there. Also, regarding your review showing that 95% of posts involving DE's also involve the Dark Mark (which text I snipped before deciding to add this) Did you find that 95% of the posts were appropriately coded to both? I guess I'm surprised, either that or I think this trend won't hold. The reason I lean toward separate codes is my sense that I've read a lot of posts regarding DE's (their attitudes, their origins, what they did after LV was vaporized, etc.) that do not include probative--or even any--discussion of the Dark Mark. `Course I could be in a state of category-induced delirium. Just don't say I didn't care. T From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Feb 19 12:14:52 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:14:52 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: review In-Reply-To: <20050219011550.GB27548@aardvark.net.au> References: <20050218144644.GA21081@aardvark.net.au> <20050219011550.GB27548@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: Right. Reviewed Brit Cult., Brit. schools and JKR Interviews. A few got dropped from these categories (Nothing new or OT) and a couple got their coding changed. Nothing significant. > > > I acquired Quicksilver a while ago on Barry's recommendation. Alas, > > one of a large pile of books I have not got around to yet, but it > > looks good. > > Well you and Barry are the only others I know to even get the book, > so that > makes me feel slightly less geeky. Stephenson is a geek's geek. > Really, if > he wrote the Joy of Geek, he'd be the authority :) > But he's an intelligent geek and he can write. Mind you, he can look weird. His earlier books have photos of him as a throw-back to hippie-dom. In a recent Locus he has shaved his head, kept the long beard and taken up the leather 'n studs look. A geek with attitude. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 943 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sat Feb 19 12:41:34 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:41:34 +1100 Subject: [OT] Relative Geekness In-Reply-To: References: <20050218144644.GA21081@aardvark.net.au> <20050219011550.GB27548@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: <20050219124134.GA32217@aardvark.net.au> Apologies for the OT thread, but I've got nothing to do until I can get into the catalogue. I hope to be reviewing Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger, Hagrid and various relatively minor female students including Luna. Then I can do some real work :) Kneasy: > But he's an intelligent geek and he can write. > Mind you, he can look weird. His earlier books have photos of him as a > throw-back to hippie-dom. In a recent Locus he has shaved his head, > kept the long beard and taken up the leather 'n studs look. > A geek with attitude. We must think alike. I recently cut my hair after 8+ years. I have the leather jacket, but I'm not up on the studs or major piercings. A link you might find enjoyable Barry is http://www.cafeaulait.org/cryptonomicon.html which investigates the mystery of Enoch Root into the Baroque Cycle. Enoch is almost as mysterious as Dumbledore or Snape. He really is a wizard (and would qualify as such according to the Waterhouse Tolkienian classification system). -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sat Feb 19 15:25:58 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 02:25:58 +1100 Subject: Hermione Granger review Message-ID: <20050219152558.GD2867@aardvark.net.au> Just to keep things clear, I'd like a clarification from those who've worked on other character categories how to proceed in the following cases: 1. Character is mentioned in passing but not the main topic of discussion e.g. references Hermione briefly as part of a discussion centering on Harry and Ron (NOT shipping). 2. Character is part of quoted canon but not the main topic of the subsequent discussion e.g. quoting Hermione in canon to illustrate a point about Ron. These would seem to be the only grey areas worth quibbling over? Sean -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Feb 19 16:04:28 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 11:04:28 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Hermione Granger review References: <20050219152558.GD2867@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: Sean wrote: 1. Character is mentioned in passing but not the main topic of discussion e.g. references Hermione briefly as part of a discussion centering on Harry and Ron (NOT shipping). 2. Character is part of quoted canon but not the main topic of the subsequent discussion e.g. quoting Hermione in canon to illustrate a point about Ron. Potioncat: I found the same thing with McGonagall. To be honest, I've done my unfair share of coding that way. Now I'd like to un-code that sort of thing. Don't we want to ask ourselves, "If I was looking for a post about Character is this what I'd want to find?" and if it isn't worth it from that PoV, it goes. JMHO Kathy Yahoo! Groups Sponsor Get unlimited calls to U.S./Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/ b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sat Feb 19 16:43:18 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:43:18 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Hermione Granger review In-Reply-To: References: <20050219152558.GD2867@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: <20050219164318.GB10670@aardvark.net.au> > Potioncat: I found the same thing with McGonagall. To be honest, I've done > my unfair share of coding that way. Now I'd like to un-code that sort of > thing. Don't we want to ask ourselves, "If I was looking for a post about > Character is this what I'd want to find?" and if it isn't worth it from that > PoV, it goes. Good enough for me. A LOT of Hermione is tangential I'm afraid. -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Feb 19 16:43:48 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:43:48 -0000 Subject: Death Eaters & dark marks Message-ID: KathySnow: I started to review the Death Eater category code 2.10 (only) and after looking over the first 40 posts realized there was going to be a conflict. The majority of the posts dealt with the dark mark insignia, which 99% of the time will involve the death eaters as a collective group. Now that's ok but being suspicious of the situation I looked at 3.9.4 the Dark Mark category and it has many of the same posts or ones that are very similar in nature. It's almost like there are two different categories representing the same ideas. My suggestion would be to combine the Death Eater/Dark Mark into one category. The Dark Mark category however, is also used for the Morsmordre spell creating the symbolic dark mark, which I would suggest, moving to symbolism. Input please! Talisman: I'm not sure I would move the Morsmordre Spell to symbolism. I think it is still primarily a spell, and one that has (apparently) exclusive DE meaning. Actually, I'd rather each topic have its own category (DE's/Dark Mark/Morsmordre) The effect of combining the groups is that someone researching the Dark Mark has to wade through all DE-related posts, rather than pulling up the specific subgroup. Carolyn: We had a discussion a little while back about the two meanings for the Dark Mark - the Morsmordre spell and the mark on the DE's arms, and we made a hasty passing judgement to leave the two under the same head for the time being (3.9.4). I think that the time has now come to separate out the two, so I will add a new code under 3.9 Dark Arts so you can sort them into one head or the other. I'm in agreement with Talisman that this should not go under symbolism, which is for more abstract notions. On the posts coded generally under DEs, but which in fact mainly refer to the dark mark insignia, I would de-check them from the 2.1 DE heading, and put them into one or the other of the dark mark heads within 3.9. However, I think that will leave quite a lot of posts which discuss how Voldemort manages his DEs and their relationship to him which are not primarily about the dark mark. Should I create a sub-head under Voldemort for this? Please note, I have taken a minor executive decision, and will be reviewing 'Voldemort' alongside 'Voldemort's agenda', so easy to consider a new sub-head for DE-management during this process. KathySnow: One of the other idea's that was talked about under the Death Eater category was name origin. Here is an example: Is it necessary to code to the subject matter when talking about the origin of a name? Posts discussing name origins often go off on a tangent or in this example make a brief reference to the subject matter. Talisman: I agree that this name origin example should not be coded to DE's. I don't think the brief reference is sufficiently substantive to put it there. Carolyn: I agree with Talisman. The quoted example had nothing to do with DE's, and should only be coded to Sinistra - although even that is doubtful, if that was all there was to the post. On origins of names generally, I have tend to click 1.5.1 Etymology/origins of names plus the character concerned. I was vaguely thinking that someone might like to write a general review of name origin by browsing 1.5.1, and that it would be irritating to have to go through all the character codes to find the evidence. At the same time, it is useful to come across these posts if you are studying a particular character. So I think they should continue to be coded to both places. KathySnow: Also I hate to bring this up again but the post numbers are out of whack. The first post is 16000 and the next one is 15993 and three posts later its 6558. Carolyn: I'll take a look and contact Paul... From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Feb 19 16:45:41 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:45:41 -0000 Subject: Muggles Message-ID: Laurasia: > PORTRAYAL OF MUGGLES > How are Muggles are portrayed by the books? How do Wizards view > Muggles? (esp. in relation to class. Are Wizards elite?) Specifically > Arthur's fascination with Muggles and how he interacts with them. > > But as to the question of how Muggles are portrayed in the books, > especially in relation to class, I don't see any other category which > could be sufficient. "3.2.2 ????Relationship with muggle world" is > a start, but there are no headings for talking about what Muggles > are like as a group. > > Should these posts be left in the main heading? > > This would mean you only coded a post to "2.13 ??Muggles" if the > post was talking about how JKR portrays Muggles (as a group), what > the general opinion of Muggles (as a group) is, or how specific > characters (Arthur, Dumbledore, etc) view Muggles (as a group). > > Sound alright? Carolyn: I suspect that these particular posts should be moved to '3.2.2 Relationship with the muggle world', but then that whole category reviewed to see if it would make more sense to split it up into further subsections. Laurasia: > MUGGLES AND WIZARDS > Specifics about the Muggles/Wizard separation (memory charms to keep > it secret) How aware are Muggles of the Wizarding World (eg, Can > Muggles see Dementors, Can Muggles be bitten by Werewolves?)? > "3.2.2 ????Relationship with muggle world" would seem to be enough > to cover the separation between Wizard/Muggles worlds. But these > posts tend to be about social relations, not political. Carolyn: Again, put them into 3.2.2 I think, then review that whole section. The WW/muggle political comparisons are currently a subset of 3.2.2, but that may not stand up to analysis when someone takes a look. Laurasia: > MUGGLES GENETICS > What actually distinguishes a Muggle from Wizard? Do Muggles have a > genetic link with Squibs? > Could "3.4.7 ????WW lifespans, genetics & population estimates" > also be explanded to include Muggle genetics? These posts don't ask > what makes a wizard, but what makes a muggle. Carolyn: yes, I think it would be reasonable to move these posts into 3.4.7 for the time being, then sort out that whole section and see what sub-sets might be needed. Laurasia: > MUGGLE-BORNS > Muggle parents sending their children off to Hogwarts. > > We have a heading "3.5.2 ????Purebloods & half bloods," should > there be a Muggleborn heading? Or should that heading just be > expanded? > Carolyn: I would personally put these posts into section 3.2.2, as it is all about handling muggle/wizard relations - what special letters muggle parents might get to explain about Hogwarts etc. Laurasia: > The only minor problem is that some posts discuss how the Durselys > treat Harry and what they believe as a family unit, not as > individuals. Are these more approporate for "1.4.7.3 > ??????Dursleys" because they are about family beliefs, attitudes > and joint actions? Or alternatively, will there be some posts from > that heading being recoded to Vernon, Petunia and Dudley? KathyK, I > see you've elected to do Family Dynamics. What do you think? > Carolyn: Coding to Dursleys/family dynamics sounds ok to me. My question is whether they should be coded to Harry or not. Preferably not, but... Overall, re my responses to these questions, what I think we should do is try and keep the character codes fairly 'pure', in the sense that posts coded to them should be mainly about the character in question, rather than mainly about one of the many meta-themes or WW themes. Do others agree? Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Feb 19 16:46:43 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:46:43 -0000 Subject: Puffskeins Message-ID: Doug: Round about message 36137, a thread that touches on Weasley family dynamics focuses in on Ron's puffskein and what exactly Fred may have done to it (see FB&WTFT, p.34). I've coded this to the book and Weasley family dynamics--but there's no specific listing for Puffskeins (or Tribbles (which seem to have more than a passing resemblance to Puffskeins) for that matter). There's no category in Beasts for Puffskeins. Not sure if there is sufficient demand, but thought I'd ask. If not, should it just be coded to 2.15, the main Beasts category? Carolyn: My feeling about this, because I am now feeling guilty about any over- coding I might have done in the past, is that this is primarily about Weasley family dynamics, and perhaps also Ron, Fred & George as side- orders, but not about puffskeins, per se. I don't have any objection to adding a code for them, but they don't seem to be the main point of this post. However, I have seen them come up as a topic in their own right in other posts, and as a general principle, it's good to have very specific categories for searches, so shall I add them? What do others think? Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Feb 19 17:01:06 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:01:06 -0000 Subject: McGonagall Message-ID: Potioncat has questions: Posts on McGonagall are either OK or they aren't. Some of the latter make good points within the other codes, but aren't really about the Deputy. So, I suggest deleting the McGonagall code on those. That may leave 1.4.3 Portrayal of males/females/gays without a specific person for a few posts. Would that be OK? A few question her age prior to JKR's revealing it. Do we need to keep a few of those for posterity? Carolyn: Yes to your first question, only have stuff that is mainly about McGonagall under her code. I would also say generally no to your second question if they are seriously wrong in their guesses, but I know that Debbie and Kelly were keen to keep some of these old arguments for posterity. The ones about McGonagall's age which are important, IMO, are the ones which try and establish if she was at school with Voldemort. Ginger wrote: > 2) In gay ships, there are posts discussing whether or not JKR would > write one, but don't discuss an actual ship. Potioncat: I've come across a few under McGonagall. Ginger is welcomed to whack away. She may also do as she will with McGonagall and Snape....erm, you know what I mean. I assume I'm free to reject the posts that are only about McGonagall but don't really add anything? I did see a few, very few ESE!McGonagall. Should we make a code anyway or hold off on that? Carolyn: Reluctantly, I suppose if you find a detailed well-written one on a McGonagall/Snape SHIP, with plenty of canon evidence you could keep it, but I would tend to remove it if it was based on some wrong assumption about her age. [I'm speaking as someone who very nearly made this mistake in an early post, but managed to correct it in time...]. Nothing wrong, naturally, if he's got a thing for older women...just a question of proving it. Yes, reject away if they come into the 'adds nothing new' category, once you've reviewed everything that's there. There are quite regular attempts at ESE!McGonagall. I will add it as a sub-category, if people don't mind. Potioncat: Now, the important part. "How" do we go about making these changes? So is it a case of noting the affected posts and going back into the catalogue to get to them? Carolyn: Alas yes, the only method I think. Potioncat ignores the pills but looks longingly at the now empty wine glass, but really wishes she had chocolate. Carolyn: Can just imagine the line up when we've finished this bloody thing. Combined catalogue group photo shows a row of inebriates, no longer able to string a simple post together. All we can do is mutter..' been said before..I've got the post number somewhere...' From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sat Feb 19 17:29:31 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 04:29:31 +1100 Subject: preliminary Granger stats Message-ID: <20050219172931.GC10670@aardvark.net.au> Well it's way past my bedtime (4.30 am) and I've spent just on 1 hr 15 on the first 120 posts, so that means it'll take roughly 20 hrs to finish the lot. So far 24 posts get the chop, which is a big percentage. Favorite posts so far? #36210 which asks the all-important question: did Hermione have net access? And cindysphinx's magnificient #36556, casually mentioning the canon fact that wizards basically do not apologize, and Avery The Not Quite Evil Wizard :) ewe2 -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From kking0731 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 19 17:42:16 2005 From: kking0731 at hotmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:42:16 -0000 Subject: Quick review of Death Eater topic 2.10 (only) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Talisman: Hi Snow. I'm not sure I would move the Morsmordre Spell to symbolism. I can see how you would want to put it there, after all it produces a "symbol" that is used to indicate that the DE's have struck again, but I think it is still primarily a spell, and one that has (apparently) exclusive DE meaning. It's magic, it's a spell, it's likely a Dark Art, it definitely sends a message, but, all in all, it seems to be a DE artifact, so closely related to them as to belong as a DE subgroup. Snow: True enough. I also thought of adding the Morsmordre to the spell list, which as you explain it, would be satisfactory for such posts. Talisman: I don't think there is any problem with one post being coded to DE's, Morsmordre, and the Dark Mark, if it actually pertains to all categories, which wouldn't be unlikely. There is going to be overlap in a cross-indexed catalogue. Actually, I'd rather each topic have its own category (DE's/Dark Mark/Morsmordre) The problem would be if people were checking the DE category just because it's a DE spell, when the post is confined to discussion of a discrete topic, such as how the symbolism of the snake coming out of the mouth relates to parsletongue; how long the spell lasts; whether Muggles can see it; or other topics where any mention of either DE's or, in the later cases, the Dark Mark, is incidental. Snow: Agreed. That is exactly what I am finding, incidental mention between the two topics. If the post is discussing the death eaters but also makes a mere mention of the dark mark, should the post be ticked to both subjects? I had one post that was a one-liner suggesting McGonagall as a possible death eater. Now to me, if I were to keep the post at all, the subject matter is McGonagall and that would be the box I would tick unless the death eater subject was explored in relation to her, I would not tick the death eater category. Talisman: I'm tempted to say the same with the Dark Mark question. Many posts may deal with both the Dark Mark and DE's, they are so closely related, but all posts regarding DE's do not involve the Dark Mark. The effect of combining the groups is that someone researching the Dark Mark has to wade through all DE-related posts, rather than pulling up the specific subgroup. And we all know how individual subject lines clarify everything. >snip< Also, regarding your review showing that 95% of posts involving DE's also involve the Dark Mark (which text I snipped before deciding to add this) Did you find that 95% of the posts were appropriately coded to both? I guess I'm surprised, either that or I think this trend won't hold. The reason I lean toward separate codes is my sense that I've read a lot of posts regarding DE's (their attitudes, their origins, what they did after LV was vaporized, etc.) that do not include probative--or even any--discussion of the Dark Mark. Snow: Yes, you are right and continuing to read on there are definite posts that only speak of the death eaters. Jumped the gun a bit when I reviewed the first 40 seeing basically posts that referred to either category. I agree to keep the topics separated but I think it best to define the heading use. A mere mention of a death eater in regards to the dark mark does not necessitate that it belongs in the death eater category, at least to me, does that make sense? Thank you very much for the input, Talisman, it is greatly appreciated and useful. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Feb 19 20:15:14 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 20:15:14 -0000 Subject: Date bug fixed Message-ID: KathySnow pointed out that the posts were not in date order after all, but glad to report that Paul has now fixed this. Hope this makes a big difference to reading the categories. Please let me know if you come across any categories that don't seem to be - shouldn't be any... Carolyn PS Sean, you are now on the entry list of names as well From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Feb 19 21:12:25 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 21:12:25 -0000 Subject: Dbase & other stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > NEW DATABASE > To make it easier for you all to pick topics, I have summarised the > available sections in a new database called > (imaginatively) 'Allocation of review sections'. Please feel free to > go in to the table and put your name down for whatever you would like > to do. I have put in the names of some people who have contacted me > already with definite choices. To paraphrase Lupin, it seems I chose an inconvenient time to fall ill. Good news: the antibiotics seem to be working (so it wasn't viral after all). Also, after I complained (I felt like I was whining) about "always feeling tired," they tested my blood and it turns out I am "very anemic." I am hoping after they sort that out I will be superwoman and get all sorts of stuff done. Hey - I saw that! Stop rolling your eyes, you in the back! Meanwhile, I am catching up on these posts (I'm all the way up to 1172 at the moment) ~ I've been reading for hours! Before I got sick, I reviewed about the first 25 of Good vs Evil and thought a lot of those were more about particular characters that G vs E as a theme, but it was so early on I don't suppose that's very useful. I intended to review the last 100 or so in the category to see how we've all been coding to it nowadays. Anyway, I've chosen Harry as a category to review, since it is my favorite. Carolyn mentioned earlier that she tries not to code to him if possible -- I have coded to him and Snape whenever a post seems to have a substantial point to make about them, not worrying about numbers just yet. I anticipated that large categories like that would be further broken down into subcategories, e.g. "Harry's eyes", "Harry's scar," "Harry and the Trio," etc. as seemed appropriate. All right, back to reading the list... AWOL Anne From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Feb 19 22:29:42 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:29:42 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on the review Message-ID: Carolyn: >>The approach should be to de-check the shipping codes you are currently dealing with if you think they are irrelevant to a post, then add the gender roles or authorial intent codes if you think those more appropriate, **BUT then click 5.6 Review Post**. This will alert us to look at that post at the end of this exercise, to double check whether it is correctly coded, given all the alterations that will have been made to all the sections by then.<< Anne: Somebody also suggested noting in the comments section which category was added. I think this would be a very good idea, so people would know whether or not their own review category was affected. I imagine some posts might receive several of these. My ears were burning: >>Talisman, who can't believe she is suggesting more categories, and suspects it has something to do with thinking about Anne this afternoon.<< UH oh... *gets ready to duck* Or were you referring to the Princess Royal, HRH Princess Anne? ~~~ Carolyn, should I code up my current batch of posts first, or dig into Harry right away? Anne From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Feb 19 23:39:17 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:39:17 -0000 Subject: Character coding, Puffskeins, Sean & Anne Message-ID: First, welcome Sean! Your tagline makes me crack up every time I read it. You're in the right group of lunatics ;). And Anne, it seems like you've been sick for a long time now; I sincerely hope the antibiotics and anemia treatment get you going again. After all, you're one of the original coders in this here joint, and we need your input. (P.S. I'm going to The Witching Hour too and can't wait to meet you in person!). Now, back to business: Carolyn: > Overall, re my responses to these questions, what I think we > should do is try and keep the character codes fairly 'pure', in > the sense that posts coded to them should be mainly about the > character in question, rather than mainly about one of the many > meta-themes or WW themes. > > Do others agree? Jen: Yes. Guilty of overcoding if a name is even mentioned in a post, but will stop that. Promise. You start clicking down the list and get in a rhythm and hoo-boy before you know it 15 categories are tagged. Seems like the best rule of thumb now when considering the end user is to look at the big picture and main topic when coding. Some posts are hard because they discuss multiple subjects, but it's not going to be perfect after all. *L.O.O.N's stiffen at the possibility of a heretic in the group.* Well, it's *true*. We'll always be able to go back and correct if needed. It's all good :). As for Puffskeins, might as well add a category. If we end up with too few posts at the end, we can integrate them back into another category. Slacker!Jen who promises to start her review of the chapters posthaste and will report back when she's done. Thankfully they are either right, wrong, or rejected. NO ambiguity, NO gray area, NO discussion *sigh of relief*. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 20 00:33:54 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 00:33:54 -0000 Subject: Twins/Anne Message-ID: Report on Gred & Forge ********************* There were 226 posts in this category, and since I was lucky enough to review them after Paul fixed the dates this evening, it was a reasonably straightforward section to deal with. One really useful aspect of running through in date order is that you can clearly see when a post could be rejected because the question it asks is repeated in full, with an answer, in a subsequent post. That was hard to see before. Another obvious advantage is that you follow arguments from the beginning of the Yahoo Club days, so you get to be pretty certain when a topic has been addressed before. Specific to this topic, there were two subjects which will cause overlap with other sections - the Marauder's Map and the Weasley family. On the map, I marked for keeping those posts which discussed what the twins could possibly have seen on it, or worked out about its functions. However, I cut the discussion when it wandered off into more general posts about how the map worked. On the Weasley family, I marked for keeping those posts which had a reasonably substantive discussion about the twins place in it, how they interacted with their various brothers etc, but cut the chat once it got too far down the Molly parenting role, or Percy angst. The way I worked was simply to write down a long list of post numbers as I read, putting a cross beside those which I definitely thought the code should be removed from, and a question mark beside those that I thought I might also/or instead add an additional code, or change a code. [And tick 'review post' if I did]. In total, I will probably remove nearly 90 posts from this section as a result. I didn't think any of the topics addressed justified a sub- category at this stage. Hope this sounds ok. In general, I thought it was quite an interesting set of posts - hilarious in places, with the endless worrying about whether pranks are PC or not. (Oh that conscience, Elkins..you bleed for the planet!). ********** Anne: To paraphrase Lupin, it seems I chose an inconvenient time to fall ill. Before I got sick, I reviewed about the first 25 of Good vs Evil Anyway, I've chosen Harry as a category to review, Carolyn: Sounds like you've had a bad one, Anne..glad you are getting better. I thought you might choose Harry, and I'm hoping you might tackle good n'evil too, except it is a very large section because I think it has to be done with sins/virtues and morality/immorality. I notice people have steered well clear of it! Maybe I can do it with you, and you can help improve my immortal soul (well, people are always having a go, no reason why you shouldn't..). Anne: Somebody also suggested noting in the comments section which category was added. I think this would be a very good idea, so people would know whether or not their own review category was affected. I imagine some posts might receive several of these. ...should I code up my current batch of posts first, or dig into Harry right away? Carolyn: yes, please do use that box for any notes you like. Probably best to dig into Harry now - if you go on coding, it might affect categories that people are currently looking at. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sun Feb 20 03:47:14 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:47:14 +1100 Subject: The Granger Files: chapter discussions Message-ID: <20050220034714.GC27894@aardvark.net.au> #10196 is a chapter discussion which briefly adds HG as a question for discussion. My instinct is to disallow as the the answers to that question would be more on-topic, what do others think? -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From kking0731 at hotmail.com Sun Feb 20 04:50:25 2005 From: kking0731 at hotmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 04:50:25 -0000 Subject: accessing site Message-ID: I think we may have taken Paul's server down. Too many hits on a site can cause major problems and even though there is a time difference between us (catalogers), we can overlap during certain hours causing stress to his server if it does not have the capacity for that many hits. Seeing as we are involved in an extensive project, we may all be taxing his server to the nth degree. In other words, is anyone else having trouble accessing? KathySnow-only fifteen posts away from prelim! From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sun Feb 20 04:53:56 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:53:56 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Twins/Anne In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050220045356.GF27894@aardvark.net.au> On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 12:33:54AM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > The way I worked was simply to write down a long list of post numbers > as I read, putting a cross beside those which I definitely thought > the code should be removed from, and a question mark beside those > that I thought I might also/or instead add an additional code, or > change a code. [And tick 'review post' if I did]. My method also. I do a section and then go back and decode, which gives me a second look. There is a class of posts (the me too's) which are difficult to judge but I'm strictly Grange-finding and at this rate almost half a section of 40 posts are ineligible. I've been leaving much of the SHIPs alone but some are obviously not Hermione-centred so they go too. I had a few hours to work today but the catalogue server is down (have contacted Paul about it) at least from my end here in Oz. AT&T seems to have router problems again and won't let me through. -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sun Feb 20 04:56:25 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:56:25 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] accessing site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050220045625.GA31112@aardvark.net.au> On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 04:50:25AM -0000, snow15145 wrote: > I think we may have taken Paul's server down. Too many hits on a > site can cause major problems and even though there is a time > difference between us (catalogers), we can overlap during certain > hours causing stress to his server if it does not have the capacity > for that many hits. Seeing as we are involved in an extensive > project, we may all be taxing his server to the nth degree. In > other words, is anyone else having trouble accessing? Yes, I just posted Paul on it and made a mention to the list just before. I believe it probably isn't Paul's server, but router failure on a neighbouring network, which is annoyingly common lately. There's no way of knowing but I can't get past att.net so I blame them :) -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sun Feb 20 05:41:43 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:41:43 +1100 Subject: [kippesp@yahoo.com: Re: rut roh] Message-ID: <20050220054143.GB31112@aardvark.net.au> The original email contained an attachment of type "text/plain; charset=us-ascii" but we could not retrieve it via the Yahoo Groups API. -------------- next part -------------- The original email contained an attachment of type "message/rfc822" but we could not retrieve it via the Yahoo Groups API. From paul-groups at wibbles.org Sun Feb 20 05:49:22 2005 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:49:22 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] accessing site In-Reply-To: <20050220045625.GA31112@aardvark.net.au> References: <20050220045625.GA31112@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: I also had a power failure. And not everything came back online correctly. On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:56:25 +1100, Sean Dwyer wrote: > On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 04:50:25AM -0000, snow15145 wrote: > > > I think we may have taken Paul's server down. Too many hits on a > > site can cause major problems and even though there is a time > > difference between us (catalogers), we can overlap during certain > > hours causing stress to his server if it does not have the capacity > > for that many hits. Seeing as we are involved in an extensive > > project, we may all be taxing his server to the nth degree. In > > other words, is anyone else having trouble accessing? > > Yes, I just posted Paul on it and made a mention to the list just before. I > believe it probably isn't Paul's server, but router failure on a > neighbouring > network, which is annoyingly common lately. There's no way of knowing but I > can't get past att.net so I blame them :) > > -- > "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > > Get unlimited calls to > > U.S./Canada > > ________________________________ > 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 kking0731 at hotmail.com Sun Feb 20 06:21:46 2005 From: kking0731 at hotmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:21:46 -0000 Subject: accessing site In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes wrote: > I also had a power failure. And not everything came back online correctly. > THANK YOU PAUL! I was a bit afraid we were wearing on your system somewhat with all the extra accessing. Don't get to thank you enough for all the behind the scenes work that you do! KathySnow From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sun Feb 20 07:30:10 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:30:10 +1100 Subject: The Granger Files: the me toos Message-ID: <20050220073010.GC31112@aardvark.net.au> Hurting towards 240 posts, and the number of "me toos" particularly SHIPing related ones leads me to ask: should we not have a reject category for them? I realize it fits under 0.5, but in a sense is also 0.3. -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 20 11:39:50 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 11:39:50 -0000 Subject: Hermione questions/some replies Message-ID: Sean: Just to keep things clear, I'd like a clarification from those who've worked on other character categories how to proceed in the following cases: 1. Character is mentioned in passing but not the main topic of discussion e.g. references Hermione briefly as part of a discussion centering on Harry and Ron (NOT shipping). 2. Character is part of quoted canon but not the main topic of the subsequent discussion e.g. quoting Hermione in canon to illustrate a point about Ron. These would seem to be the only grey areas worth quibbling over? Potioncat: Don't we want to ask ourselves, "If I was looking for a post about Character is this what I'd want to find?" and if it isn't worth it from that PoV, it goes. Jen: Yes. Guilty of overcoding if a name is even mentioned in a post, but will stop that. Promise. You start clicking down the list and get in a rhythm and hoo-boy before you know it 15 categories are tagged. Seems like the best rule of thumb now when considering the end user is to look at the big picture and main topic when coding. Some posts are hard because they discuss multiple subjects, but it's not going to be perfect after all. Sean: Good enough for me. A LOT of Hermione is tangential I'm afraid. Carolyn: I would second both Kathy's and Jen's comments here. The two examples you quoted are definitely ones where the Hermione code should be removed. I think we are all learning a big practical lesson about the perils of overcoding! Once you see a post from another POV, you realise how unhelpful it is to have added some categories. Sean: #10196 is a chapter discussion which briefly adds HG as a question for discussion. My instinct is to disallow as the the answers to that question would be more on-topic, what do others think? Carolyn: Yes. Seeing things in date order really helps here. If the question is repeated an infinite number of times in replies, then there is no need to save the original question, especially when it is buried in a much more general list, as appears to be the case here. Sean: There is a class of posts (the me too's) which are difficult to judge but I'm strictly Grange-finding and at this rate almost half a section of 40 posts are ineligible. I've been leaving much of the SHIPs alone but some are obviously not Hermione-centred so they go too. Hurting towards 240 posts, and the number of "me toos" particularly SHIPing related ones leads me to ask: should we not have a reject category for them? I realize it fits under 0.5, but in a sense is also 0.3. Carolyn: Keep the focus on Hermione, leave the Ship question to Ginger, otherwise you will go mad! We did have a much longer list of reject codes at one point, but pruned it back because we all got confused as to what belonged where. As long as something is rejected for a good reason, in the long run it doesn't really matter. There has been discussion about sorting out one or two of the reject categories and making them available to the members in due course - eg fanfic, movie, OT. It's a thought, but frankly one I am not prioritising right now! Finally, Sean, as you are going through the section, do think about whether there are any helpful sub-categories that the remaining posts should be sorted into. Hermione has a number of acronyms which don't seem to have acquired many posts as yet, but they should remain for now. But how about considering a sub-category for Hermione+house elves issue? Just a thought. Carolyn Glad that a catalogue crash seems to have been solved whilst she was asleep. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sun Feb 20 12:22:51 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:22:51 +1100 Subject: Bill Weasley is cool Message-ID: <20050220122251.GD31112@aardvark.net.au> We interrupt volume 12 of the Granger Files to bring you: The Bill Weasley Report *********************** Irelevancies: 16 Final Posts: 58 Poor Bill. Although cool and cute, that about wraps it up for him. Not even ESE!Bill stuck in the List's imagination for long. #16763 kept our hopes up with the intriguing possibility that Fleur's conquest might turn out gay, but until Bill and Charlie get bigger roles they're doomed to tag along in general Weasley discussions of which there are many and I fear we may be revisit that category often as we remove individual member categories, or more specifically *I* will be doing most of that, with KathyK taking care of Percy and I doing the others. I notice the general Weasleys catalogue isn't in the database Carolyn, would a review be in order there? 90% of the Bill posts included that cat and I noticed repeats of all the other Weasleys where a general Weasleys would be more appropriate. ESE!Bill 3 posts BB GUN 0 posts Back to that Granger person then. Does anyone else find Miss Whiplash as insensitive as half the List? -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sun Feb 20 13:29:18 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:29:18 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Hermione questions/some replies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050220132918.GE31112@aardvark.net.au> On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 11:39:50AM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > Finally, Sean, as you are going through the section, do think about > whether there are any helpful sub-categories that the remaining posts > should be sorted into. Hermione has a number of acronyms which don't > seem to have acquired many posts as yet, but they should remain for > now. But how about considering a sub-category for Hermione+house > elves issue? Just a thought. Well, instead of doing my Granger, I've been naughty and started on Arthur Weasley, and although I know technically 1.4.7.1 Weasleys is under "Family Dynamics" the tendency to code for individual Weasleys when considered as a group (either in terms of their internal relationships, or more often as an example of having red hair for instance), drives me to recode under 1.4.7.1 where at least general Weasley stuff can be picked up. It might also be fairly said that 1.7.4.1 Weasley age gaps under the general Timelines header, is a fair subject in itself, and should be a sub-category of Weasleys. Occam's Razor made me do it (why code for 2 or 3 when you can code for 1 :)) Sean -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 20 14:06:48 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:06:48 -0000 Subject: Hermione/Bill/The Weasleys In-Reply-To: <20050220132918.GE31112@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: I notice the general Weasleys catalogue isn't in the database Carolyn, would a review be in order there? 90% of the Bill posts included that cat and I noticed repeats of all the other Weasleys where a general Weasleys would be more appropriate. Carolyn: As you notice later, the general Weasley category is 1.4.7.1 under Family dynamics. I have just de-cluttered the Gred & Forge category on the same principle - ie, only code to the twins where it really is a detailed discussion about them, rather than their family relationships. Sean: Back to that Granger person then. Does anyone else find Miss Whiplash as insensitive as half the List? Carolyn: I was thinking of awarding you a medal, like Ginger, for tackling this section; I can see a backlash is setting in already. Personally I find her only a little less revolting than Molly, whom she closely resembles - lucky for Ron then, he can fulfill the stereotype if the inevitable pairing comes off. The more interesting question, IMO, is what does this say about JKR's outlook on life. Sean: > Well, instead of doing my Granger, I've been naughty and started on Arthur Weasley, and although I know technically 1.4.7.1 Weasleys is under "Family Dynamics" the tendency to code for individual Weasleys when considered as a group (either in terms of their internal relationships, or more often as an example of having red hair for instance), drives me to recode under 1.4.7.1 where at least general Weasley stuff can be picked up. It might also be fairly said that 1.7.4.1 Weasley age gaps under the general Timelines header, is a fair subject in itself, and should be a sub-category of Weasleys. Occam's Razor made me do it (why code for 2 or 3 when you can code for 1 :)) Carolyn: I quite like this idea of moving the Weasley ages/age gap controversies under Weasley family dynamics - what do other people think? From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 20 14:53:10 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:53:10 -0000 Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 20th February Message-ID: PROGRESS To date we have coded/allocated for coding 50615 posts, and actually coded 49275 of them. Out of those coded, 26503 have been rejected (53.7%). This week, with 10 people coding, we did 746 posts, and have reached post 42800 on the main list. However, because of the review, many people switched from coding earlier in the week, and are now concentrating on that task for the time being. The review is split into 104 sections, and so far, we have completed reviews of 8 of them. CODING ERRORS This is a repeat of the list from last week. Could you make sure you look at these posts please and check that they are done? Apologies to people who did do their corrections; it's just that the totals against some sections looked rather suspicious, and this is the quickest way of tracking them down! Sean - all this means is that somehow a post has acquired both a reject code and a category code. This shouldn't happen, and it is a question of reviewing the post and deciding which it is to be. 38888 - Jen 36831, 36834, 36775 - Dot 36131 - Doug 35624 - Jo 38954 - Kelly 40896 - Boyd 41566 - Kathy NEW CATEGORIES 2.3.13.1 ESE!McGonagall 2.13.11 Colonel Fubster 2.15.20 Puffskeins 3.9.7 Dark Mark - Morsmordre 5.6 Review Coding PS In typing morsmordre, I am struck by the similarity in sound with 'Moor's murderer' - which in the UK is a reference to a very awful series of murders carried out by Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. They tortured and killed children up on the Yorkshire Moors in the 1960s and have since become a byword for depravity. Hindley died recently in prison, but Brady is still alive. Some of the children's remains have never been found, and Brady, in particular, has played a long cat and mouse game with the authorities in trying to identify where he buried them. I just wondered if there was any association in JKR's mind when she devised the name for this skull sign. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sun Feb 20 15:01:50 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:01:50 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Hermione/Bill/The Weasleys In-Reply-To: References: <20050220132918.GE31112@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: <20050220150150.GA20123@aardvark.net.au> > Carolyn: > I was thinking of awarding you a medal, like Ginger, for tackling > this section; I can see a backlash is setting in already. Personally > I find her only a little less revolting than Molly, whom she closely > resembles - lucky for Ron then, he can fulfill the stereotype if the > inevitable pairing comes off. The more interesting question, IMO, is > what does this say about JKR's outlook on life. Well the backlash doesn't end there. This stereotype of Arthur being the hen-pecked husband for instance; it doesn't appear to occur to many posters that he's well aware her anger stems from fear, not that he's at all hopeless. It would be typical of Arthur that he'd see her expressed fears as a problem the children couldn't deal with. Ref the scene in OotP, where Molly completely goes to pieces, where I hope by the time we get to categorizing that part of the List, some will have worked out that there's more of a partnership than they realized. Real throat-lumpy stuff. Ahem. As you say, the stereotype fulfilment would be apt for a R/H, because the dynamic looks very similar. I believe JKR is making a big point about projection, particularly where driven by fear, no matter how unimportant. It's how Molly makes her children (and anyone else's within range) her life, and even Hermione who is I guess the new generation's "career girl" needs to balance her academic enthusiasm with her need to support her friends. Is it just coincidence that the majority of posters are female and seem to approach Molly/Hermione as types they accept/reject? The debate for instance about H's insensitivity towards Harry at the very time they meet about his fame. Not one poster I've come across so far has put forward the idea that might be the view of a child terribly excited about a world where she could achieve something, unaware what a different challenge that would be for Harry, and even further, unusually extrovert in even talking to boys her age. No, they take that as the starting-point for the long list of ills they perceive in her. Yes, she can be a brat. Yes, she barges in without first thinking, but she's a KID. And she's positively diplomatic compared to Ron or Harry :) Gee, I must have needed to do that :) I want to finish Arthur tonight and then I can get back to Her Ladyship. I do find her interesting, despite my mixed feelings. Sean -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Feb 20 15:36:23 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:36:23 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] UPDATE, OT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2429fd2b57126629e013dfa0fbc42c93@btconnect.com> > > PS In typing morsmordre, I am struck by the similarity in sound > with 'Moor's murderer' - which in the UK is a reference to a very > awful series of murders carried out by Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. > They tortured and killed children up on the Yorkshire Moors in the > 1960s and have since become a byword for depravity. > > Hindley died recently in prison, but Brady is still alive. Some of > the children's remains have never been found, and Brady, in > particular, has played a long cat and mouse game with the authorities > in trying to identify where he buried them. > > I just wondered if there was any association in JKR's mind when she > devised the name for this skull sign. > For some reason reminders of the 60s seem to have been everywhere I've looked in the past week - books, websites, conversations. Philby, Profumo (that classic photo of Christine Keeler has turned up on 3 separate occasions), the Duchess of Argyll and the Headless Man - damn! but we had some cracking scandals in those days. Modern politics is milk and water stuff by comparison. Then just an hour before you mention the Moors Murderers I had a phone call from an ex-girl-friend and among other things she reminded me that one evening, '64 I think it was, before they were caught, we'd been out to a pub near Cannock Chase and got stopped and the car searched on the way home. Another child had gone missing..... Unlikely that Jo would pick on it specifically I think - she'd only have been about a year old at the time. I'd always assumed it was derived from 'mort' and 'mordre' - death and bite - death-eaters. Still, you never know. Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1839 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sun Feb 20 16:05:51 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:05:51 +1100 Subject: Arthur Weasley Review Message-ID: <20050220160551.GC22086@aardvark.net.au> Arthur Weasley ************** Irelevancies: 34 Final posts: 160 Arthur, like most Weasleys, has suffered from being quoted when the topic is really the family, or paired with Molly (another sub-category there?). For me the stand-out posts were the massive (the biggest I've yet seen) posts by Elkins in favour of Arthur Weasley With Imperious Curse cookies, #37121 and #40168 (simply gynormous). A pity it doesn't have a name, it deserves it. CLOAK AND DAGGER ARTHUR 0 posts DARE DEVILS 0 posts I GOT YOUR PARALLELISM 0 posts LAW CAMERA 0 posts SCRABBLE BOARD 0 posts VICTIM 0 posts The lack of juicy Weasley theories is beginning to worry. Sean -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From elfundeb at comcast.net Sun Feb 20 17:00:59 2005 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 12:00:59 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] McGonagall/F&G/Authorial Intent References: Message-ID: <012b01c5176d$c06425b0$3c02a8c0@TOSHIBALAPTOP> Carolyn: As you notice later, the general Weasley category is 1.4.7.1 under Family dynamics. I have just de-cluttered the Gred & Forge category on the same principle - ie, only code to the twins where it really is a detailed discussion about them, rather than their family relationships. Debbie: But if you think about it from the perspective of the reader searching for posts, does this make sense? If I were searching F&G, I would expect to find posts about their impact on the family dynamic, as many of these posts are very much about them. If I had to search family dynamics, I'd have to wade through lots of posts about Molly's impact on Percy, Ginny, etc. that have nothing to do with F&G. This is a case where many of the posts *are* about the characters and not just the dynamic. Potioncat has questions: Posts on McGonagall are either OK or they aren't. [snip] A few question her age prior to JKR's revealing it. Do we need to keep a few of those for posterity? Carolyn: Yes to your first question, only have stuff that is mainly about McGonagall under her code. I would also say generally no to your second question if they are seriously wrong in their guesses, but I know that Debbie and Kelly were keen to keep some of these old arguments for posterity. Debbie: I don't see any need to retain history on age speculation, though maybe it's just because it's a subject I'm not interested in except to spin yarns about her relationship with Riddle Carolyn: There are quite regular attempts at ESE!McGonagall. I will add it as a sub-category, if people don't mind. Debbie: Yes, and I'd vote to add Imperious!Arthur, too, which has been discussed many times. I see no one has claimed Authorial Intent/Reader Response. Talisman, are you interested, or are you leaving it to me? Debbie running behind due to the 50+ hours billed this week on her allegedly part time job -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 20 18:00:27 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:00:27 -0000 Subject: Weasley family/Imperius!Arthur/Authorial Intent In-Reply-To: <012b01c5176d$c06425b0$3c02a8c0@TOSHIBALAPTOP> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "elfundeb" wrote: > Carolyn: > As you notice later, the general Weasley category is 1.4.7.1 under > Family dynamics. I have just de-cluttered the Gred & Forge category > on the same principle - ie, only code to the twins where it really is a detailed discussion about them, rather than their family > relationships. > > Debbie: > > But if you think about it from the perspective of the reader searching for posts, does this make sense? If I were searching F&G, I would expect to find posts about their impact on the family dynamic, as many of these posts are very much about them. If I had to search family dynamics, I'd have to wade through lots of posts about Molly's impact on Percy, Ginny, etc. that have nothing to do with F&G. This is a case where many of the posts *are* about the characters and not just the dynamic. Carolyn: No, I don't think I do agree about this. I think if I was interested in the Weasley family dynamics, I would want to read right through that section, looking at all shades of argument about the interaction, including F&G's role. If I was looking at F&G, I would want to find mainly analyses about them as characters. However, if people would like to have the Weasley family dynamics category sorted into sub-sections, that's ok by me. It wasn't very large (226) at the beginning of this process, but it probably should not be dealt with until all the Weasley sections are finished, when it might be much larger. You could then have Molly, Arthur, Percy, Ron etc sub-sections, as you wish. Sean - could you note this discussion? Thanks! > > Carolyn: > There are quite regular attempts at ESE!McGonagall. I will add it as > a sub-category, if people don't mind. > > Debbie: > Yes, and I'd vote to add Imperious!Arthur, too, which has been discussed many times. Carolyn: Sean - this would be the place for those great Elkins posts you found, for instance. I will add the sub-code - Debbie is right that it is a theory which comes up reasonably often. Sorry, this means that your Arthur section needs combing over for posts which would fit the new sub-category. Debbie: > I see no one has claimed Authorial Intent/Reader Response. Talisman, are you interested, or are you leaving it to me? > Carolyn: I am also willing to deal with it if necessary. Suggest we get some other stuff done, and come back to it. In truth, it should be closely considered alongside the Lit Crit section. From kking0731 at hotmail.com Sun Feb 20 18:39:03 2005 From: kking0731 at hotmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:39:03 -0000 Subject: Preliminary Review of 2.10 (only) Message-ID: I made a complete run-through of the 245 posts ticked to 2.10 (only). The following is what I have found: The tally for the posts that I have kept under this heading is 180 Posts that should be dropped from this category, i.e. they make a mere mention of a death eater and belong to a more specific category stands at 40 There are a bit of one-line posts that were reiterated in following posts that should be deleted and a few OT type posts that deserve the axe as well. These rejected posts tally is 19 There are 6 questionable posts, which include: The Slytherin gang that Sirius said Snape hung out with, should they be coded to Slytherin or Death Eater? There is very little mention of death eaters as a topic but more an assumption that Slytherin's are death eaters or will become one. The entire scope of the post is whether Slytherin's are good or bad. The one post had no reference at all to JKR or the books but was an answer to who Thanatosos was. I'm not sure if someone had kept this for some reason I am unaware of, so I thought I'd ask before deleting it. There are a few posts that talked about pureblood and whether or not this was the reason they became dark or evil but had very little, if any, reference to death eaters as a topic. These posts along with a few that need an added category will be dumped into the new review box for various reasons with an explanation in the comment box Just a few odd comments: Someone had a few too many when coding one night because the category ticks were longer than the post needless to say my subject point was not to be ticked. This one should be reviewed and will be appropriately dumped into the review box. Why didn't we have a tick box for Elkins all to herself it would have made it easier than ticking every box on the agenda list ...God Bless Her! I will proceed to make all necessary changes to complete this category heading within 24 hrs. unless otherwise advised. KathySnow P.S. To Talisman who was curious as to how many posts spoke of the Death Eaters in reference to the Dark Mark, the total is much less than the percent I had first quoted, only 35 out of 245 that gives us approximately 14% to date. Way off on that estimation wasn't I. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Feb 20 19:00:00 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:00:00 -0000 Subject: rejecting posts Message-ID: Just a quick observation. I'm going slower than most of you. Once the database was tweeked to get posts in order, the numbers changed. For example, if you were already on post 50 when the change happened, the first 49 posts may not be the same. Mine were very different. Also, if you delete a post that affects someone else, it will change their numbers. Even if the post is flagged with the review code, it will affect the order of a list. Maybe this isn't as significant as I think it might be. What do you think? I'm keeping a list of post- numbers as well as the number it was within the category. So far if I've found a post that should be deleted, I've noted that in the notes section at the bottom but have not deleted it yet. (Except for one which only had one code to begin with.) In the opposite direction, I have a McGonagall post that should be under relationship but isn't. It's also very speculative and my instinct would be to reject it. I'm not sure Ginger would agree. Again, if I decided to add that code, it would affect Ginger's list. Would it make sense in that case to tag 5.6 for someone to look at it later with a note about recoding? What will the finished catalogue look like to the clients? Will they have a list of headings to click, sort of like we do? Or will they enter keywords? Kathy, who has to help her daughter make Victorian Sponge but would rather go buy it like the character in "Calendar Girls" did. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 20 19:06:24 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:06:24 -0000 Subject: Spying, espionage & betrayal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > Spying, espionage and betrayal. > > Sounds like a nice straight-forward group to review. > Just the opposite. > > Think of the number of times posters have used any of those three > words, sometimes in the vaguest of contexts with no canon backing at all. Ron/Ginny/Percy/Obediah Polkinghorn *might* betray Harry; *if* Snape is a spy it might explain this; James was not a spy; were these the actions of a spy? and so on. > > The specific word has appeared, so categorise the post accordingly. > Fair enough. > But although I'm only part way through, I'm beginning to suspect that the category itself needs to be more closely defined. There are too many casual, non-specific references to dirty deeds in the files, most of which could be stuffed under this heading. Unless it gets tightened up the category will end up as a rag-bag of nothing very much and not be of much use to anyone. > > Advise please. > > Barry Carolyn: I started to read this section this afternoon, and can only agree with this assessment. It is indeed a right mess. One approach would be to create sub-categories for different people - many discussions are about Snape and Pettigrew, for instance. This would be a solution similar to that I suggested for the Weasley family. Or should the posts discussing a particular character go back to that character, and perhaps form a sub-head there. Eg Snape/is he a spy? Relatively few posts are about the nature of betrayal, but there are some, and things like Peg Kerr's essay on Secrets. You could argue that a section containing just these type of posts should be a sub- category in meta- themes alongside 1.1.3 Friendship, love & loyalty/1.1.3.1 trust/mistrust. A third issue is the fate of the section 1.2 War & military strategy. I have already suggested that Dumbledore's agenda and Voldemort's agenda be reviewed in conjuncture with the character codes. The Hogwart's defences section could also be moved to 3.16.1 as part of Hogwart's layouts. If we do this, it leaves the strategy and spying sections on their own. They could be added to the plot development section in that case. Any thoughts? Carolyn From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Feb 20 19:30:41 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:30:41 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Spying, espionage & betrayal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Carolyn: > I started to read this section this afternoon, and can only agree > with this assessment. It is indeed a right mess. > > One approach would be to create sub-categories for different people - > many discussions are about Snape and Pettigrew, for instance. This > would be a solution similar to that I suggested for the Weasley > family. Or should the posts discussing a particular character go back > to that character, and perhaps form a sub-head there. Eg Snape/is he > a spy? > > Relatively few posts are about the nature of betrayal, but there are > some, and things like Peg Kerr's essay on Secrets. You could argue > that a section containing just these type of posts should be a sub- > category in meta- themes alongside 1.1.3 Friendship, love & > loyalty/1.1.3.1 trust/mistrust. > > A third issue is the fate of the section 1.2 War & military strategy. > I have already suggested that Dumbledore's agenda and Voldemort's > agenda be reviewed in conjuncture with the character codes. The > Hogwart's defences section could also be moved to 3.16.1 as part of > Hogwart's layouts. > > If we do this, it leaves the strategy and spying sections on their > own. They could be added to the plot development section in that case. > > Any thoughts? > > Carolyn > I agree that any of these headings linked to a specific character should be under that character heading. Voldy and DD agenda should stay just that IMO, but as a subheading to character. Yeah, as a sub--head to a meta-type theme Spying would be OK. Throw in types of, the philosophy of, methods of, reasons for, low intensity warfare, personal betrayal, betrayal of class or ideology, etc. etc. and spying, treason and betrayal could be valid as a category. It'd certainly make more sense than keeping most of the stuff that's in there at the moment. Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 2217 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 20 20:19:23 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:19:23 -0000 Subject: rejecting posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Just a quick observation. I'm going slower than most of you. Once the database was tweeked to get posts in order, the numbers changed. For example, if you were already on post 50 when the change happened, the first 49 posts may not be the same. Mine were very different. C - Kathy, I am sorry about this. I wondered if that would happen. Apologies. > > Also, if you delete a post that affects someone else, it will change their numbers. Even if the post is flagged with the review code, it will affect the order of a list. Maybe this isn't as significant as I think it might be. What do you think? I'm keeping a list of post-numbers as well as the number it was within the category. C - Actually, no, it won't. Because the posts are now in date order, if you take the McGonagall code off a post you are dealing with, it won't affect the order in which that post appears under another category heading. If you take the McGonagall code off, and as a result the post has no other codes and is therefore coded to rejects, then it won't affect anyone else. Make sense? > > So far if I've found a post that should be deleted, I've noted that > in the notes section at the bottom but have not deleted it yet. > (Except for one which only had one code to begin with.) C - some people are doing all their changes in one fell swoop after reading all the posts in their category, some are doing some changes after reading a few hundred at a time. I think the first approach is a bit safer, because when you get to the end of the whole lot, you may want to consider the structure of the section before you do anything. However, the second approach is understandable when you are dealing with a section which has 1000s of posts in it. > > In the opposite direction, I have a McGonagall post that should be > under relationship but isn't. It's also very speculative and my > instinct would be to reject it. I'm not sure Ginger would agree. > Again, if I decided to add that code, it would affect Ginger's list. > Would it make sense in that case to tag 5.6 for someone to look at it later with a note about recoding? C -yes, this is a good example of why the 5.6 code is there, and the text box. Add the codes you think should be there, but by clicking 5.6, it gives us a complete list of posts to check at the end of this process, in order to make a final decision. It's the only way really, short of discussing individual cases with other people who you know are dealing with a particular section. > > What will the finished catalogue look like to the clients? Will they have a list of headings to click, sort of like we do? Or will they enter keywords? C - Tim is devising search screens which give both options. On one screen there will be a way of browsing all the codes as we see them on our category list. This will be ideal for people wanting just to click and look-see what there is under various headings. Another screen will give more directed search options, eg the possibility of combining various codes so that you can get just those posts which are coded to both. You will also be able to search on keywords, and for specific authors. So, to answer another question (was it Sean?), we will indeed be able to type in 'Elkins' and get all those marvellous posts in one place. > > Kathy, who has to help her daughter make Victorian Sponge but would > rather go buy it like the character in "Calendar Girls" did. Ah - all the weighing of the eggs to get their weight in flour and so on. You are making me feel peckish. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Feb 20 20:59:20 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:59:20 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Bagman In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bagman done. In a number of posts he was just one of a list of names - no discussion at all. Cut the category from those codings. Amazing that there aren't more posts about such a dodgy character. Hmm. Time for Kneasy to give him another going over I think. Oh, yes. An entertaining but unrelated suggestion in one post: Narcissa Malfoy whispers secrets in DD's ear during pillow-talk. Original but possibly somewhat over-imaginative. Barry From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Feb 20 21:03:06 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:03:06 -0000 Subject: Harry's Eyes and Harry's Scar Message-ID: I'm doing all Harry's subcodes before his main section on the theory that I will probably be moving a lot of posts from 2.4.1 Harry Potter into some of the subsections and don't want to have to wade through those twice. 2.4.1.0 Harry's Eyes Of 9 posts, will uncode 4. In one post, will add code 3.4.3 Phys. Types & Wiz. Metabolism since it is mostly about lots of Gryffindors who wear glasses. (#30530) Will duly tick the Review Coding box, naturally. 2.4.1.1 Harry's Scar Of 49 posts, will uncode 15, leaving 34 in the category. By the way, several of these were speculating on the resemblance to a rune (Sigel). They seem to call for another category - Either adding "Runes" to the Symbolism list, or coding under 1.6.6. "ancient myths and legends" -- or should I just leave well enough alone? (#40355 is an example) Another post is an obvious candidate for 4.5 JKR interviews & comments. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I just hope, when I uncode for the eyes and the scar, somebody reviewing the same post under another category doesn't add it back in for me! I am tempted to put a note in the comments section that I've uncoded it, so that won't happen. Some of those that I intend to uncode actually make good points and might look like they need to be coded to Harry; however, I'm rejecting them because their content is a duplication of what I have already kept. Make sense? Yeah, I think I'll do that. Wish I could breathe through my nose, though... Anne From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Feb 20 21:03:59 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 16:03:59 -0500 Subject: Nacissa and Crookshanks References: Message-ID: Barry wrote: Oh, yes. An entertaining but unrelated suggestion in one post: Narcissa Malfoy whispers secrets in DD's ear during pillow-talk. Original but possibly somewhat over-imaginative. Kathy W adds: Well, that's not as bad as the idea that Crookshanks is Minerva's grandson. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor Get unlimited calls to U.S./Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/ b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From elfundeb at comcast.net Sun Feb 20 22:44:40 2005 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:44:40 -0500 Subject: Crouch Sr - Enjoying a taste of CRAB CUSTARD Message-ID: <015701c5179d$c36e57a0$3c02a8c0@TOSHIBALAPTOP> What a tasty dish of CRAB CUSTARD this category turned out to be! There were 218, mostly very good posts, though a significant number probably shouldn't have been coded here. I haven't done anything to the coding yet, because I've lost track of the guidelines and I want to make sure I do it right. 43 posts weren't sufficiently about Crouch Sr. to be coded to him. I think I am supposed to untick his name and add 5.6. 3 should have been coded to Jr rather than Sr. I'll switch and add 5.6. 7 repeat points already made and should be rejected. I'll reject and add 5.6. I would add additional codes to 4 posts. If I understand this right, I put into the comment section what I think should be done, add 5.6 but *don't* make the change? Or do I make the change and comment? This is where I'm confused. Finally, the Nel question on rulebreaking was here. Do we keep it coded to Crouch Sr? There was only a 1-word reference asking readers to consider Crouch Sr. in analyzing the question. Back to the issue of family dynamics vs. name-specific codes. I was mostly done with Crouch Sr. before noticing that a lot of these posts could have been coded to family dynamics, but they were mostly about Crouch himself. Part of the problem is that making sense of his treatment of Barty Jr is quintessential to understanding his character, but it also sheds light on his attitudes toward rulebreaking, the importance of maintaining his public persona, etc. To me, these posts were more about Crouch himself than family dynamics. It didn't even occur to me to recode. In my previous comment, I meant to keep *both* codes. Part of my thinking is that readers won't be as familiar with the headings and may not know to look under family dynamics, especially if it isn't under character analysis. This would not be a problem, though, if (a) we go with the subheadings under family dynamics, and (b) the index for catalogue users includes the family dynamics subheading under F&G as well as wherever else it appears. Maybe I've been doing it wrong all along. For example, if I code to Dumbledore's Agenda, am I not supposed to code to Dumbledore as well? Debbie who would be interested in History/Economics/Politics/Law and Order if some one else would be interested in sharing its 1888 posts -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Feb 21 05:00:25 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:00:25 -0000 Subject: BREAKING IT DOWN Message-ID: Wow, in looking at the database, some of you are ripping right through the posts! I'm about one fourth through. Quite a few of McGonagall posts have the code 1.4.3--1.4.6, portrayal of males/females/gays. Some of these don't really pertain to her and she could be un-coded even if the posts continues. Others would be worthy of both codes. But I think this could be like the Weasley family dynamics...what are the readers going to be looking for? A few posts have only been "I predict MM will become headmistress.Or if not her, Snape..." I would be willing to reject all or at least most of these. They are really just personal opinion pieces. The other questionable "co-site" is origen of names. Have we determined how we'll handle that one? I wouldn't want to read through those if I was interested in MM, but I wouldn't want to read a lot of name posts to find out about M&M as names. Carolyn, are you going to be able to write all these decisions from all these posts into one paper when it starts to gell? (Please, please, I hope so.) From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Mon Feb 21 05:32:31 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:32:31 +1100 Subject: we need a new Trio category Message-ID: <20050221053015.GA4833@aardvark.net.au> Carolyn, I hope Ginger will follow up on this, she will have seen many of the same posts: There are far too many posts centered on the Trio's dynamic without necessarily focussing on SHIPing (although SHIPing can be a motivating factor) that could lose Hermione Harry and Ron coding. As I'm also doing Ron I can tell you this would restructure about half the current categorized postings. Examples of this are many but I quote the following: 18900 - Amber wonders if Harry and Hermionie will have the same kind of fight both he and Hermionie have had with Ron. 16925 - Demelza's massive inspection of the Trio Dynamic and not a few answers back eg 17011 2514 - another post where the intention is specifically to focus on the Trio. 16480 - is a perfect candidate for Trio cat, and 16490 is typical of many posts in the 16000's, most of which I feel need recoding besides their SHIPpy content. I propose the category be named 'Trio Dynamics' and probably belongs in the 1.4 hierachy, possibly 1.4.9? or a sub-cat of 1.4.1? Thoughts? Sean -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Mon Feb 21 05:41:01 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:41:01 +1100 Subject: chapter summary q Message-ID: <20050221054101.GB4833@aardvark.net.au> What should be done with chapter summaries? I've come across a few (plus regurgitated answers), and while I'm happy to decode for specific characters, shouldn't they be off-limits to other cats also? eg #10196, #20119. Should they have their own category? Sean -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Feb 21 09:24:00 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:24:00 -0000 Subject: The Catalogue..one year on. Message-ID: Carolyn wanders into the cataloguing office early on Monday morning. No one's about, but you can hardly walk across the room for heaps of paper. A huge category chart on one wall looks like an explanation of Quidditch for not very bright muggles. A mountain of queries and objections spill out from her in-tray. Sighing, she wonders if they realise what day it is: a whole year since they got the keys to the building and moved in. Some day the story of this epic folly will be used as a case study in universities around the world..if they ever finish. Pouring herself some strong coffee, she recalls how it all began. 'Erm, ok...it sounds um...very interesting' - Anne 'You are bloody joking..' - Barry 'If my spanglish eez ok, I like to kill posters, yes please' - Silmariel Undaunted, and drawing on my wide experience of spinning ludicrous projects to doubting investors, it was easy to translate this into a watertight proposition to Admin: 'I have a terrific project for HPfGU which you can't do without, here are the first 1000 posts already done by yours truly.' Cunningly, these were on Excel files, which few people could read (including Anne, Barry and Silmariel). But, success ! On the grounds that this could be a fun spectator sport, on 21st February 2004 we were granted a Yahoo discussion group with a nice picture at the top. A number of elves settled themselves comfortably in the front row seats, clutching huge tubs of popcorn. My first move was to ignore the stuff we didn't know how to do by delegating it to a technical sub-committee, which didn't meet that often. However, just as we had finally established that we couldn't do anything at all till we solved the technical problems, in strode Paul, a tough Texan with no time for techno-wimps. Politely ignoring our garbled explanations, he calmly built exactly the site we wanted, and chucked us the keys...On April 18th 2004 we finally began to code the Yahoo club.. 'How did I get roped into this?' - Barry 'I do have a life..but this project is, um...very interesting' - Anne 'I am ze leader of an RPG in Madrid..we roam ze streets...I will return..eventually' -Silmariel Clearly more victims, er team players were required. Greedily I began to scan the horizons. Aha.. A small, grinning creature was spotted in central London...could it be the legendary Pip!Squeak? Indeed it was..but alas, she was just looking for a place to sleep, and promptly curled up in the dorm for the duration. A sailor in port, Corinthum (Kelly), was pressganged next, closely followed by The Sergeant Majorette (Jayne), Severely Sigune (Eva), and Bad!Boyd Smythe, and for 17000 posts we slogged on, being careful to avoid Jayne's Barbi dolls dressed in combat fatigues. Those snipers could give you a really nasty flesh wound if you got in the line of fire. Alas, Jayne finally screamed 'enough' and left to spend more time with her remaining sanity. At some point, two blokes, Dan and David dropped in, pirouetted on the spot for some months muttering 'surely this can be automated?', and then vanished in a puff of smoke. Meanwhile, the elves started throwing popcorn. It appeared that there might be a legal problem and all our work might be wasted. Shadowy figures who shall remain nameless would sue all of HPfGU for JKR's royalties if we explained to anyone what the Big Bang Destroyer was. Legal documents flew back and forth. Many sleepless nights later, a way forward was thrashed out: all posts written between midnight and dawn on Halloween in 1704 would be fine; all the rest were to be discarded, so that was ok. But I had more people in my sights. Next I bagged an Elf (Debbie), then Entropy (Corinne)... 5000 posts later, Kathy (Potioncat), Sevenhundredandthirteen (Laurasia) and KathyK were enticed with sweet words about how far we had got and how straightforward it all was. Well, it was sort of true... 'I'll do as much as I please, so bugger off' - Barry '..um..I'm still *really* interested' - Anne 'I have a question..' - Potioncat Morale was sagging..time for the old smoke and mirrors trick. Recruitment campaigns and exciting new product development proposals were launched. An advert in the HPfGU press for a developer pulled in...no responses, except from Tim Regan (Dumbledad), who quite insanely had a project not dissimilar to ours. He wants to count all the mentions of Snape in all the sentences on HPfGU or something, dunno why. Anyway, I said he could do that no problem with our database (you can't) and come right on in...at first he boggled at the total madness of it all, but then started talking gibberish to Paul. I left them to it; they seemed happy. More troops were still needed. I consulted an old parchment, handed to me by Dicentra..the fabled FAQ/FP group. I thought it was defunct, but after trudging through uncharted wastelands, finally found a survivor - Jo Serenadust. She protested prettily at having to read all her old posts again but sternly I said her country needed her.. A little later, a relative newcomer Doug (aka Eustace_Scrubb) was ensnared. He likes classifying things in museums, and I said I had just the job. Then at 33000 and counting, there was a flash of gold, a swoop of a blade on OTC. A warrior chiefteness of old strode into that pink and frilly lounge. I expect they were discussing what children aged 3-6 months should wear when going to an HP premiere. Proud words were spoken, lesser mortals kneeled. Talisman deigned to cut the heads off all posts which offended her. 'Bout time..where the hell have you been' - Barry '..how lovely, um....' - Anne '...gulp' - everyone else And then in short order, the party suddenly got very lively with KathySnow, Ginger, Jen and Dot joyfully joining in the chat, and in Dot's case supplying a delightfully different type of canape. Finally, Sean from Oz gatecrashed from TOC...he wasn't even fazed by the truly appalling review I had just set in train - 'lets re- classify everything we have done over the past year - it'll be fun and worthwhile'. Yep, it's been a long and eventful year, but I think we've created something great which will work. Big thanks to you all, and very special thanks to Anne (who actually does quite a lot of coding!), and Barry (who provides much moral support - yes, I said moral) for sticking with me from the beginning. Carolyn From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Mon Feb 21 11:08:25 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:08:25 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] The Catalogue..one year on. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050221110825.GB16120@aardvark.net.au> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 09:24:00AM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > Finally, Sean from Oz gatecrashed from TOC...he wasn't even fazed by > the truly appalling review I had just set in train - 'lets re- > classify everything we have done over the past year - it'll be fun > and worthwhile'. Heh, very funny :) Well the unfazed gatecrashing Sean has reached roughly 600 posts and eight hours up Mt Granger and the view is bizarre to say the least. Theoretical psychology is going to have a field day when they get hold of this stuff :) One highlight: the founding SCHABB post has been found and coded! I must remember to pay my membership dues... Am going to take a break and tackle that Molly Weasley pushover...Don't forget my helpful suggestions in the in-tray (directs hapless Carolyn toward menacing mountain on her desk...there ya go...) :) Sean (who is beginning to wish he had a 21" screen to fit the entire catalogue page in) -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Mon Feb 21 13:47:20 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:47:20 +1100 Subject: Molly Weasley Message-ID: <20050221134720.GA28109@aardvark.net.au> Sean staggers into the office bleary-eyed. He notices Carolyn slumped over a mountain of paper on her desk, softly snoring. Gently, to the side of the mountain opposite to her, he places the following parchment: Molly Weasley Report ******************** Initial posts: 242 Final posts: 217 Little to report, save that much of the discussion centres on Molly's parenting skills, how old she is, whether she had a missing child and has been covering up the tragedy from the other children, and what of significance is the accountant cousin. Sean tiptoes out, steeling himself to face the terror that is Granger. -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Feb 21 13:55:20 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:55:20 -0000 Subject: Nacissa and Crookshanks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Kathy Willson" wrote: > > Barry wrote: > > Oh, yes. An entertaining but unrelated suggestion in one post: > Narcissa Malfoy whispers secrets in DD's ear during pillow-talk. > Original but possibly somewhat over-imaginative. > > > Kathy W adds: > Well, that's not as bad as the idea that Crookshanks is Minerva's grandson. > Ginger, not to be outdone, adds: I found an explaination of why Tom Riddle can't be James Potter's mother. It seems that the WW doesn't do sex change operations. Odd. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Feb 21 14:41:00 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:41:00 -0000 Subject: Runes & Harry Message-ID: Anne: By the way, several of these were speculating on the resemblance to a rune (Sigel). They seem to call for another category - Either adding "Runes" to the Symbolism list, or coding under 1.6.6. "ancient myths and legends" -- or should I just leave well enough alone? (#40355 is an example) Carolyn: I don't know why we don't have a runes category under symbolism - I will add one now. Anne: I just hope, when I uncode for the eyes and the scar, somebody reviewing the same post under another category doesn't add it back in for me! I am tempted to put a note in the comments section that I've uncoded it, so that won't happen. Some of those that I intend to uncode actually make good points and might look like they need to be coded to Harry; however, I'm rejecting them because their content is a duplication of what I have already kept. Make sense? Yeah, I think I'll do that. Carolyn: This sounds like a good idea and a very good use of that comment box. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Feb 21 14:41:43 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:41:43 -0000 Subject: McGonagall Message-ID: Potioncat: (1) Quite a few of McGonagall posts have the code 1.4.3--1.4.6, portrayal of males/females/gays. Some of these don't really pertain to her and she could be un-coded even if the posts continues. Others would be worthy of both codes. But I think this could be like the Weasley family dynamics...what are the readers going to be looking for? (2) A few posts have only been "I predict MM will become headmistress.Or if not her, Snape..." I would be willing to reject all or at least most of these. They are really just personal opinion pieces. (3) The other questionable "co-site" is origen of names. Have we determined how we'll handle that one? I wouldn't want to read through those if I was interested in MM, but I wouldn't want to read a lot of name posts to find out about M&M as names. (4) Carolyn, are you going to be able to write all these decisions from all these posts into one paper when it starts to gell? (Please, please, I hope so.) Carolyn: (1) I've coded several of the 'portrayal of women' etc threads, and either because I'm lazy, or have second sight, I have not tended to code to the characters mentioned unless a very big chunk of the post was dedicated to them. This is a long way of saying that if you come across them in the McGongall thread, but she only gets a slight mention, I would mark them for de-checking to her code. As you say, the 'Portrayal of males/females/gays' section can be sub-divided further eventually if people really want that. (2) I would agree; only keep & code to predictions if based on something a bit more substantive. (3) For this, I would consider a sub-category under the McGonagall code if there are a lot of interesting posts about the origin of her name. What we do with the main etymology code, in that case I'm not sure. (4) Yes, I will try and keep a log of them all, and integrate them with the original definitions file for future reference. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Feb 21 14:39:49 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:39:49 -0000 Subject: Hermione/Ron and the trio Message-ID: Sean: I hope Ginger will follow up on this, she will have seen many of the same posts: There are far too many posts centered on the Trio's dynamic without necessarily focussing on SHIPing (although SHIPing can be a motivating factor) that could lose Hermione Harry and Ron coding. As I'm also doing Ron I can tell you this would restructure about half the current categorized postings. Examples of this are many but I quote the following: 18900 - Amber wonders if Harry and Hermionie will have the same kind of fight both he and Hermionie have had with Ron. 16925 - Demelza's massive inspection of the Trio Dynamic and not a few answers back eg 17011 2514 - another post where the intention is specifically to focus on the Trio. 16480 - is a perfect candidate for Trio cat, and 16490 is typical of many posts in the 16000's, most of which I feel need recoding besides their SHIPpy content. I propose the category be named 'Trio Dynamics' and probably belongs in the 1.4 hierachy, possibly 1.4.9? or a sub-cat of 1.4.1? Thoughts? Carolyn: This is an interesting problem, indeed. Thanks for bringing it up. What do other people think about having a 'Trio dynamics' category as part of the characterisation section 1.4? This would be defined as non-SHIP interactions? How would we differentiate between this and 1.1.3 Friendship, love & loyalty? So, Sean, if you had this, you would then restrict the Ron and Hermione categories to strictly character analysis of each of them as individuals, and presumably, Anne would attempt to do the same with Harry? I am in favour of it, I think. Also, I can feel a MWPP interactions category waiting in the wings. Sean What should be done with chapter summaries? I've come across a few (plus regurgitated answers), and while I'm happy to decode for specific characters, shouldn't they be off-limits to other cats also? eg #10196, #20119. Should they have their own category? Carolyn: They do have their own category - ie, their individual chapter heading. Jen has taken on all the chapter categories, and will tackle the problem from that perspective. You should only be decoding for Ron and Hermione (or whoever), from the perspective of shaping those character's sections right now. Sorry, maybe misunderstood your question, no time to delve into the posts right now... Sean: Molly Weasley Report ******************** Initial posts: 242 Final posts: 217 Little to report, save that much of the discussion centres on Molly's parenting skills, how old she is, whether she had a missing child and has been covering up the tragedy from the other children, and what of significance is the accountant cousin. Carolyn, waking up with a start: Hah! Told you so..she should get out more... From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Feb 21 14:40:29 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:40:29 -0000 Subject: Crouch Sr & Family dynamics Message-ID: Debbie: What a tasty dish of CRAB CUSTARD this category turned out to be! There were 218, mostly very good posts, though a significant number probably shouldn't have been coded here. I haven't done anything to the coding yet, because I've lost track of the guidelines and I want to make sure I do it right. (1) 43 posts weren't sufficiently about Crouch Sr. to be coded to him. I think I am supposed to untick his name and add 5.6. (2) 3 should have been coded to Jr rather than Sr. I'll switch and add 5.6. (3) 7 repeat points already made and should be rejected. I'll reject and add 5.6. (4) I would add additional codes to 4 posts. If I understand this right, I put into the comment section what I think should be done, add 5.6 but *don't* make the change? Or do I make the change and comment? This is where I'm confused. (5) Finally, the Nel question on rulebreaking was here. Do we keep it coded to Crouch Sr? There was only a 1-word reference asking readers to consider Crouch Sr. in analyzing the question. Carolyn: (1) No need to add 5.6 when just unchecking the character code. (2) Yes, add 5.6 in these cases (3) No need to add 5.6 unless there are other codes involved - I take it that there are not, and that by unchecking Crouch Sr, you create a reject situation to 0.5 or whatever? (4) Please go ahead and make the changes. Add in the additional codes that you think appropriate and check 5.6, also put comments in the box whenever you like to explain why. Essentially, it is only necessary to tick 5.6 when you make a change that might affect a code someone else is dealing with. If your change simply removes the code you are working on, or means that the post ends up with no codes, and is therefore a reject, no need to tick 5.6. (5) Slightly over to you here as I think this is one of your project, is it not? The Nel code is there to preserve the threads related to the Nel questions so you can revive the questions on main, if you wish. We probably should also offer Nel as a search option, for those that might be interested in pursuing the original discussions. Debbie: Back to the issue of family dynamics vs. name-specific codes. I was mostly done with Crouch Sr. before noticing that a lot of these posts could have been coded to family dynamics, but they were mostly about Crouch himself. Part of the problem is that making sense of his treatment of Barty Jr is quintessential to understanding his character, but it also sheds light on his attitudes toward rulebreaking, the importance of maintaining his public persona, etc. To me, these posts were more about Crouch himself than family dynamics. It didn't even occur to me to recode. In my previous comment, I meant to keep *both* codes. Part of my thinking is that readers won't be as familiar with the headings and may not know to look under family dynamics, especially if it isn't under character analysis. This would not be a problem, though, if (a) we go with the subheadings under family dynamics, and (b) the index for catalogue users includes the family dynamics subheading under F&G as well as wherever else it appears. Maybe I've been doing it wrong all along. For example, if I code to Dumbledore's Agenda, am I not supposed to code to Dumbledore as well? Carolyn: These are good questions, Debbie, and go to the heart of the matter in the design of the search screens. My thinking is to try and make what is under each heading both as individual, and as consistent as possible. Although I am a fantastic fan of Elkins, for instance, it probably doesn't do her any service to have her lengthy essays come up up 30 or 40 times over - I think it will annoy people in the end. This makes me as guilty of over-coding as anyone else. So, in the Crouch Sr case, I think you have done the right thing in leaving most of his character posts uncoded to Crouch family dynamics. Going back to the search and retrieve screens, we will undoubtedly have to provide a lot of help and advice on how to get the best out the search routines, but it does seem to me that anyone wanting to research the Crouch family interactions will read all the individual character posts, plus the family dynamics code. Maybe I am wrong in this assumption ? Anyway, even if I am, the search routines that Tim is designing will allow you to select quite a lot of codes at once, and get a de-duped result which puts all the posts in those sections together for you (there will be a lot, obviously, but if it's what you want, you will be able to get it). Dumbledore and Dumbledore's agenda is an awkward case. For a long time I have thought they should be merged and cleaned up. There is a specific type of post which is about what DD's strategy might be, much else is about his character, or whether in fact he is a bumble bee or a house elf in disguise.... I have given the pair of them to Boyd to take care of (with strict instructions not to break the dishwasher), and I am doing the same thing to Voldemort and V's agenda (see spying & betrayal post yesterday). From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Feb 21 15:12:38 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:12:38 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Narrative style In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <95bf8aa3242400a3c03be83cdaafdaa1@btconnect.com> Just getting into this one. So far the posts aren't so much about narrative style as such - more general critiques, recapping, plot holes, resolution devices etc. and comments on reviews of the books in newspapers, mags and the like. Unfortunately except for the Header category there's nowhere else for them to go. Personally I don't think it really matters, but since the vast majority of the material is not about style it might be easier to relabel the category rather than try to devise further sub-groupings that will probably never be truly distinct anyway. Something like 'General comments and reviews on books' might be appropriate. I note with distress that to mark the near-anniversary of that fateful day of a year ago you have chosen to characterise Kneasy's alter ego as a miserable old bugger, a curmudgeon, a grumpy old fart who has a problem for every solution. Nothing could be further from the truth: mild as a cooted dove, the voice of reason, offering wise guidance gleaned during his considerable years of dealing with the unreasonable and with the milk of human kindness positively flooding from every pore. Just watch it. Or else. Remember I never did finish the tale of the raddled, toothless, cellulitis-riddled old crones. Barry From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Mon Feb 21 15:43:08 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 02:43:08 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Hermione/Ron and the trio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050221154307.GB28109@aardvark.net.au> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 02:39:49PM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > Carolyn: > This is an interesting problem, indeed. Thanks for bringing it up. > What do other people think about having a 'Trio dynamics' category as > part of the characterisation section 1.4? This would be defined as > non-SHIP interactions? How would we differentiate between this and > 1.1.3 Friendship, love & loyalty? > > So, Sean, if you had this, you would then restrict the Ron and > Hermione categories to strictly character analysis of each of them as > individuals, and presumably, Anne would attempt to do the same with > Harry? Exactly. My idea is that we should be restricting all character codes to posts specifically about them within reason. Grey areas do occur, for instance, I don't know that decoding Arthur and Molly for posts clearly naming them but generally treating them as a couple for the purposes of parallels is going too far (eg 33446)? The other case is where topics of parenting are involved, but I think I've dealt with most of that with Molly, but it may pop up again with Ginny and Ron when I get to them. I see a number of posts apparently contrasting Weasleys with Malfoys but they're really concerned with what someone said in passing about Draco or Ron. Harry is a unique problem, he effectively "sees all", but I'd think Trio dynamics would make Anne's job much easier. Most List discussion seems to run in the direction of these parallels or interpretation of canon, and often the characters involved are signposts to that. It's interesting that we're only finding out what the real categories are by indirection from character categories! The Trio is a special case. There are complex issues with each character that only come to light in the context of the Trio, and again I hope to hear from Ginger about her view from the SHIPing side, but to take yet another example: there's a fair amount of stuff between Ron and Harry that gets mixed up with Hermione because she is mediating (eg the Great Fight), and vice-versa (Crookshankgate). Others get thrown into the mix whenever either a SHIPper or a non-combatant want to make a point about a Trio interaction (viz. Ron vs. Harry because of Molly). Most of their character development (from the List's POV) is in the Trio context too. And then there's the use of the Trio in discussions concerning parallels with the Maurauders, rule-breaking in general, the list goes on. So much of Hermione is only in Trio context, and I have the same sinking feeling about Ron. It shouldn't have come as a great surprise, I suppose, but it is one. 1.1.3 can code to DD's loyalty to Hagrid or Snape. Or Sirius. Or you could stretch Krum and Hermione into there. What about the OotP group? IOW, it's much too general for the Trio, it would be on every post. > Carolyn: > They do have their own category - ie, their individual chapter > heading. Jen has taken on all the chapter categories, and will tackle > the problem from that perspective. You should only be decoding for > Ron and Hermione (or whoever), from the perspective of shaping those > character's sections right now. Sorry, maybe misunderstood your > question, no time to delve into the posts right now... You understood (i must be able to communicate at last:)) Good-oh. Thought that might be the case. Sean -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Feb 21 16:24:51 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:24:51 -0000 Subject: Coding to Chapters--please give input! Message-ID: Help! I was wrong. The chapter codings are NOT cut and dried, right/wrong, etc. We need to answer a big question before I move on: What will people be looking for when searching a chapter category? A)Discussion and theorizing about events within that chapter, i.e., why did Dumbledore leave Harry at the Dursleys? Why did it take so long for Hagrid to arrive with Harry at Privet Drive? B) Discussion about the chapter itself. For Book 1, chapter 1 examples are: POV, clues JKR laid within this chapter (i.e. Sirius' motorbike), comments about how JKR introduced the characters, etc. C) Only formal chapter discussions, either initiated by the group or when a poster does so informally. D) Something else I'm not thinking of. So far in reviewing chap. 1 of PS, most of the posts discuss events within the chapter and include theorizing about the hot button issues such as the letter, Dumbeldore's decision, missing 24 hours, etc. Myself, I've been coding plot points and theorizing to the chapters, but now it seems redundant. There are so many other ways to find specific plot discussion, and I'm thinking the chapter categories should include discussion more like examples B & C above. Thanks for any and all input! I've started my review twice now and keep stumbling over the same question. Jen, who chuckled all the way through Carolyn's Year-in-Review and thinks her post needs to be sent out as part of the recruitment package. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Feb 21 17:16:37 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:16:37 -0000 Subject: Coding to Chapters--please give input! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Myself, I've been coding plot points and theorizing to the chapters, > but now it seems redundant. There are so many other ways to find > specific plot discussion, and I'm thinking the chapter categories > should include discussion more like examples B & C above. > > Thanks for any and all input! I've started my review twice now and > keep stumbling over the same question. Carolyn: My input - definitely B) & C). A) is more difficult to define. I can only do it by examples. For instance, Part 1 of Magic Dishwasher is (largely) an extended analysis of the end chapters of POA. Not all theories are like this, but in this instance, is it correct to cross-code that lengthy theory post to those chapters? I know I have done, but that may not be correct. Similarly Part II Spying Game is an analysis of the graveyard scene in GOF. In addition to these theory questions, the categories should both pose the key questions about a particular chapter (as the formal summaries do), and capture the best of the replies to those questions. The art is to know when to cut that discussion off, as it meanders off into being a thread on something else. Also, I am particularly keen to capture the quickies - where someone spots something in a chapter that is odd, and queries it. Don't think I'm being much help - I am having a temper tantrum trying to sort out the spying and betrayals section at the moment. > > Jen, who chuckled all the way through Carolyn's Year-in-Review and > thinks her post needs to be sent out as part of the recruitment > package. Alas, I seem to have tragically misrepresented Barry, who it turns out is a really nice man, and was only trying to help. All those recommendations for curry enemas, for instance, seem to have been homeopathic remedies, in common use in backward, er, I mean rural parts of the Welsh borders. Carolyn From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Feb 21 18:07:33 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:07:33 -0000 Subject: Coding to Chapters--please give input! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Jen, who chuckled all the way through Carolyn's Year-in-Review and > > thinks her post needs to be sent out as part of the recruitment > > package. Carolyn: > Alas, I seem to have tragically misrepresented Barry, who it turns > out is a really nice man, and was only trying to help. All those > recommendations for curry enemas, for instance, seem to have been > homeopathic remedies, in common use in backward, er, I mean rural > parts of the Welsh borders. Jen: I certainly misunderstood the House Elf situation myself, and the forays into Malfoy Manor. Obviously, those shenanigans were merely a cover-up: Spy!Kneasy was deeply undercover for SPEW, in alliance with Madam Whiplash, er Granger, to liberate the House ELves once and for all! Brings a tear to your eye. Thanks for the input on chapters, Carolyn. I'll see if anyone else weighs in, then make a go of it based on a combination of our thoughts so far. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Feb 21 18:44:14 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:44:14 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Coding to Chapters--please give input! References: Message-ID: Potioncat bounds in, "I have a dream!" she announces, then pauses, a confused look on her face, "No, that isn't it...wait, it'll come to me." I just reviewed a slew of McGonagall posts within a chapter summary thread...Jen has my deepest sympathy. In the past I used to code to a chapter if the post was part of a summary, if any reference was made to a chapter or in some cases, if I knew which chapter it belonged to. Now, having slogged through some of those, I tend to think that the chapter codes should be for discussions about the chapter itself. But in place of some chapters as codes, we may need specific events as codes. For example I'll bet there are hundreds of posts debating the events between the trio, Snape, Lapin, Black and Pettigrew in the Shrieking Shack. And I'll bet a number are coded to those 3 chapters. Another problem, within the chapter summaries, I found a number that are coded appropriately to McGonagall as well as to other characters. But after a few, most can go. I would think it might be in Jen's domain to determine which ones stay. Or is that passing the buck? Potioncat starts for the door, "I have cabin fever!" Again she pauses, "No, that's not it either." Yahoo! Groups Sponsor Get unlimited calls to U.S./Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/ b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Feb 21 23:53:57 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:53:57 -0000 Subject: Report on Fudge Message-ID: As a diversion from trying to sort out the Spying section, I have reviewed the Fudge category (294 posts). On the whole, it was an easy section to do. Fudge doesn't get a lot of page time, so the analyses tend to focus on the hospital scene at the end of POA, and the Dementor incident in GOF, plus sundry character sketches. There is really only one big Fudge theory, which is Eloise (& Dicentra's) ESE! allegations. These posts are caught under the various acronyms. So far, the posts mentioning the acronyms are very few in number (ones and twos), and could probably be easily collapsed together at some point, as they duplicate. In all, I propose removing 122 references, reducing the current hits to 172. The most problematic decisions to take were on the very big theories which got referenced in - the Avery Fourth Man (& numerous variants), chunks of the Memory Charmed Neville symposium papers, MAGIC DISHWASHER and so forth. On the whole, I suggest removing the actual massive posts themselves, but keeping some follow-up posts which conveniently dissect the Fudge element out of those theories. Hope that's ok with everyone. Carolyn From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 01:06:21 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:06:21 -0000 Subject: Review of 1.3 Literary Criticism & Books About Harry Potter Message-ID: In spite of the fact that I'm supposed to be responding to several deranged snot-balls on TOC, I have finished reviewing 1.3 and find, well, a mixed bag. There are certainly posts that can be tanked, and others that only say "I hate Lit. Crit.," and to the extent that they say anything else, belong elsewhere. There are 3 or 4 that attempt to analyze some aspect of the series from a Freudian/Lacanian or Jungian perspective, and the rest are either reviews about, or lengthy quotes from, books and articles that attempt to explain or evaluate the series. All in all, I propose leaving the definition as it is with the exception of adding "& Articles" since people like the moronic Harold Bloom didn't write books. So, if all agree, reviews and references to books and articles about HP, and readings explicitly drawn from a defined critical perspective will lie entombed forever in this spot. I considered whether I should axe the posts that merely quote other critics, but decided--pending group opinion--to leave them as they point to material that readers may want to chase down. Talisman P.S. To Lit Crit Haters: Everyone who creates a reasoned post, tied to canon, attempting to analyze and explain the story, characters or underlying themes, etc. is engaging in Literary Criticism. Na na na na na :p From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 01:41:05 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:41:05 -0000 Subject: Ax hand quivering Message-ID: If anyone wants to save post 5582, a recital of Peg Kerr's personal experiences with publishing (meant to demonstrate how what we can't understand in the series may be Rowling screw-ups), speak up now. It's a damn long post to say "maybe it's a flint," refers to no particular aspect of the series, and smells mostly of personal indulgence, to me. T From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 04:10:38 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:10:38 -0000 Subject: Review of 1.3.1.1. Constraints Due To Genre Message-ID: Pretty straightforward and only a few chops/modifications. Defined as exploring genre constraints and that is what posts explored (mostly): what is allowable in Fiction /Fantasy/ Sci Fi/ Children's Lit. The last is the only question provoking aspect. I added code 4.1.2. where the writer was arguing pro/con kiddie lit; but, did not if they just discussed parameters under the assumption that HP series is one or the other. We'd just have to code everything there, as falling to one side or the other, if we're assigning assumptions. Opinions? T From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 04:25:32 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:25:32 -0000 Subject: Review of 4.1.1. What Genre? Message-ID: All seems in good shape. Added 4.1.2. once. Definition: posts that query whether HP is Sci Fi or Fantasy, Classic or flash in the pan, etc. Any questions or comments? (Carolyn: please note any respondants as being those without sufficient employment.) T From kking0731 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 22 04:30:09 2005 From: kking0731 at hotmail.com (snow15145) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:30:09 -0000 Subject: reject glitch Message-ID: While changing the Death Eater category codes, I noticed something I thought I'd share. There was a post I had marked to reject but when I checked it I noticed that it had already been rejected and there were no boxes ticked but it had Death Eaters as a category at the same time. This happens a lot even now when coding, if I tick a few category's to a post and then notice that the post is reiterated several times in later posts, I'll go back and take off the category's that were ticked and reject. When Carolyn does the weekly update I had a few rejected category's that needed to be checked over because they were showing up as both rejected and also ticked to a category. I seemed to have resolved this problem in the last several coding sessions by taking off all the ticked boxes then ticking set category and then reject, set category. Just thought I'd mention it. KathySnow From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Tue Feb 22 04:38:37 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:38:37 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Review of 1.3.1.1. Constraints Due To Genre In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050222043330.GA17658@aardvark.net.au> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 04:10:38AM -0000, Talisman wrote: > The last is the only question provoking aspect. I added code 4.1.2. > where the writer was arguing pro/con kiddie lit; but, did not if > they just discussed parameters under the assumption that HP series > is one or the other. We'd just have to code everything there, as > falling to one side or the other, if we're assigning assumptions. > Opinions? I have the same problem currently with Trelawney (note the 'e' Carolyn :)) and general talk of prophecy/predictions, she's coded on both sides. This won't go away, it'll probably get worse. But I'm still ruthlessly pruning non-Trelawney-centric posts, just because she's mentioned in connection with a general discussion, the multiposts particularly. Likewise I expect the kiddie lit argument itself to get bigger. I agree if the argument is specifically kiddie lit. to code, but using the argument to talk generally doesn't merit it. -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Tue Feb 22 06:50:29 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:50:29 +1100 Subject: Sybil Trelawney Message-ID: <20050222065029.GB17658@aardvark.net.au> Sybil Trelawney Report ********************** Initial posts: 172 Final posts: 165 This name is constantly being misspelled. Interesting posts: 548 - honest-to-goodness long-range forecast 25507 - Is Trelawney a JKR game? Back to Mt Granger then. -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Feb 22 10:33:58 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:33:58 -0000 Subject: Lit crit/What genre/Constraints due to genre/kiddie lit Message-ID: Talisman on section 1.3 Literary criticism & books about Harry Potter: All in all, I propose leaving the definition as it is with the exception of adding "& Articles" since people like the moronic Harold Bloom didn't write books. If anyone wants to save post 5582, a recital of Peg Kerr's personal experiences with publishing (meant to demonstrate how what we can't understand in the series may be Rowling screw-ups), speak up now. Carolyn: Glad this section held together (up to a point) - will make the title amendment that you suggest. Hadn't read 5582 before - since I've done my time as a nasty publishing editor, frankly I don't know what she is whinging about ; clearly the process let the truly awful Wild Swans slip through. Really, authors... how about clicking 'just for a laugh' in section 5 - there is quite a lot of OT stuff caught there for posterity, and we will probably make that category available for browsing. Talisman: >Subject: Review of 4.1.1. What Genre? >All seems in good shape. Added 4.1.2. once. >Definition: posts that query whether HP is Sci Fi or Fantasy, >Classic or flash in the pan, etc. >Any questions or comments? (Carolyn: please note any respondants as being those without sufficient employment.) Carolyn, who has more than enough to do nevertheless wonders whether this section should be merged with 1.3.1.1 ?? Talisman: Review of 1.3.1.1. Constraints Due To Genre Pretty straightforward and only a few chops/modifications. Defined as exploring genre constraints and that is what posts explored (mostly): what is allowable in Fiction /Fantasy/ Sci Fi/ Children's Lit. The last is the only question provoking aspect. I added code 4.1.2. where the writer was arguing pro/con kiddie lit; but, did not if they just discussed parameters under the assumption that HP series is one or the other. We'd just have to code everything there, as falling to one side or the other, if we're assigning assumptions. Opinions? Sean: Likewise I expect the kiddie lit argument itself to get bigger. I agree if the argument is specifically kiddie lit. to code, but using the argument to talk generally doesn't merit it. Carolyn: The 4.1.2 section is very large; certainly I am in favour of keeping 1.3.1.1 clear of the kiddie lit argument if at all possible. (Waiting with bated breath to see what Talisman does to that Stygian stable). From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Feb 22 10:42:54 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:42:54 -0000 Subject: Hermione/Ron and the trio - NEW CODE, PLEASE NOTE In-Reply-To: <20050221154307.GB28109@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 02:39:49PM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > What do other people think about having a 'Trio dynamics' category as part of the characterisation section 1.4? This would be defined as non-SHIP interactions? Sean: > Exactly. My idea is that we should be restricting all character codes to posts specifically about them within reason. Harry is a unique problem, he effectively "sees all", but I'd think Trio dynamics would make Anne's job much easier. > The Trio is a special case. There are complex issues with each character that only come to light in the context of the Trio, and again I hope to hear from Ginger about her view from the SHIPing side, So much of Hermione is only in Trio context, and I have the same sinking feeling about Ron. It shouldn't have come as a great > surprise, I suppose, but it is one. > Carolyn: I am going to add this category, and see how people get on with it. If it has the advantage of cleaning out the HRH categories, and it is possible to distinguish it from the SHIP posts, then it may be useful. What happens when the posts stray from strictly HRH, and start to include Draco or something? Do they still go there? I don't think they should or this category will also become a ragbag. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Tue Feb 22 11:17:36 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:17:36 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Hermione/Ron and the trio - NEW CODE, PLEASE NOTE In-Reply-To: References: <20050221154307.GB28109@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: <20050222111736.GA3562@aardvark.net.au> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:42:54AM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > Carolyn: > I am going to add this category, and see how people get on with it. > If it has the advantage of cleaning out the HRH categories, and it is > possible to distinguish it from the SHIP posts, then it may be useful. > > What happens when the posts stray from strictly HRH, and start to > include Draco or something? Do they still go there? I don't think > they should or this category will also become a ragbag. My guide is, what is the primary focus? Secondary categories are good if you're conversant with the ideas, but this is so mind-numbingly BIG no one person can keep a grip on that stuff. We have to be cruel about it or the ragbags will get us. If that means Draco misses out, I'm sure he'll get enough category action to make up for it. Machines can't do this, and humans are only barely capable. If that means I have to redo the Weasleys and Granger, I will gladly suffer that to get things as right as possible from the start. -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 11:27:35 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:27:35 -0000 Subject: Lit crit/What genre/Constraints due to genre/kiddie lit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: >Talisman: >Subject: Review of 4.1.1. What Genre? >Carolyn, who has more than enough to do nevertheless wonders whether >this section should be merged with 1.3.1.1 ?? Talisman: Remind me, can this be done with a wave of the executive wand? Or does it require an obedient slave shifting one post at a time? Aw, what the heck. Good idea, I agree. >Hadn't read 5582 before - since I've done my time as a nasty >publishing editor, frankly I don't know what she is whinging about >; clearly the process let the truly awful Wild Swans slip through. >Really, authors... how about clicking 'just for a laugh' in section >5 - there is quite a lot of OT stuff caught there for posterity, and >we will probably make that category available for browsing You are a most generous despot. I shall tape her nattering head back on. T From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Feb 22 11:57:02 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:57:02 -0000 Subject: What genre/Constraints due to genre In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" > wrote: > >Talisman: > >Subject: Review of 4.1.1. What Genre? > > > >Carolyn, who has more than enough to do nevertheless wonders whether > >this section should be merged with 1.3.1.1 ?? > > Talisman: > Remind me, can this be done with a wave of the executive wand? Or > does it require an obedient slave shifting one post at a time? > > Aw, what the heck. Good idea, I agree. > > Carolyn: No problem, can do it for you. The process will mean fewer posts in the merged category, if posts were previously coded to both. I will merge 1.3.1.1 into 4.1.1 rather than the other way round (either is possible, for future ref..). From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Feb 22 12:12:58 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:12:58 -0000 Subject: What genre/Constraints due to genre In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > No problem, can do it for you. The process will mean fewer posts in > the merged category, if posts were previously coded to both. > > I will merge 1.3.1.1 into 4.1.1 rather than the other way round > (either is possible, for future ref..). Talisman - the merged section now has 100 posts. The first one or two looked dodgy at first glance.. but didn't look in detail. Once the Authorial intent section is sorted out, I will move this genre section up into meta- out of section 4, and renumber the whole category. If I do it now, it will confuse whoever is dealing with that bit.. Carolyn From quigonginger at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 12:59:32 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:59:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Hermione/Ron and the trio - NEW CODE, PLEASE NOTE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050222125932.91110.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> Carolyn: What do other people think about having a 'Trio dynamics' category as part of the characterisation section 1.4? This would be defined as non-SHIP interactions? Sean: There are complex issues with each character that only come to light in the context of the Trio, and again I hope to hear from Ginger about her view from the SHIPing side, Ginger: I'm not ignoring you guys, really I'm not. I wanted to view some of my ship-trio posts so I'd have a clue what I was talking about. Makes for a nice change in my life. Yes, trio dynamics, aside from shipping is a good idea. I think the trio has been analyzed in comparison to every trio known to man except Peter, Paul and Mary; Winkin, Blinkin and Nod; and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Ship and no-ship are pretty cut and dried, but if they just hint at shipping, I don't think it'll matter if they end up in both for now, although I think that if I were looking it up, I would expect a shipping post to be more than just a hint at it. Before I start actually taking the weedwacker to posts, I just want to clarify one thing: I have been coding under the assumption that trio-shipping means that at least one of the trio is involved. So I have been putting Harry/Ginny and Herm/Krum in the trio category. Is this correct? Or should I be hacking them out of there and leaving them in shipping in general. Ginger, who is sick and is going to bed and will work on this later. Night night. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Tue Feb 22 13:51:14 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:51:14 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Hermione/Ron and the trio - NEW CODE, PLEASE NOTE In-Reply-To: <20050222125932.91110.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050222125932.91110.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050222135114.GB3562@aardvark.net.au> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 04:59:32AM -0800, Ginger wrote: > Yes, trio dynamics, aside from shipping is a good idea. I think the trio > has been analyzed in comparison to every trio known to man except Peter, > Paul and Mary; Winkin, Blinkin and Nod; and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Let's not forget the three wise monkeys which they often invoke when carpeted. > Ship and no-ship are pretty cut and dried, but if they just hint at > shipping, I don't think it'll matter if they end up in both for now, > although I think that if I were looking it up, I would expect a shipping > post to be more than just a hint at it. It's a useful grey area. Think of it as an added bonus :) > Before I start actually taking the weedwacker to posts, I just want to > clarify one thing: I have been coding under the assumption that > trio-shipping means that at least one of the trio is involved. So I have > been putting Harry/Ginny and Herm/Krum in the trio category. > > Is this correct? Or should I be hacking them out of there and leaving them > in shipping in general. Nine times out of ten it will involve a reaction by a proponent of an in-Trio ship, so I don't think the distinction is important. H/K almost always invokes Ron, H/G the same with Herm. Harry/Cho upset a lot of H/H'ers so it evens out in the end. > Ginger, who is sick and is going to bed and will work on this later. Night > night. Sorry to hear that Ginger, sleep well! -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Feb 22 13:56:00 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:56:00 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01d056580a243cd74440e805a73dd31a@btconnect.com> A grumpy Kneasy stomps into the office. He's been growing progressively pissed off reviewing 'Narrative style' and growing ever more convinced that there is no such thing *in isolation*. And if it can't exist on its own merits why have it as a separate category? Why not let all the associated categories (see below) discuss aspects of 'Narrative style' as it refers to their more specific analysis? 'Cos there's damn few posts under this heading that isn't also coded under something more relevant. Try discussing Narrative style in reference to HP without the inclusion of: Characterisation Genre Authorial intent Character POV Stereotyping etc. You end up with a couple of posts complaining about the use of adjectives. T'aint real. And if it ain't real why have it? Kneasy strongly suspects that it's one of these arty-farty litcritter phrases that means bugger all. And he's looked at 319 posts to back his contention. From boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com Tue Feb 22 14:56:36 2005 From: boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com (Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:56:36 -0600 Subject: Predictions (& Other Tripe) Message-ID: OK, done with my first skim-through of the Predictions categories, and enjoyed some of it--I love a good prediction. Unfortunately, most of these are tripe. Observations: * Many pre-GOF & -OOP predictions are quite apocalyptic, such as "Voldemort and his minions will establish control over Hogwarts" and "Dumbledore gets killed and Lucius Malfoy becomes Headmaster, as the Dark Side gains power" and "let's kill the Dursleys off, too." Either Kneasy's been time-turning to post these or we've found the source of all of his theories. * Unsurprisingly, few pre-GOF & -OOP predictions were even close. Many based on unsubstantiated rumors. Most had little to do with the main plots, instead confining themselves to guessing at new characters, deaths, love interests, prefects, the Quiddich team, and so on. "How does Professor Crookshanks sound?" Or "Hagrid trys to learn more Wizard charms by taking after school classes from Prof. McGonagal. She becomes smitten with him and a slight romance develops." Minor Issues I'll Resolve: * A small number were incorrectly coded to the Headers instead of (or in addition to) the subcategories (e.g. #3722). Let's not do that any more. I'll move them. * Two posts have been assigned to 1.13 Half Blood Prince (the main book heading) but are really predictions. I'll reassign. * Too much cross-coding here. Most posts are either simple predictions or theories--not both. I think if it helps *explain* the past, it's theory, not a prediction. I'll uncode Predictions and either add 5.6 or reject as appropriate. Help! * I think we should have classified all predictions according to when they were *made* (ain't 20-20 hindsight great?). Instead, we have classified according to the book the prediction is about. But many predictions don't specify, e.g. "Dumbledore will die before the end." Where to code these? I say Book 7, but that poor category is going to get mightily abused. Any thoughts? The Big Issue That I Need Feedback On: We've already put over a thousand (actually 1,139!!!) posts into Predictions, but only 370 (32%) *with* canon. [Pause while that horrible truth sinks in....] Are predictions without canon useful? How? If someone wants to bore us by pointing out how smart they were at baseless predictions, great. Do it offlist, and not with our Catalogue. Only canon-based discussion here, I thought. That way, we can actually *learn" something about the books, possibly see the foreshadowing that a prediction rightly points out. Consider the patent office. They don't take fanciful inventions; for a patent you must have a working model or somesuch. In essence, you must DEFEND your invention as being likely to work. Let's use the same logic for predictions, shall we? But not all such patents are granted; they must be firsts! That's what "Adds Nothing New" is for, right? So if a prediction is defended using something canonesque, *and* if it is original in some way, then it is kept. Just like any other post, actually. We'll also keep the resulting canon-based discussion of any prediction, so long as it remains original, too. But so it's clear, canon should be interpreted loosely in this category to include quotes, interviews, themes, trends, parallels and similar devices. ===> So I'd like to reject well over half of the 1,137 and eliminate the Predictions without Canon categories. OK? [Since some need to be moved before the deletion, please don't do this yet.] --Boyd From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 16:12:09 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:12:09 -0000 Subject: H's Dreams, Trio, One Year, Narrative Style, Predictions (Canon-Free) Message-ID: HARRY'S DREAMS Of 26 in the category, only axed 4 of them, leaving 22. Took the opportunity to mark 11 of them for unticking under 2.4.1 Harry Potter, so I won't have to read them again there, since the Dream category was sufficient. Other wise, very straightforward. I wouldn't be surprised if I have to move plenty from Harry Potter to some of these subcategories (Dreams, Eyes, Scar...) later, since I don't think we had these from the beginning. Also reviewed some empty and nearly empty acronyms: did nothing yet, though the nearly empties are useless except for as a record of two abandonded acronyms, and another that was simpy miscoded altogether. TRIO DYNAMICS, ETC. I'm very happy to see this category (do we have "marauder dynamics," too, or don't we need that yet?), and suggest another possible home for it. We could rename Family Dynamics to Family & Group Dynamics and put the Trio under there, along with the Marauders, and any others that may come up, if any. There are other groups, but I can't think of any but those that have codes elsewhere (Teachers, DEs, Slytherins, Gryffindors). The DA, for the future? Where *are* we going to put the DA? Leaving them out of Friendship, Love and Loyalty at least gives us flexibility to include groups whose dynamics are not based on those happy characteristics, so I agree with that. > Carolyn: > I am going to add this category, and see how people get on with it. > If it has the advantage of cleaning out the HRH categories, and it is > possible to distinguish it from the SHIP posts, then it may be useful. > > What happens when the posts stray from strictly HRH, and start to > include Draco or something? Do they still go there? I don't think > they should or this category will also become a ragbag. Anne: The temptation, in a post about HRH(any two or more) vs. Draco, would be to code Trio and Draco categories (only two ticks), rather than Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Draco. Similarly for HRH vs. Snape or with Hagrid, etc. Just to be clear, which way do we want to do such posts? Argument for ticking "Trio" is that they probably do act together as a group differently than as separate people, when interacting with other people. Argument against is that it muddies things up when anyone else is involved, so that you have individual character codes for everyone but HRH. I think I'm voting to keep Trio Dynamics purely for the relationships among the three (non-SHIP, of course. Gack). So I think I'm seconding what Sean said. THE CATALOGUE ONE YEAR ON That was...erm, interesting. :P ;) :D RUNES Anne (before): By the way, several of these were speculating on the resemblance to a rune (Sigel). They seem to call for another category - Either adding "Runes" to the Symbolism list, or coding under 1.6.6. "ancient myths and legends" -- or should I just leave well enough alone? (#40355 is an example) Carolyn: I don't know why we don't have a runes category under symbolism - I will add one now. Anne again: Come to think of it, maybe because they'll all be about Harry? Does anyone remember any rune posts that weren't primarily about Harry's scar, even the Eiwaz/Ehwaz ones? On the other hand, you just know people are going to look under Symbolism for Runes. Besides, more runes might come up later. And, yes, I had waffles for breakfast. :P NARRATIVE STYLE I always hated that category; I could never quite tell when it was called for and don't think I used it much. When I did, I felt guilty: damned if I ticked and damned if I didn't. I second Barry's motion to ax it (though I dimly suspect he's merely trying to rescue his dire reputation from being overshadowed by the bloodthirstiness of Talisman, claims to warm fuzziness notwithstanding; imagine, an entire large category in one swipe - that'll be hard to top). PREDICTIONS - NO CANON I'm pretty sure I put some predictions in the "without canon" category because they didn't cite any; however they did seem to be made by someone who had paid attention while reading the books and seemed to have put some thought into their post. There weren't very many of those, though. On the other hand, I coded some nonsense into there, just because that seemed to be what the category was for. I think Barry just wanted to laugh at them. As long as they're quarantined in there, I don't see the harm in keeping a representative sample, as a monument to what some people, as Talisman might say, "pull out of their back pocket and slap on the list." They'd be a sort of warning to people to *think* first. That's probably a vain hope... Anne From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Feb 22 16:27:22 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:27:22 -0000 Subject: Narrative style In-Reply-To: <01d056580a243cd74440e805a73dd31a@btconnect.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote (a few days ago): So far the posts aren't so much about narrative style as such - more general critiques, recapping, plot holes, resolution devices etc. and comments on reviews of the books in newspapers, mags and the like. (& noted in passing that): I note with distress that to mark the near-anniversary of that fateful day of a year ago you have chosen to characterise Kneasy's alter ego as a miserable old bugger, a curmudgeon, a grumpy old fart who has a problem for every solution. (Now, true to form): > A grumpy Kneasy stomps into the office. > He's been growing progressively pissed off reviewing 'Narrative style' and growing ever more convinced that there is no such thing *in isolation*. And if it can't exist on its own merits why have it as a separate category? Why not let all the associated categories (see below) discuss aspects of 'Narrative style' as it refers to their more specific analysis? 'Cos there's damn few posts under this heading that isn't also coded under something more relevant. > > > T'aint real. And if it ain't real why have it? > > Kneasy strongly suspects that it's one of these arty-farty litcritter phrases that means bugger all. And he's looked at 319 posts to back his contention. Carolyn: Um...narrative style is really just about the way a story is told. It can be on various levels: - who is telling the story (first person, second person, third person) and if it shifts about, what that means (if anything) - the dialogue style and it's appropriateness to the character - the plot structure conventions 'demanded' by different forms of narrative type (novel genres, epics, tragedies, comedies, satires, poems etc) - how the interaction of plot structure and narrative voice/style creates written effects; what works and what doesn't It isn't about grammar, spelling or punctuation - or only in the sense of whether they are being used deliberately (or unconsciously) by an author, to create a certain effect. (NB that brilliant book I read at Xmas 'Ella Minnow Pea', which gradually stopped using letters out of the alphabet, to literally convey what censorship does to people's ability to think). Since few people contributing to this board are lit academics, I am not surprised there is a mish mash to deal with in this section, and few posts purely on this kind of analysis, even if we wanted them. What to do? By all means send them in the direction of the topics you've listed. Will this include the acronyms sitting in this section (REST, UNNECESSARY, GARBAGE SCOW, TOUCHE) ? If you look them up, they are all essentially about whether JKR's narrative style is any good. I've a hunch there are some posts associated with them which possibly justify a section for themselves, maybe not. Talisman - was there much under the lit crit head you just sorted out that could really belong under narrative style ? And what think you of merging narrative style (if there is anything left of it after Barry's finished), with eg plot development? It's not really the same thing..........just concerned we will get brickbats from some people who specialise in the area (thinks of justcarol67...). Carolyn From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Feb 22 16:45:36 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:45:36 -0000 Subject: Predictions (& Other Tripe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Boyd: > Help! > * I think we should have classified all predictions according to when they > were *made* (ain't 20-20 hindsight great?). Instead, we have classified > according to the book the prediction is about. But many predictions don't > specify, e.g. "Dumbledore will die before the end." Where to code these? I > say Book 7, but that poor category is going to get mightily abused. Any > thoughts? Jen: I found it difficult to code to a book for all the reasons Boyd mentioned. Most predictions are made prior to the release of a specific book, but who can say if a Seer hasn't had an off day, and the prediction is really for two books down the line? I'd be all for having one main heading for "Canon Predictions" with sub-catergories for each book. That way if the post is very specific, it can be coded directly to the book. Boyd: > Are predictions without canon useful? How? If someone wants to > bore us by pointing out how smart they were at baseless > predictions, great. Do it offlist, and not with our Catalogue. > Only canon-based discussion here, I thought. That way, we can > actually *learn" something about the books,possibly see the > foreshadowing that a prediction rightly points out. Jen: The problem here is discerning "without canon." I may predict something without specifying the exact canon for it, but it's still a reasonable assumption based on the story so far. To me, "without canon" means literally there is nothing in the story so far to support the assumption, like JKR is going to introduce space aliens to save the day, or Ron and Hermione will turn out to be figments of Harry's imagination. And even those someone might be able to scour around and find canon for, god bless 'em. But if it's a truly convoluted prediction with no canon points to make it clear of back it up, I would cut it. Boyd: > So if a prediction is defended using something canonesque, *and* > if it is original in some way, then it is kept. Just like any > other post, actually. We'll also keep the resulting canon-based > discussion of any prediction, so long as it remains original, too. > But so it's clear, canon should be interpreted loosely in this > category to include quotes, interviews, themes, > trends, parallels and similar devices. Jen: Sounds reasonable to me if the parameters are broad. This will be an interesting category for people to go back to. I love running across the pre-OOTP posts that are dead on for what actually happened in OOTP. Like Grey Wolfe accurately predicting that OOTP would be about Dumbledore attempting to out Voldemort, who is working secretly without the WW knowing about his return. Sure it's reasonable to extrapolate that from canon NOW, but what about after GOF? Pretty on-target. And he never called it a 'prediction' per se, but I still coded it there, because that's the kind of post people will want to see there. Or I would anyway. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Feb 22 17:00:34 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:00:34 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Narrative style In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5b9c158880094f0e32179ae3cbe65153@btconnect.com> > > Um...narrative style is really just about the way a story is told. It > can be on various levels: > - who is telling the story (first person, second person, third > person) and if it shifts about, what that means (if anything) > - the dialogue style and it's appropriateness to the character > - the plot structure conventions 'demanded' by different forms of > narrative type (novel genres, epics, tragedies, comedies, satires, > poems etc) > - how the interaction of plot structure and narrative voice/style > creates written effects; what works and what doesn't > That's pretty much what these posts coded to Ns *aren't* about, except those with a word to say on POV - which has it's own category anyway. There's maybe a dozen, probably not more than 20, that fit those parameters. Out of 300+. As I said, nearly all are variants on character portrayal, authorial intent, comparisons with Lewis and Tolkein, etc. etc. and codable elsewhere. It rapidly became a meaningless exercise - so bad that after a while I just didn't care. Nearly all the posts still retain the coding because there was no sensible cut-off point given what had been coded to the category. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1359 bytes Desc: not available URL: From elfundeb at comcast.net Tue Feb 22 17:17:54 2005 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (Debbie) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:17:54 -0000 Subject: Predictions/Narrative style In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Popping in briefly, because I am at work: I vote generally to eliminate predictions that don't attempt to explain why canon supports it, because there are or were polls where people could register support for various predictions, and the closed polls are still accessible on the lists. I might make an exception for those eerily accurate predictions (though I can't imagine that Grey Wolf wrote his OOP prediction without including an explanation). And I support getting rid of narrative style, too. It's too vague to be useful and that coding to specific subcategories are much better, even if we have to make something up for he GARBAGE SCOW. Axe-Wielding Debbie who hopes to have a report in a day or two on Literary Sources From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Feb 22 17:24:44 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:24:44 -0000 Subject: Narrative style In-Reply-To: <5b9c158880094f0e32179ae3cbe65153@btconnect.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > That's pretty much what these posts coded to Ns *aren't* about, except > those with a word to say on POV - which has it's own category anyway. > > There's maybe a dozen, probably not more than 20, that fit those > parameters. Out of 300+. > > As I said, nearly all are variants on character portrayal, authorial > intent, comparisons with Lewis and Tolkein, etc. etc. and codable > elsewhere. > > It rapidly became a meaningless exercise - so bad that after a while > I just didn't care. Nearly all the posts still retain the coding > because there was no sensible cut-off point given what had been coded > to the category. Carolyn: Sorry, me being dense - do you mean you took the 'N' code off, or left it on? It sounds as though it should be taken off. Unfortunately, I can't do that automatically - I can only merge the section into another. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Feb 22 18:09:58 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:09:58 -0000 Subject: Predictions (& Other Tripe) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}" wrote: > > The Big Issue That I Need Feedback On: > > Are predictions without canon useful? How? > > So if a prediction is defended using something canonesque, *and* if it is > original in some way, then it is kept. Just like any other post, actually. > We'll also keep the resulting canon-based discussion of any prediction, so > long as it remains original, too. But so it's clear, canon should be > interpreted loosely in this category to include quotes, interviews, themes, > trends, parallels and similar devices. > > ===> So I'd like to reject well over half of the 1,137 and eliminate the > Predictions without Canon categories. OK? [Since some need to be moved > before the deletion, please don't do this yet.] > Carolyn: In truth, I really don't care much what you do. I don't find this section of the catalogue interesting at all. I think it's because I've always seen it as a place to dump the one-liners, which I tend to include on the basis of (a) they were creepily right; (b) they were bizarrely wrong. Please do delete whatever you like. I don't code lengthy predictions here at all - such as the Grey Wolf one mentioned. I treat them as normal posts, and code them to subject accordingly. The reason is that I have difficulty deciding what 'prediction' really means in this larger sense - you could argue most of the big theories are predictions with canon, if you liked. Take ESE!Fudge that I did last night. Big meaty posts with acres of canon - they might be right, they might be wrong; we still don't know. It didn't occur to me code to predictions, I'm afraid. I'm also curious to see how you classify any canon-based discussion of the chosen predictions as 'original'. However, don't let that stop you... From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Feb 22 19:24:08 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:24:08 -0000 Subject: Narrative style - code being removed Message-ID: Just to let people know, Paul can take the 1.3.2 code off all the posts in that section, leaving them coded elsewhere, whatever code numbers they have on them. If removing 'narrative style' leaves them with no other code, I have asked him to reject them to 'adds nothing new'. Hope this solves this problem. Carolyn From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Feb 22 19:26:53 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:26:53 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Narrative style In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Sorry, me being dense - do you mean you took the 'N' code off, or > left it on? It sounds as though it should be taken off. > Unfortunately, I can't do that automatically - I can only merge the > section into another. > > Pity. I was hoping you could. Ah well. I'll go back over it again and delete the code. Won't be immediate though. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 423 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Feb 22 19:34:08 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:34:08 -0000 Subject: Narrative style In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > Sorry, me being dense - do you mean you took the 'N' code off, or > > left it on? It sounds as though it should be taken off. > > Unfortunately, I can't do that automatically - I can only merge the > > section into another. > > > > > > Pity. I was hoping you could. > Ah well. I'll go back over it again and delete the code. > Won't be immediate though. It's ok - Paul can do it this evening. If there are any that might be good to identify before he does...that 15-20 for instance that fitted the description, might be good to jot down their numbers, if you can remember which ones they were. Otherwise they will just turn up on the other codes they had. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Feb 22 20:24:47 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:24:47 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Narrative style - code being removed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <02d070a185b5c584e3dd9fc3261d6f41@btconnect.com> Fine. Most had multiple codes and so won't be lost. Of the posts that had Narrative style as sole code some have been recoded to other relevant categories and some junked because they didn't say anything new or about canon (complaints about critical reviews, etc.). The ones with Ns as sole code that IMO do fit your parameters: 23694 24854 25394 30604 32237 34719 40288 40373 > > Just to let people know, Paul can take the 1.3.2 code off all the > posts in that section, leaving them coded elsewhere, whatever code > numbers they have on them. > > If removing 'narrative style' leaves them with no other code, I have > asked him to reject them to 'adds nothing new'. > > Hope this solves this problem. > > Carolyn > > > > > > 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: 1435 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Feb 22 22:06:18 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:06:18 -0000 Subject: Narrative style - code being removed In-Reply-To: <02d070a185b5c584e3dd9fc3261d6f41@btconnect.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > Fine. > > Most had multiple codes and so won't be lost. > > Of the posts that had Narrative style as sole code some have been > recoded to other relevant categories and some junked because they > didn't say anything new or about canon (complaints about critical > reviews, etc.). > > The ones with Ns as sole code that IMO do fit your parameters: > > 23694 > 24854 > 25394 > 30604 > 32237 > 34719 > 40288 > 40373 > > Carolyn: I took a look at these, and agree they are correctly coded, and really don't fit under other topics. Just to make sure they don't get lost when the existing code is taken out, I have temporarily created a new code: 1.3.3.6 New narrative style category under 1.3.3 Plot development, and re-coded them there. I have also made the acronyms that used to be attached to the old narrative category subsets of the new narrative category. Sorry if all this begins to appear like bludgers following you around, as I see you have also rashly offered to do plot development! The numbering and structure of all these sections will need a thorough sort out once we have agreed what goes under each heading. From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 22 22:57:51 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:57:51 -0000 Subject: Narrative style - code being removed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > ---> Carolyn: > I took a look at these, and agree they are correctly coded, and > really don't fit under other topics. Just to make sure they don't get > lost when the existing code is taken out, I have temporarily created > a new code: > > 1.3.3.6 New narrative style category > > under 1.3.3 Plot development, and re-coded them there. I have also > made the acronyms that used to be attached to the old narrative > category subsets of the new narrative category. Talisman: I have been working away soberly on a long desperate plan to salvage narrative style--which I envisioned requiring me to enter into an indefinate period of indentured servatude to Mssr. Kneasy-- when I came to post it, and lo, I find that the ingenious Carolyn has solved everthing with her characteristic dispatch and grace. > Sorry if all this begins to appear like bludgers following you > around, as I see you have also rashly offered to do plot development! How DID you get into this Kneasy? Can't we pack you off to Female Death Eaters or something? > The numbering and structure of all these sections will need a > thorough sort out once we have agreed what goes under each heading. Ah, I smell the chains again. From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 04:45:16 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 04:45:16 -0000 Subject: What genre/Constraints due to genre In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > Carolyn: >I will merge 1.3.1.1 into 4.1.1 rather than the other way round > (either is possible, for future ref..). >Talisman - the merged section now has 100 posts. The first one or two looked dodgy at first glance.. but didn't look in detail. We've all moved on, but just to follow up on your hanging comment: The first few are a bit dodgy. Penny referencing an article that likens HP to King Lear (how's that for adult?), others chiming in on why they, as adults, like HP. I wouldn't keep anything like that of current vintage, but these are from early days and reference the naissance of HPfGUs, I kept some for nostalgic/archeological reasons. I don't let it go on for long. I think I hacked about a third of the 1.3.1.1. posts, before the merge. Talisman From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Wed Feb 23 04:55:14 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:55:14 +1100 Subject: 2.6.1-2.6.6 misc. girls review Message-ID: <20050223045424.GA6836@aardvark.net.au> The Padma/Cho/Luna/Penelope/Fawcetts/Stebbins Review ==================================================== Initial posts: 146 Final posts: 134 Let's get the real nonentities out of the way first: Luna: 0 posts not so surprising given the current level of cataloguing Stebbins: 0 posts noone home Fawcetts: 6 mostly along the lines of "who are they?" and mention in one incident Padma: 11 and mostly in Parvarti's company, who gets more attention. Penelope: 13 Percy-orientated except for #11101 and #35142. may as well not exist. The only girl with any real showing is Cho: 104 A disturbing thread starting with #20836 was rejected for OT racism (two replies also culled), it was seen as such and I agree. One reply that had other merit was retained. I found the founding CINEMA post (#28588) but CONNIVING CHICKS REVENGE is still missing. An unrelated comment in a Cho-related multipost is probably my favourite funny of the moment: "My personal favourite theory is that Defeat The Dark Wizard Grindelwald is a popular contest run annually by the Daily Prophet (who sponsor the Chocolate Frog cards). Dumbledore won in 1945 and it has nothing more to do with anything in the story." (dfrankis@ in #20908). Otherwise the general Cho discussion was a war by Haters of Popular Pretties vs. Defenders of Popular Pretties with a good smattering of She Done Cedric Wrong (and won't we see a LOT more of that?!) and another Groupie Syndrome member. Sean -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From quigonginger at yahoo.com Wed Feb 23 08:49:12 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:49:12 -0000 Subject: The SHIP world so far Message-ID: I started at the bottom of the category, as things seem to get more specific as they go down. Sounds crazy, but it's working like a charm. RAPIST and ASSET: only one post each, and they were the same post. The only relevant thing was the origin of the acronym. Kept them for now, but suggest axing the categories if no more posts are added. RASPBERRY: No posts at this time. LANDLUBBERS: 2 posts, kept both. ANTI-SHIPPING: 46 posts to start, now 18. 2 were moved to other SHIP categories. 7 were uncoded as far as the SHIPping part of the post was concerned, but the rest of the codes left intact (5.6 used where needed). 3 were rejected that effected other categories (5.6 used) 16 were rejected that had only to do with SHIP categories. GAY SHIPS: 68 posts to start, now 39. Kept quite a few for continuity. 1 was moved to 2.17 as it was more animal shipping than gay. 4 were uncoded to SHIP parts as they were reduntant within the category, but were part of mulitple posts where the rest was good (5.6 used to explain) 5 were rejected that effected other categories (used 5.6). 19 were rejected that involved only SHIP categories. (Kept having to correct myself that I was "rejecting" not "slashing". Additional note: I have not added any categories to any post at this time. Ginger, taking advantage of sick time, and home from work, but now off to bed again. From boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com Wed Feb 23 15:04:20 2005 From: boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com (Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 09:04:20 -0600 Subject: Rules for Coding Predictions Message-ID: Jen: I love running across the pre-OOTP posts that are dead on for what actually happened in OOTP. Carolyn: In truth, I really don't care much what you do. I don't find this section of the catalogue interesting at all. I think it's because I've always seen it as a place to dump the one-liners, which I tend to include on the basis of (a) they were creepily right; (b) they were bizarrely wrong. Please do delete whatever you like. OK, Boyd here again, and sounds as though we're going to go more with predictions as entertainment. Fine enough! I'll keep anything merely entertaining in the 'without canon' buckets, while making sure that only those defended reasonably stay in 'with canon.' Further, I'll uncode from Predictions those that are truly theories, leaving them their other more appropriate codes (e.g. Vampire!Snape) or adding the recode tag if necessary. Finally, I'll remove the repeated tripe. So going forward, the rules are, 1) Code to predictions only if the post is almost entirely a prediction--no general theories here, please. 2) Code to 'with canon' only if the prediction is well-defended somehow--we'll be liberal as to what canon means. 3) Code to 'without canon' only if it's unique. Err on the side of "toss the boring, keep the entertaining." --Boyd "...working at the car wash, yeah..." From boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com Wed Feb 23 15:17:36 2005 From: boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com (Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 09:17:36 -0600 Subject: Rules for Predictions Message-ID: Oops, forgot to mention 4) Within Predictions, please code only to 'with canon' and 'without canon' NOT to the book headers or Prediction header. --Boyd "...ooh baby give me one more chance..." From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Feb 23 17:54:17 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:54:17 -0000 Subject: Rules for Coding Predictions - hang on! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}" wrote: > > OK, Boyd here again, and sounds as though we're going to go more with > predictions as entertainment. Fine enough! I'll keep anything merely > entertaining in the 'without canon' buckets, while making sure that only > those defended reasonably stay in 'with canon.' Further, I'll uncode from > Predictions those that are truly theories, leaving them their other more > appropriate codes (e.g. Vampire!Snape) or adding the recode tag if > necessary. Finally, I'll remove the repeated tripe. > > So going forward, the rules are, > > 1) Code to predictions only if the post is almost entirely a prediction--no > general theories here, please. > 2) Code to 'with canon' only if the prediction is well-defended > somehow--we'll be liberal as to what canon means. > 3) Code to 'without canon' only if it's unique. Err on the side of "toss the > boring, keep the entertaining." > > --Boyd > "...working at the car wash, yeah..." Oy, trouble, you there - I think Barry is someplace battling with British Rail today. I know he feels strongly about this section - the canon/no canon division was his idea as I recall. Maybe give him a chance to respond before going ahead and deleting too much? (Not that I suppose he'd bother about the tripe, mind, but for all I know he's spent hours coding up the with-canon predictions..). Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Feb 23 22:28:49 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:28:49 -0000 Subject: Red Hen site Message-ID: I'm continually impressed by J Odel's Red Hen site. I just visited for the first time in a few months, and she's tidied up the layout a bit. If you don't know it, here's the link. http://redhen-publications.com/Potterverse.html From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Feb 24 13:39:18 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:39:18 -0000 Subject: McGonagall done Message-ID: Potioncat jumps up from her desk, "I have a report!" She looks confused, "Well, I do, but that's not quite what I meant to say..." McGonagall posts are done. Most are simple...keep, remove from post or reject. A few need an added code or two. And, adding ESE McGonagall was a good idea. But I have a question. Potioncat's face lit up, "That's it! I have a question!" Some of the posts are coded to ESE! 1.2.4.1 Shall I simply change from one ESE code to another? And do I need to code 5.6 for this one? Do I code to both McGonagall and ESE!McGonagall? For those code changes that will affect other coders are we actually rejecting posts and/or adding codes now and putting 5.6 or are we just suggesting the changes in the text box with a 5.6 code added? Potioncat who has always excelled at making the simple complicated. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Thu Feb 24 17:17:46 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 04:17:46 +1100 Subject: Granger Progress Report, etc Message-ID: <20050224171746.GA14136@aardvark.net.au> After taking a night off to get drunk and jump up and down to very loud music, and a day of remorseful agony, the penguin finally arose from his sickbed, and waddled unsteadily into the Catalogue office, eyes bloodshot, with beak all adroop. "Here", he croaked, "I did a bit more--" before falling on the floor in a dead faint. running total: 1023 posts (that's roughly 200 Grangers gone to Catalogue Heaven) Posts of Note: #28590 The relevance to canon of the Magic Quill. #31390 Cassie Claire brings some much-needed perspective to the ENDLESS discussions of Hermione/Krum. Sometimes it takes a writer to spot what is NOT being said. #31508 the first SHAMEFUL post, coined later in #31612, see also #31568 and #31569 for some worthy additions to the H/MM ship. #31625 interesting equivalence of the PS tests to each book in the HP series. #32909 Tabouli's helpful mini-guide to the more common TAGS Catalogue stuff: Is there a point in retaining 1.7.2? There are at least 20-30 posts droning on about a subject I thought long-settled. It appears to be irrelevant (certainly in reference to Granger, whose birthday is known, and noone these days doubts she is the same age as the boys), but was a kindred subject to the major discussion about the British school system, which is so mind-numbingly obtuse it made my hangover worse. Groggily rising, the penguin looked dazedly around at the incredible profusion of paper, a gently snoring Carolyn unaware that a flapping File-O-Matic is attempting to resort her diary. In the far corner a rustling Barry-shaped paper-pile is softly moaning "noooooo....there is no such thing as post-modernist styleeee...." over and over in his sleep. Gently rubbing his aching beak, the penguin stumbles off in the the rising morning, desperate for a Berocca.... ewe2 -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Feb 24 19:32:03 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:32:03 -0000 Subject: McGonagall done In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Some of the posts are coded to ESE! 1.2.4.1 Shall I simply change > from one ESE code to another? And do I need to code 5.6 for this one? > Do I code to both McGonagall and ESE!McGonagall? > > For those code changes that will affect other coders are we actually rejecting posts and/or adding codes now and putting 5.6 or are we just suggesting the changes in the text box with a 5.6 code added? > > Potioncat who has always excelled at making the simple complicated. Carolyn: Hiya...no, not at all complicated, always best to ask than guess.. Yes, change from 1.2.4.1 to ESE!McGonagall. This will make a lot more sense. Probably the ESE! code on its own will go in the end, apart from the one code that coined it in the beginning (was there one ?). Strictly speaking, yes, click 5.6, and no, don't code to the general McGonagall category as well. Finally, yes, if you have finished reviewing all the posts in this section, please go ahead and make the proposed changes, adding notes in the text box to explain decisions if you wish (not obligatory). From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Feb 24 20:20:19 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:20:19 -0000 Subject: Granger Progress Report, etc In-Reply-To: <20050224171746.GA14136@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > Catalogue stuff: > > Is there a point in retaining 1.7.2? There are at least 20-30 posts droning on > about a subject I thought long-settled. It appears to be irrelevant (certainly > in reference to Granger, whose birthday is known, and noone these days doubts > she is the same age as the boys), but was a kindred subject to the major > discussion about the British school system, which is so mind- numbingly obtuse > it made my hangover worse. > > Groggily rising, the penguin looked dazedly around at the incredible profusion > of paper, Gently rubbing his > aching beak, the penguin stumbles off in the the rising morning, desperate for > a Berocca.... > Brisk note from the Editor in Chief re drinking on the job: MEMO Alcohol, though near essential for even contemplating this task is not recommended when approaching any of the under-age characters. Not only will you probably be arrested in the US of A, but you will start to wonder if you even give a damn whether any of them make it to the end of the series. This is a slippery slope, as constantly demonstrated by m'learned friend, counsel for the prosecution, Mr Arrowsmith. Furthermore, it will cause you to question whether perfectly legitimate, if LOON-like questions really matter. Trust me, there is no question too small or unimportant that a member of HPfGU has not not addressed it at considerable length, with supplementary file submissions, follow-up questions and hysterical counter-argument. Even suggesting that old arguments about the character's ages are now supposedly sorted out by JKR's website statements is blasphemous. Besides you are not dealing with that section..or the one on the British school system. Maybe keep a handful of the better written ones in the Hermione section for posterity, but try not to read them too closely, for the sake of your own sanity. Suggest hair of the dog and a snooze in the sun - all possible in sunny Oz, although it is snowing here. Have you thought that OD-ing on Weasleys may have driven you to drink in the first place? Yours sympathetically Carolyn From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Feb 24 21:47:43 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:47:43 -0000 Subject: ESE and 1.2.3.1 Re: McGonagall done In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn wrote: > Yes, change from 1.2.4.1 to ESE!McGonagall. This will make a lot more sense. Probably the ESE! code on its own will go in the end, apart from the one code that coined it in the beginning (was there one ?). Kathy W. In looking at the ESE code 1.2.4.1, I saw there are 100 posts.(Fudge and Bagman were the two who jumped out at me.) I think if each of those characters had their own ESE code, 1.2.4.1 would go away and it would be a better use of ESE for those looking for a particular character. Some characters who are here may not even need an ESE code at all. It would work OK if we all just uncoded 1.2.4.1 as we went along and if we asked for an ESE code for our character if needed. Then when all was said and done, there would be just be a few left for someone to sweep up. Kathy W. From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 00:48:57 2005 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:48:57 -0000 Subject: 'Dursleys' vs Vernon and Petunia Message-ID: I've just finished Muggles. Original post count: 751 New post count: 305. That's a humungous cull rate. It's all because I distinguished between when the Dursleys were being discussed as a group, and when they were being discussed as individuals. Many, many, many posts used only the collective term 'The Dursleys' and the names Vernon, Petunia and Dudley never even appeared in the text. Yet these post were coded to each individual character. The category "1.4.7.3 Dursleys" now has 159 post. It could be divided into two categories- one dealing with how the Dursleys interect amongst themselves, another dealing with how the Dursleys interect as a group with the outside world. There were also a million posts about whether Petunia is a squib. I'm a raging member of SPINO now. I found the most interesting theory to be that Vernon is actually the Weasley's muggle cousin. I'm going to embark on Geographical Locations now: if the post isn't discussing the location of a place, it gets moved. Sounds straightforward enough. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Fri Feb 25 02:21:11 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:21:11 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Granger Progress Report, etc In-Reply-To: References: <20050224171746.GA14136@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: <20050225022111.GB14136@aardvark.net.au> On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:20:19PM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > I submit as evidence the fluffy teddy, the hot water bottle, and the toothbrush on the desk. And there are a suspicious number of pillows around for a Catalogue office. Next you'll be claiming the glow-in-the-dark Snape up there on the shelf isn't a nightlight. > Brisk note from the Editor in Chief re drinking on the job: > > MEMO > Alcohol, though near essential for even contemplating this task is > not recommended when approaching any of the under-age characters. Not > only will you probably be arrested in the US of A, but you will start > to wonder if you even give a damn whether any of them make it to the > end of the series. This is a slippery slope, as constantly > demonstrated by m'learned friend, counsel for the prosecution, Mr > Arrowsmith. If drunkenly jumping up and down in a paddock with a large group of 17-18yo students who have never been to a gig before ISN'T a slippery slope then the Berocca haven't kicked in yet. Old Father William or wot. > Furthermore, it will cause you to question whether perfectly > legitimate, if LOON-like questions really matter. Trust me, there is > no question too small or unimportant that a member of HPfGU has not > not addressed it at considerable length, with supplementary file > submissions, follow-up questions and hysterical counter-argument. Don't I know it. If Hermione is symbolic of 'all that's wrong with girls today' then Ron is Young Cro-Magnon 1989. Please JKR, make Ginny interesting in the next book! > Even suggesting that old arguments about the character's ages are now > supposedly sorted out by JKR's website statements is blasphemous. > Besides you are not dealing with that section..or the one on the > British school system. Maybe keep a handful of the better written > ones in the Hermione section for posterity, but try not to read them > too closely, for the sake of your own sanity. I disengaged Hermione from most of them, a major character has to have some dignity. > Suggest hair of the dog and a snooze in the sun - all possible in > sunny Oz, although it is snowing here. A lot of water and lying around going oooooohhh seems to work. > Have you thought that OD-ing on Weasleys may have driven you to drink > in the first place? And a good thing too. Why don't they all want to be rock stars and soap actors? Or successful business-wizards and alumni of the Wizard Science Academy? Did Charlie and Bill steal all the cool genes in the Weasley pool? So far we have a junior public servant and a pair of joke-shop proprietors. I'm convinced they're going to die out. Oh well. Back to Hermione G and her Moody fixation. Yours misanthropically ewe2 -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From quigonginger at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 07:55:32 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:55:32 -0000 Subject: Ginger's problem with Sex Message-ID: I'm having a problem with Sex in the WW (2.17.4). It has no definition and has a large number of seperate topics in it, most of which are already coded to other (better) areas, and others could well be. Right now there are 43 posts. I did a quick analysis of them. Note that some overlap, so the total doesn't add up to 43. Would JKR write about sex? (Is this for kids?) 6 posts. Sex at Hogwarts. (Are they? Aren't they? What I did during my terms...) 10 posts Sexual overtones (ie Tom's "hungry eyes", Harry "saving" Ron in the 2nd task) read as sexual, although not implied in the text. 13 posts. Family planning/sex ed./healthcare relating to sex. 8 posts. Maturing desires of characters. 5 posts. Sex as humour. 1 post. Gender. 1 post. (should really be under portrayals of men/women) TBAY theories that assume someone is having sex or wants to have sex with someone. 2 posts. Psych assesments. 3 posts. I'm not even sure what this category is supposed to be about, and why it is in the middle of SHIPping. So I am going to leave it for now, go on to the rest of the SHIP posts, and await the feedback of those who have a clue. Ginger, reading SHIP posts and listening to ABBA; can life get any better than this? From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Feb 25 09:25:10 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:25:10 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Granger Progress Report, etc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8f191ad1beb9188fa371c62083ceae2a@btconnect.com> > > MEMO > Alcohol, though near essential for even contemplating this task is > not recommended when approaching any of the under-age characters. Not > only will you probably be arrested in the US of A, but you will start > to wonder if you even give a damn whether any of them make it to the > end of the series. This is a slippery slope, as constantly > demonstrated by m'learned friend, counsel for the prosecution, Mr > Arrowsmith. > This is difficult since it is a well-attested fact that the four main food groups - caffeine, nicotine, alcohol and chocolate - are necessary to maintain an individual's immunity to the never-ending crap that life dumps on your plate. And there's an awful lot of that in these posts. It's impossible for example, to even consider the possibility of the existence of Luna without a stiff drink clutched in your fist. Oh dear..... here we go again.... gin at 9 am. Yes, back from battling the jackals in the Great Wen. Hate it. Venturing down there gives one an insight into the meaning of the entry in Capt. Scott's diary - "Great God, but this is an awful place." I'll try to get the Narrative style remnants sorted out this weekend. Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1337 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Feb 25 14:18:25 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:18:25 -0000 Subject: Geographical locations (was'Dursleys' vs Vernon and Petunia etc) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "sevenhundredandthirteen" wrote: > > I've just finished Muggles. > > Original post count: 751 > New post count: 305. > Sounds ok - think we'll leave Dursley family interactions unsplit for the time being - Paul is asking me to cut back on sub-sub-sub-sub- heads for technical reasons, more to follow on this.... > > I'm going to embark on Geographical Locations now: if the post isn't > discussing the location of a place, it gets moved. Sounds > straightforward enough. > I think you will find that there is more than geographical discussion tucked into some of these headings, mainly because of a dilemma on what else to do with it. For example, I distinctly remember that some stuff about who is Florian Fortescue is probably under Diagon Alley. Also, I think some speculation of what animals are in the Forbidden Forest might be tucked in there (ok - by me.. a senior moment..). Have a think about whether this section should be solely about geographical location, if it could be a helpful place to locate some things that don't strictly belong someplace else. Carolyn From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Fri Feb 25 14:29:06 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 01:29:06 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Geographical locations (was'Dursleys' vs Vernon and Petunia etc) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050225142906.GA14690@aardvark.net.au> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 02:18:25PM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > Sounds ok - think we'll leave Dursley family interactions unsplit for > the time being - Paul is asking me to cut back on sub-sub-sub-sub- > heads for technical reasons, more to follow on this.... My sixth sense seems to be working again - I was going to discuss precisely this issue, but I'll wait on your news before I open my trap :) ewe2 -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Feb 25 14:44:55 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:44:55 -0000 Subject: Ginger's problem with Sex In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" wrote: > > I'm having a problem with Sex in the WW (2.17.4). It has no > definition and has a large number of seperate topics in it, most of > which are already coded to other (better) areas, and others could > well be. > I'm not even sure what this category is supposed to be about, and why it is in the middle of SHIPping. So I am going to leave it for now, go on to the rest of the SHIP posts, and await the feedback of those who have a clue. Carolyn: It came about because people were coming across stuff that wasn't about SHIPping in the sense of who fancied who, but was more about attitudes to sex in the WW. It went under SHIPping for the same reason that anti-SHIPping is there - arguments about whether relationships are important/relevant to the story/even going on etc. Because of this, you could make a case for this section and anti- SHIPping to be moved up to the lit crit section. However, there is a certain continuity and train of thought in keeping it all together in this section.. what do other people think? Of the posts that you have found, I'd suggest that the following probably meet the original concept for the category: > > Sex at Hogwarts. (Are they? Aren't they? What I did during my > terms...) 10 posts > > Maturing desires of characters. 5 posts. > > Sex as humour. 1 post. > The following stray further into lit crit topics, but could be kept in this category for convenience: > Would JKR write about sex? (Is this for kids?) 6 posts. > > Sexual overtones (ie Tom's "hungry eyes", Harry "saving" Ron in the > 2nd task) read as sexual, although not implied in the text. 13 posts. > The following could be moved to other codes that we have: > Psych assesments. 3 posts. > > Family planning/sex ed./healthcare relating to sex. 8 posts. > Gender. 1 post. (should really be under portrayals of men/women) > Since a huge amount of TBAY operates on this basis, probably these are not relevant (!): > TBAY theories that assume someone is having sex or wants to have sex with someone. 2 posts. > From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 15:16:58 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:16:58 -0000 Subject: Geographical locations/sub-sub-sub categories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Laurasia: > > I'm going to embark on Geographical Locations now: if the post isn't > > discussing the location of a place, it gets moved. Sounds > > straightforward enough. > > Carolyn: > I think you will find that there is more than geographical discussion > tucked into some of these headings, mainly because of a dilemma on > what else to do with it. For example, I distinctly remember that some > stuff about who is Florian Fortescue is probably under Diagon Alley. > Also, I think some speculation of what animals are in the Forbidden > Forest might be tucked in there (ok - by me.. a senior moment..). > > Have a think about whether this section should be solely about > geographical location, if it could be a helpful place to locate some > things that don't strictly belong someplace else. > > Carolyn Anne: I remember putting a post in there which speculated about what creatures could be living in the Forbidden Forest, simply because there was absolutely nowhere else to put it. I think if we assume those categories are for location and characteristics of the geographical location, we'll be all right. Typical stuff you'd get in any geography class in real life, right? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now about sub-categories: is the problem Paul has about multiple *levels* of subcategories as opposed to sheer numbers of them? That is, a category labelled 2.4.2.1.3.1.2 is a problem, but one labelled 2.4.87 is not? I'm just trying to plan ahead a little before I tackle Harry. I'll be finished up with his subcategories today, and I'm trying to think ahead about how his thousands of main category posts might be divided up. So, Harry is 2.4.1, and I'm thinking of new categories on the level of 2.4.1.x, which is something we already have plenty of anyway (e.g. all the acronyms). Useful subdivisions might be Harry vs Snape, Harry at 4PD, Harry's magical power, Harry's flaws/virtues... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Re Barry's latest post: I've finally figured out what my problem is - a deficiency of nicotine. See, I've never bothered to take up smoking. Anne To the tune of "Oh When the Saints Go Marching In:" Albania, Albania You border on the Adriatic. Your terrain is mainly mountainous, And your chief export is chrome. -- a Filk by Coach, from Cheers In honor of Ginger and Lord Voldemort From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Feb 25 16:07:56 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:07:56 -0000 Subject: sub-sub-sub categories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > > Now about sub-categories: is the problem Paul has about multiple > *levels* of subcategories as opposed to sheer numbers of them? That > is, a category labelled 2.4.2.1.3.1.2 is a problem, but one labelled > 2.4.87 is not? > > I'm just trying to plan ahead a little before I tackle Harry. I'll be > finished up with his subcategories today, and I'm trying to think > ahead about how his thousands of main category posts might be divided > up. So, Harry is 2.4.1, and I'm thinking of new categories on the > level of 2.4.1.x, which is something we already have plenty of anyway > (e.g. all the acronyms). Useful subdivisions might be Harry vs Snape, > Harry at 4PD, Harry's magical power, Harry's flaws/virtues... > Carolyn: Essentially, what we would like to do is restrict sub heads to the fourth level that you mention here, but no further. In some of our categories we have gone down to a fifth level, and we will need to rethink what to do where that has happened (hopefully not too difficult). The underlying reason is ensure that the searching is quick in the final database. Too many sub-subs slows things down apparently. There is a bit more too the sub-heading issue than just this, but I will save it - it doesn't affect anyone's coding or sorting out of categories, and no work will be wasted. Most shifting about can be done automatically by either me or Paul. PS Re smoking - idiot joke heard on radio - 'can you get the same effect if you are a non-smoker by applying nicotine patches.?' From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Feb 25 17:58:49 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:58:49 -0000 Subject: No coding to main category heads... Message-ID: I have just done a small clean-up job and run through the 25 or so posts which had got mistakenly coded to our five main category headings: 1 Text Analysis 2 Character Analysis 3 Wizarding World 4 Other Topics 5 Admin Flags Actually, most of these were me, Anne, Jayne & Barry from the early days on the Yahoo Club (oops..), but just to emphasise, these headings should never have anything coded to them. Particularly, I noticed that 'Admin Flags' got a few ticks recently when there was a routine Admin announcement posted. These should just be rejected to 0.1 Admin/list management/spoiler issues, no need to tick the Admin Flag code as well. Also, no need to tick Admin Flag if you fill in something in the text box - that had sometimes happened. Thanks Carolyn From quigonginger at yahoo.com Fri Feb 25 19:01:05 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:01:05 -0000 Subject: Shippity doo dah (could I ask a favour?) Message-ID: Hi! I have hacked the FITD and OBHWF to death. Could I ask that as we code in the future that we only code posts to these that specifically address the issue? There were tons of posts in each that were trio relationships, but not FITD or OBHWF (and I admit that I was one of those who coded these). Also, if it fits there, and talks only about FITD or OBHWF, could we not code it to trio ships unless it goes off on H/G or Herm/Krum, etc. as well? This would avoid a lot of duplication! This applies to coding to the main relationship heading as well. Thanks a ton from whomever edits the ship section in then end. (That may well be me.) That said, on to the report: OBHWF: was 53 posts, now 18 (one hilarious poster, David Frankinsworth, asked about the acromym and noted that he couldn't pronounce it without first eating a pillow- I laughed so hard I cried and added "Just for a laugh") Rejected 3 posts that were all ship and 8 that effected others (5.6 used) Uncoded all ship on 8 posts, as it was redundant there (5.6) FITD: was 44 posts, now 14 Rejected 11 all-ship posts and 4 that effected others (5.6) Uncoded ships to 1. (5.6) On these 2 categories, I moved a lot to other ship categories. Sex in the WW: was 43, now 37 Moved one to portrayals of men, women, gays. Uncoded 5 from the category. Rejected none. On to trio ships. It was a very good idea that we do this review now. I think it will help with coding in the future. Ginger, digging the dancing queen From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sat Feb 26 10:16:33 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:16:33 +1100 Subject: Hermione Granger Report Message-ID: <20050226101633.GA10099@aardvark.net.au> Mt Granger has been conquered and the view is still strange: Initial posts: 1270 Final posts : 802 Where to begin... I want to give a citation to the esteemed Ms. Laura Huntley for steadfastly defending HG against all comers, and generally being a bit more insightful than many eager HG deconstructionalists. A typical Huntley post (eg #35937) uses both logic and bemused drollery to dispatch most contentions. The awe-inspiring Tabouli has also had a major direction on debate as has cindysphinx. Somehow even one of my posts got in there, but thankfully I've been able to edit it out (HPFGU Catalogue - Lust For Power!) :) The most repulsive idea I came across is the Draco/Hermione ship. And if it were possible to be even more repulsive, the bizarrely repulsive idea that Darcy of Pride and Prejudice is a worthy parallel to Draco, however flattering the concomitant parallel between Elizabeth and Hermione. I simply do not understand the emotional logic driving this theory. Colin Firth would be horrified. So enough of that thank you! A tremendous amount of identification is obviously going on, with the inviting spectacle of young, brash, intelligent women cheering one of their own and the less cheerful spectacle of older, wiser sadder yet determined women gently and not-so-gently reminding said YBIW just where that got THEM. This goes beyond feminism, Hermione is the focus of a major social discourse that I am for once glad I am not qualified to share (except for stating my preference). Given the state of current SHIPing, Ron and Harry are getting mixed up in things, and as the Trio, all three are given almost musketeer-like personas (perhaps they should form a band), but if there is one view I have come around to is that HG may well get, if need isn't exactly the word, some kind of setback that evens the score with Ron and Harry. This is as hotly contested as everything else, but isn't entirely due to mere malice. Doing these categories HAS been good for my Potterverse sensibility, Carolyn. I cheerfully predict that Hermione will be Head Girl. But then Ron will be Head Boy. And speaking of ickle ronnikins, guess where I'm going next....but first the brandyyyyy.....(screams of drunken joy off stage) Sean the thorougly insane penguin -- "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do." From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Feb 26 21:14:12 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:14:12 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Update, downsize In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9cbd7ffb7551ef1f3dcc28c583e95c26@btconnect.com> Finally cleared that Narrative style abomination. Started with 319 posts - ended with 8. A 97.5% reduction. A new record, I think. But - if everyone wielded their axe with equally merciless enthusiasm, then from the 130,000 posts on the site we'd end up with about 3,500. That seems reasonable. Why on earth would anyone want more than that? Even so, 3,500 laid end-to-end will probably stretch further than the actual canon does - which must prove something or other. Barry From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 27 00:27:19 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:27:19 -0000 Subject: Mt Granger/axing posts/spying & betrayal Message-ID: Sean: >>Mt Granger has been conquered and the view is still strange: Initial posts: 1270 Final posts : 802 Where to begin... A tremendous amount of identification is obviously going on, with the inviting spectacle of young, brash, intelligent women cheering one of their own and the less cheerful spectacle of older, wiser sadder yet determined women gently and not-so-gently reminding said YBIW just where that got THEM. This goes beyond feminism, Hermione is the focus of a major social discourse that I am for once glad I am not qualified to share (except for stating my preference).<< Carolyn, speaking as grim old Entwoman, continues to boggle that this much can be said about such a tiresome character. Luckily we are likely to be spared what happens when she hits the reality buffers, in the shape of men rather than schoolboys. Barry: Finally cleared that Narrative style abomination. Started with 319 posts - ended with 8. A 97.5% reduction. A new record, I think. Carolyn: Alas, this hurts as a conspiracy enthusiast, but I have an even larger section for disposal - the 472 posts in 'Spying, espionage & betrayal'. I have speed read them all, and I can only find 25 that might just qualify to be kept under this heading - about 5%, and even those are a bit doubtful. The problem is not that they have been wrongly coded, in the sense that they are often discussing spying and betrayal, but really that they belong under the various characters - mainly Snape, but also Pettigrew, Bagman, Fudge, Ron etc. I am now defining this section as talking about the nature of betrayal, and what makes someone turn against their own side. There isn't really much on this - an essay by Peg Kerr on the theme of secrets, plus a short thread started by Amanda on hiding identities, symbolism thereof etc. I am also proposing to move the section to become a sub-head under 'friendship & loyalty' in meta-themes. Anyone disagree - please speak up! I will ask Paul to remove the category automatically tomorrow otherwise. NB I think the rule that is emerging out of this painful exercise is that, in future, we will need a really good reason to add more than two or three codes to a post... From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sun Feb 27 08:27:32 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:27:32 +1100 Subject: 4.1.4 Religious banning Message-ID: <20050227082731.GC7385@aardvark.net.au> Looking over this category (avoiding Weasley!), I find there are a couple of problems with it: 1. The Beckhorn Affair started off a general thread about censorship not appropriate to the cat. Where is this stuff to go if we don't have a category for it? The same with much of the discussion about the anti-HP CNN report. Perhaps a PC criticism category? 2. Somehow a lot of Stouffer material ended up here. It's going where it belongs. -- "It takes an aroused man to make a chicken affectionate!" -- Spanish translation of Frank Perdue's chicken slogan. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 27 11:43:09 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 11:43:09 -0000 Subject: 4.1.4 Religious banning/Creating themed groups in catalogue In-Reply-To: <20050227082731.GC7385@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > Looking over this category (avoiding Weasley!), I find there are a couple of > problems with it: > > 1. The Beckhorn Affair started off a general thread about censorship not > appropriate to the cat. Where is this stuff to go if we don't have a category > for it? The same with much of the discussion about the anti-HP CNN report. > Perhaps a PC criticism category? > > 2. Somehow a lot of Stouffer material ended up here. It's going where it > belongs. > This section (4.1.4) currently resides in section 4 under a general heading of 'controversies', along with the sub-thread 4.1.4.1 Abanes/Harry Potter & The Bible (which you should skim through at the same time). I was particularly careful to preserve these two threads intact, because although the topic of censorship in general is OT, the application here, ie that HP should be banned because of it's supposed occult and generally 'immoral' content, lead to some very good debate on what the books were about. Together, I think these two threads are not only a matter of HPfGU historical record, but help to make sense of where people are coming from in some of the other meta theme categories. Also, some cultural sensitivity here, Sean. The Americans, in particular, are far more exercised about this stuff than most other countries, and not only make up the majority of HPfGU membership, but will probably be genuinely interested to read old discussions of this sort - the issues are as live as ever in the US, as far as I can judge. I also have a further proposal - I would like to see these two sections moved up to section 1 together with the other religious topics, so they make a themed section, which might look like this: 1.1.1 Good vs Evil 1.1.1.1 Religious influences [from all denominations] 1.1.1.2 Wicca [& Paganism ??] 1.1.1.3 Religious banning [combined Beckhorn & Abanes threads] 1.1.1.4 Redemption [general posts on the theme] 1.1.1.5 LAMBASTING [about not alienating Muggles -may not belong here] Increasingly, as we go through this edit process, we need to see the categories not in isolation, but in themed groups. Therefore, please don't start rejecting without these sort of considerations (a general plea - not just Sean!) I am going to be posting a series of suggestions on how we rethink some categories, and move some things around to achieve better coherence. Carolyn From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sun Feb 27 13:15:01 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:15:01 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: 4.1.4 Religious banning/Creating themed groups in catalogue In-Reply-To: References: <20050227082731.GC7385@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: <20050227131501.GD7385@aardvark.net.au> On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 11:43:09AM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > This section (4.1.4) currently resides in section 4 under a general > heading of 'controversies', along with the sub-thread 4.1.4.1 > Abanes/Harry Potter & The Bible (which you should skim through at the > same time). I was particularly careful to preserve these two threads > intact, because although the topic of censorship in general is OT, > the application here, ie that HP should be banned because of it's > supposed occult and generally 'immoral' content, lead to some very > good debate on what the books were about. > > Together, I think these two threads are not only a matter of HPfGU > historical record, but help to make sense of where people are coming > from in some of the other meta theme categories. Also, some cultural > sensitivity here, Sean. The Americans, in particular, are far more > exercised about this stuff than most other countries, and not only > make up the majority of HPfGU membership, but will probably be > genuinely interested to read old discussions of this sort - the > issues are as live as ever in the US, as far as I can judge. You misunderstand. I wasn't arguing for jettisoning the entire category, but making a distinction between _religious_ censorship and _secular_ censorship. That's hardly cultural insensitivity. But perhaps an American is a better judge than I. I don't think the Stouffer case is relevant to a censorship discussion at all. Please look at the following club posts: 765,766,768,769,773,3090,3387,3391,3396. -- "It takes an aroused man to make a chicken affectionate!" -- Spanish translation of Frank Perdue's chicken slogan. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun Feb 27 13:27:19 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:27:19 -0000 Subject: Wands/Priori Incantatem/GH Message-ID: '3.8.3 Wands' is full of all sorts: What happened to Voldy's wand after GH? Does a wand get transformed along with an animagus? Why doesn't Hagrid get a new wand now that he's cleared, and how come his old one works if it's been snapped? Why does Charlie need a new wand? How come some people can use others' wands? Which is more or less all going to stay (thought there's quite a lot of repetition - so lots to axe). Oh, and I'm chucking lots of stuff into wandless magic that shouldn't be under wands. However, there's also a lot of discussion about the order that James and Lily come out of Voldy's wand in the priori incantatem. Should it all be dumped into 3.8.4.4 Priori Incantatem (with apologies to whoever is doing that category)? The posts are generally also coded to 1.3.5.1 Godric's Hollow/Death of Lily & James, though it's not really discussion of what happened, more arguing about the evidence from PI. I'm certain that PI order shouldn't be under 'wands' - but where should it go? Since the error was changed by JKR, do we need to keep it at all? Can I dump it all into 3.8.4.4 PI (where I assume there's a lot more discussion that hasn't been coded to wands too) so the ones to axe can be decided by someone with a clearer picture of what's already included in the catalogue? Or, is that category already being worked on, so I can have some new rules as to what should go in and what should stay out? Advice please. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 27 15:27:30 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:27:30 -0000 Subject: 4.1.4 Religious banning/Creating themed groups in catalogue In-Reply-To: <20050227131501.GD7385@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 11:43:09AM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: Also, some cultural > > sensitivity here, Sean. The Americans, in particular, are far more > > exercised about this stuff than most other countries, and not only > > make up the majority of HPfGU membership, but will probably be > > genuinely interested to read old discussions of this sort - the > > issues are as live as ever in the US, as far as I can judge. > > You misunderstand. I wasn't arguing for jettisoning the entire category, but > making a distinction between _religious_ censorship and _secular_ censorship. > That's hardly cultural insensitivity. But perhaps an American is a better > judge than I. > > I don't think the Stouffer case is relevant to a censorship discussion at all. > Please look at the following club posts: 765,766,768,769,773,3090,3387,3391,3396. > Carolyn: Ok, if the thread veers off into just censorship, I guess so. I expect I am being over-sensitive on behalf of the Yanks...when I first came across the topic on HPfGU I genuinely thought it was a joke - how wrong I was, but then I'm a heathen. I agree that the Stouffer case is something quite different - a legal argument about plagiarism, nothing to do with censorship, religious or otherwise. That category should stay down in section 4, under 'other topics'. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 27 15:33:13 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:33:13 -0000 Subject: Wands/Priori Incantatem/GH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > > However, there's also a lot of discussion about the order that James > and Lily come out of Voldy's wand in the priori incantatem. Should > it all be dumped into 3.8.4.4 Priori Incantatem (with apologies to > whoever is doing that category)? The posts are generally also coded > to 1.3.5.1 Godric's Hollow/Death of Lily & James, though it's not > really discussion of what happened, more arguing about the evidence > from PI. > > I'm certain that PI order shouldn't be under 'wands' - but where > should it go? Since the error was changed by JKR, do we need to keep > it at all? Can I dump it all into 3.8.4.4 PI (where I assume > there's a lot more discussion that hasn't been coded to wands too) > so the ones to axe can be decided by someone with a clearer picture > of what's already included in the catalogue? Or, is that category > already being worked on, so I can have some new rules as to what > should go in and what should stay out? > > Advice please. Carolyn: I think dump it into PI for the time being if it doesn't seem relevant to wands and how they work. KathyK has signed up for that section, but I don't think she is working on it right at this minute. The decision she then needs to make is what aspects of PI to retain in that section, and what should be rightly under the PI chapter code in GOF. Jen, who is doing all the book chapters, then finally gets to sort out what should be kept under that chapter code. Hm, pass the parcel or what.. Unless anyone thinks that the PI section should really be a subset of wands?? Carolyn From zanelupin at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 17:44:06 2005 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (Katherine Krasney) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:44:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: FB & QTA/Priori Incantatem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050227174407.18603.qmail@web53806.mail.yahoo.com> Hello! Carolyn: >>I think dump it into PI for the time being if it doesn't seem relevant to wands and how they work. KathyK has signed up for that section, but I don't think she is working on it right at this minute.<< KathyK: Bring 'em on! Indeed I have not yet looked at that category. I seem to be the slowest person in the bunch and am hung up at the moment with the FB & QTA categories. Preliminary viewing of both and a more detailed look at QTA shows I'll be chopping a bit out of there. Many, many of the posts are coded there for a mention of the schoolbooks or because one of the books is quoted in a discussion. My only issue is that several discussions--about specific beasts, for instance--initiated because of the books' publication. Oh, and there's one I really, really want to reject. All it contains is a list of beasts we may see in future books, coded to FB and to predictions w/o canon. Just a list, nothing more. I suppose it is a prediction without cannon but...it's a *list.* No discussion on how or why these creatures might appear. Pretty please can we toss it? KathyK, moving at a snail's pace --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 27 18:57:42 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:57:42 -0000 Subject: Oh No! Complete Revision of Categories IMPORTANT Message-ID: Ok, time to concentrate, bags of ice on head; no booze till you can answer 20 questions on the following. I've had to revise the whole category list for two reasons: 1) All the category changes which are coming up as a result of our reviews. 2) So that we don't create something so unweildy that searches take too long to complete. In brief, we are currently using five levels of heading: 1. 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.1.1 1.1.1.1.1 Paul and Tim want us to only use two of these categories to actually store posts: 1.1.1 1.1.1.1 So, what I have had to do is find ways of `emptying' the 1st and 2nd level categories of posts, and of losing the 5th level category. Mainly I've done it by shifting things into new or existing 3rd and 4th level headings, but at the same time I have made some other changes which hopefully make the whole category list a bit more logical. The new draft layout has been uploaded as a new file for you to look at. I've uploaded in two versions ? Word and Excel. If you can open spreadsheet files, I strongly recommend you choose that version, as it is clearer. The files are both called `Current categories Revised Feb 27th'. For those of you on Mac, the Word file is in plain text ? hope you can open it. If not, I am happy to fax it. All the layouts are cheerfully colour-coded, so you can follow what is happening Before going on to explain the changes I am proposing, a few points: 1) I haven't made any changes to the category list yet ? you can object! 2) Even once I have made the changes, we can continue to edit, delete & merge categories just as we like ? this isn't set in stone. 3) Shifting the categories about will not alter any reviewing changes you have just done, and no work will be lost. 4) I will update the database in the file section showing allocation of review sections to match the new layout, so no one is confused. Right SECTION 0 ? Reject codes Nothing has changed here except the addition of a subsection 0.1, which is purely technical, to enable all the reject categories to be X.X.X, ie third level headings. SECTION 1 ? Text analysis There is substantial renumbering, and most of the changes are in this section, as follows: 1.1.1 Good vs evil Suggest bringing the religious banning categories from section 4 into this group 1.1.2 Morality vs immorality Suggest merging sins and virtues with morality/immorality, moving out those posts which belong elsewhere in the subsections to this group. Probably will need more subsections when sorted out. 1.1.3 Friendship & loyalty Propose remnants of spying & betrayal are added here 1.2 Literary analysis The posts formerly in the main head have had to be moved to a new head, christened `Academic books & articles about HP' ? Talisman please advise if this is accurate. 1.2.2 What genre Now contains newly cleaned up genre category, plus two categories from section 4 ? adult's or children's books plus NY Times Bestseller list 1.2.3 Literary sources & influences Section moved up intact from 1.6 position. Some categories rearranged 1.2.4/12.5 Parameters set by JKR/authorial intent & Reader Response These two sections remain separated. There is an argument for making them one section ? please comment on this. I have moved up the anagrams & acronyms section to 1.2.5 ? it may not belong here. As I recall it is about two things ? firstly JKR's love of word games: these posts belong in narrative style really; secondly ? fans love of acronyms: these posts belong with reader response. [Laurasia please comment]. There are an assortment of other acronyms which need reviewing for whether they belong here ? including ESE! And FLYING HEDGEHOGS. 1.2.6 Narrative style The battered remains of this section (8 posts) plus some acronyms, POVnarration and humour 1.2.7 Plot development Now includes `Foreshadowing, clues & misdirection' (which needs merging with its subsections), and `war & military strategy'. This latter is likely to be stripped to very little once all the cross- coding to DD's and V's agenda have been taken out. 1.2.8 Back history Two further sections have been added to this: 1) About the Order of the Phoenix. These are the posts currently sitting in the heading `Order of the Phoenix Members' ? they can't stay there, so I thought this would be a good place as they include much speculation on past events. 2) About the Death Eaters ? similarly, these came from the Death Eaters heading in section 2. 1.2.9 Timelines This has been moved up from its former position at 1.7 and stripped of it's character ages and Weasley ages sections which have gone to section 1.3. 1.3 Characterisation Generally as before, but please note the posts in the heading 1.3 must be moved elsewhere in the group. Books, sections 1.5 ? 1.14. The only thing to note is that nothing should now be coded to the book's title. There are quite a few posts sitting in those categories, and I have created a heading for each book at the end of the chapters called `Reviews of..'. Generally, this is the place to put posts which review the complete book on it's own. On FB&WTFT/QTTA, I have just created a section called `Text' to avoid coding to the title. Please suggest a better heading SECTION 2 ? Character Analysis In general all the characters are as before, with no difficulties, other than: - Removing anything coded to the level 2 heads (X.X). Particularly the OOP membership and DE general coding - Getting rid of headings at level 5 (in general I have converted them to level 4) The major change is for Snape ? Talisman, this is for you. He gets his own independent section head (2.4 Hogwarts staff ? Snape only) ? but all posts must be taken out of this ? temporarily I have put them into 2.4.1 Severus Snape. You can allocate them as you please, and create more third level heads as you require them. However, all the 5th level heads in this section must be converted to 4th level. I leave it to your ingenuity. Because Snape is on his own, the other teacher's are bunched under a new head 2.3 Hogwart's staff/non-Snape. Further down, the Durmstrang & Beauxbatons teachers and pupils sections have been combined. Dot please note that the fifth level headings on Mrs Norris and Trevor need to become 4th level somehow. 2.17 RelationSHIPPING is the same, but I have re-arranged the headings a bit ? Ginger any comments? SECTION 3 ? WW The only real issue in this section is to again note the need to remove some posts that currently sit in level 2 heads. I have added some new categories to cater for this under Food & Drink and Plants, but can also do this elsewhere as required. In order to remove the 5th level heads under Geography, I have removed some other subheads ? Laurasia please note. I have rearranged many of the Hogwart's sections ? please comment. SECTION 4 ? Other topics This is now looking rather thinner than before, as some sections have been moved up into section 1. The Stouffer case has been put in the JKR section. SECTION 5 ? Admin Flags The only change here is a cosmetic one similar to the reject codes, to enable all the admin codes to be third level. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Feb 27 19:15:36 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:15:36 -0000 Subject: Oh No! Complete Revision of Categories IMPORTANT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > 2.17 RelationSHIPPING is the same, but I have re-arranged the > headings a bit ? Ginger any comments? Ginger-looks good to me. Do we really have to sober up? j/k From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 27 19:59:44 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:59:44 -0000 Subject: UPDATE for MEG, 1st March Message-ID: Would one of you passing elves pick this up and take over to MEG? ****************************************************************** PROGRESS ON CATALOGUING PROJECT AS AT 1st March 2005 The group has now catalogued 57131 posts in total, including the old Yahoo Club. We have reached post 42800 on the main list - meaning we have coded 2800 posts in February. In the process, we have rejected 26786 posts - 54.3% of the total coded. The group currently has 26 members, of which 16 are actively coding. The coding progress has slowed in the last week as the group is engaged in a complete review of all the posts so far categorised. Our main conclusion is that individual posts have been classified to too many categories, making sections less focused than we had expected. It is a simple process to put this right, but the review is likely to take a further week or so before we can continue coding. On the technical front, Paul, Tim & Carolyn have had a conference call to discuss the screen designs for the user interface and other technical issues. There were three outcomes - (a) a decision to reduce the number of headings used in the category list, to ensure catalogue searches did not time out before completing (action - Carolyn); (b) an agreement to produce a list of technical requirements for the server the catalogue will require (action - Paul); (c) an undertaking to produce the next iteration of the UI design by March 24th (action - Tim). ******************************************************************* From kking0731 at hotmail.com Sun Feb 27 20:27:55 2005 From: kking0731 at hotmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:27:55 -0000 Subject: Oh No! Complete Revision of Categories IMPORTANT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn: SECTION 2 ? Character Analysis In general all the characters are as before, with no difficulties, other than: - Removing anything coded to the level 2 heads (X.X). Particularly the OOP membership and DE general coding Snow: Will this need to be done manually, that is copying all posts from the death eater heading, take off the 2.10 check and check the box for the new heading to this category? Carolyn: On FB&WTFT/QTTA, I have just created a section called `Text' to avoid coding to the title. Please suggest a better heading Snow: My suggestion would be to call it canon under the two headings. Carolyn: I have rearranged many of the Hogwart's sections ? please comment. Snow: Looks a lot better! One question though, did you eliminate the dark mark (Morsmordre spell) 3.9.7 or has it been relocated? From kking0731 at hotmail.com Sun Feb 27 20:34:21 2005 From: kking0731 at hotmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:34:21 -0000 Subject: Avery Plus Message-ID: I'm finished with the Avery 2.10.3 category plus Karkaroff and the rest 2.10.5, 2.10.6, and 2.10.8 through 2.10.21. I would first like to note my definition of being dropped from a category = being mentioned as opposed to being discussed. If there was a mere mention of the name such as; Rosier and Wilkes were killed, in a lengthy post, then those two names were dropped from the post. If they had been discussed at any length, then I kept the code. Now, on to statistics. REVIEW for Avery 2.10.3 there are 62 posts 58 posts were fine 4 should be dropped 2 should add Fourth Man code, ticked for review * * * * Sub-category for Avery 2.10.3.1 Fourth Man 49 posts All good * * * * 2.10.5 Karkaroff 141 posts 20 posts should be dropped from this heading 6 should be rejected as nothing new 3 will be placed in the review box to add extra topics such as multi post * * * * Sub-category for Karkaroff 2.10.5.1 KISS THE DUCK 2 posts Both posts good * * * * 2.10.6 Nott 7 posts 3 should be dropped * * * * Sub-category for Nott 2.10.6.1 TNT 0 Posts * * * * 2.10.8 Crabbe Sr. 17 10 of the 17 need to be dropped and 5 of these should add the death eater heading, will be ticked for review * * * * 2.10.9 Dolohov 7 3 should be dropped * * * * 2.10.10 Goyle Sr. 19 8 should be dropped * * * * 2.10.11 Judson 0 posts * * * * 2.10.12 Rodolphus Lastrange 42 9 should be dropped 1 rejected 10 should be reviewed for Longbottom torture heading * * * * 2.10.13 Rabastan Lastrange 36 9 should be dropped * * * * 2.10.14 McNair 12 4 should be dropped * * * * 2.10.15 Mulciber 11 3 should be dropped * * * * 2.10.16 Rookwood 13 3 should be dropped * * * * 2.10.17 Rosier 18 8 should be dropped * * * * 2.10.18 Travers 5 3 should be dropped * * * * 2.10.19 Wilkes 14 5 should be dropped * * * * 2.10.20 Rugulus Black 0 posts * * * * 2.10.21 Bellatrix Lastrange 97 13 should be dropped 2 rejected * * * * Sub-category 2.10.21.1 ELVIRA 4 posts All good * * * * Sub-category 2.10.21.2 LOST LIVES 2 posts Both good ================================ If no one objects, I will make the necessary changes tomorrow. I'll start on dear Lucius in the meantime. KathySnow From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 27 20:34:55 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:34:55 -0000 Subject: DE section and Dark Mark (Morsmordre) spell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > Carolyn: > - Removing anything coded to the level 2 heads (X.X). Particularly > the OOP membership and DE general coding > > Snow: > > Will this need to be done manually, that is copying all posts from > the death eater heading, take off the 2.10 check and check the box > for the new heading to this category? Carolyn: No, I can move the section to its new position automatically - you won't need to do any further individual editing of posts. > > Snow: > > Looks a lot better! One question though, did you eliminate the dark > mark (Morsmordre spell) 3.9.7 or has it been relocated? Carolyn: Thanks for pointing that out - I had forgotten to add it to this list. However, it is on the real, actual category list, and will continue to appear in the Dark Arts section in the same place - I had no plans to move it. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun Feb 27 20:57:41 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:57:41 -0000 Subject: Oh No! Complete Revision of Categories IMPORTANT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Dot please note that the fifth level headings on Mrs Norris and > Trevor need to become 4th level somehow. > The only way I can see of doing it is to split the category into two like this: 2.15 Named animal characters 2.15.1 Crookshanks 2.15.2 Mrs Norris 2.15.2.1 ACID ARTICLE 2.15.2.2 FLIRTIAC 2.15.3 Hedwig 2.15.4 Pigwidgeon 2.15.5 Nagini 2.15.6 Trevor 2.15.6.1 DAFT SHAMELES SHOW 2.15.6.2 TOAD SNEAKILY HELPS 2.15.6.3 TOADKEEPER I 2.15.6.4 TOADKEEPER II 2.15.6.5 TRASHY SLIMEBALL 2.15.7 Norbert 2.15.8 Fawkes 2.15.9 Buckbeak 2.15.10 Fluffy 2.15.11 Aragog 2.16 Beasts 2.16.1 Cats/kneazles 2.16.2 Owls 2.16.3 Snakes 2.16.4 Basilisk 2.16.5 Giant Squid 2.16.6 Toads 2.16.7 Dragons 2.16.8 Thestrals 2.16.9 Phoenix 2.16.10 Hippogriffs 2.16.11 Hinkypunks 2.16.12 Stags/Deer 2.16.13 Dogs 2.16.14 Unicorns 2.16.15 Grindylows 2.16.16 Ravens 2.16.17 Spiders 2.16.18 Lethifold 2.16.19 Weasels 2.16.20 Jobberknoll Unless that'll muck up the numbering of the following categories in the list too much. I'm still ploughing through wands and squibs at the moment, so I don't know what's actually *in* any of the beast bits yet. Dot From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 27 21:30:16 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:30:16 -0000 Subject: Mrs Norris & Trevor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > > Dot please note that the fifth level headings on Mrs Norris and > > Trevor need to become 4th level somehow. > > Dot: > The only way I can see of doing it is to split the category into > two like this: > > 2.15 Named animal characters > > > 2.16 Beasts > >> > Unless that'll muck up the numbering of the following categories in > the list too much. I'm still ploughing through wands and squibs > at the moment, so I don't know what's actually *in* any of the beast > bits yet. > Carolyn: I think I am slightly more in favour of keeping Mrs Norris with the other cats and Trevor with the toad heading, because I think that is where people would turn to first when looking for information. I expect we can just fudge the issue by simply putting the acronym at the same level as the character. Or by changing the name of the acronym to read something like 'Mrs Norris theory - FLIRTIAC' or whatever. Must admit Toadkeeper II and FLIRTIAC all make perfect sense to me.. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Feb 27 22:10:31 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:10:31 -0000 Subject: Report on 1.2 War & Military strategy Message-ID: Well, I got off lightly on this one - only 39 posts. I thought at first this was going to be another section that had to be canned, but there turned out to be two interesting threads: 1) started by Cindy on the pros and cons of the people batting for the good side vs the bad side. Really, though, this turned into arguments about which characters were likely to go bad. It was all cross-coded to the main good vs evil heading, and perhaps it belongs there - not quite sure though; useful to have these kind of analyses pulled out separately. 2) superbly on-topic exchange between Grey Wolf, Pip and Pippin about the nature of the tactics to be used in the next war. So, on balance, keep the category (cleaned up to around 25 posts) - and put it, as proposed, within the plot development section, as it gives plenty of pointers as to things that might happen. Carolyn Who laughed again at Cindy's theories that Dementors were (a) water soluble, (b) quite useful as air conditioners in a hot climate... From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Feb 27 23:31:57 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:31:57 -0000 Subject: UPDATE for MEG, 1st March In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn: > The coding progress has slowed in the last week as the group is > engaged in a complete review of all the posts so far categorised. Our > main conclusion is that individual posts have been classified to too > many categories, making sections less focused than we had expected. > It is a simple process to put this right, but the review is likely to > take a further week or so before we can continue coding. Jen: Aack--tell me we have longer than a week or so to finish reviewing and this is your "best case scenario" prediction for MEG, right CW? Even with no alcohol, a fresh batch of Diet Coke and tootsie pops, my reviewing speed is, *ahem* less than blistering. Could I get a pay-raise? What is the trick I'm missing? Sean whips through posts like a hot knife through butter, but it seems the more I do, the more that needs to be done. Like if I keep post A coded to a chapter, well a couple of posts up and down the thread that *didn't* get coded need to be added for thread continuity. Or an entire thread is coded to a chapter, but really only the first two posts pertain to it. Where is my trusty sword? I used to slice and dice with great abandon, back in the day.... It finally happened...I'm a LOON. Look for my LOON-like proposal on chapter coding once I put a stake in GOF. Jen, reaching for Carolyn's aforementioned ice-pack and wondering if she's making this too hard, and whether it's time to chuck it all and try Kneasy's four basic food groups.... From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Mon Feb 28 01:03:35 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:03:35 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: UPDATE for MEG, 1st March In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050228010335.GA22089@aardvark.net.au> On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 11:31:57PM -0000, Jen Reese wrote: > Jen: Aack--tell me we have longer than a week or so to finish > reviewing and this is your "best case scenario" prediction for MEG, > right CW? Even with no alcohol, a fresh batch of Diet Coke and > tootsie pops, my reviewing speed is, *ahem* less than blistering. Coke and easter eggs work for me. It's a hard life, really. > Could I get a pay-raise? They'll all want one if you ask THAT :) > What is the trick I'm missing? Sean whips through posts like a hot > knife through butter, but it seems the more I do, the more that > needs to be done. Like if I keep post A coded to a chapter, well a > couple of posts up and down the thread that *didn't* get coded need > to be added for thread continuity. Or an entire thread is coded to a > chapter, but really only the first two posts pertain to it. Where is > my trusty sword? I used to slice and dice with great abandon, back > in the day.... There's really no trick to it. I keep a text file handy to mark down irrelevant posts on my subject. If a post cries out to be fixed, I'll fix it, but that should be far and few between, you'll go mad otherwise. For instance, discussions including Ron Weasley get included if the post is about Ron Weasley, not about Chapter 16 of GoF mentioning something Ron said and two paragraphs about how it makes Harry feel. OTOH, if you're coding for Chapter 16 of GoF and the thread is about vampire!Snape, is that at all relevant to you? IMHO you shouldn't be trying to code threads unless we are going to have a Fantastic Threads section (not a bad idea though), we're trying to keep the most relevant posts on a topic for useful searching. > It finally happened...I'm a LOON. Look for my LOON-like proposal on > chapter coding once I put a stake in GOF. I'm not only LOON but CRABB and SCHABB. Cataloguing has done wonders for my dogmatism... > Jen, reaching for Carolyn's aforementioned ice-pack and wondering if > she's making this too hard, and whether it's time to chuck it all > and try Kneasy's four basic food groups.... Caffeine and chocolate. Twin pillars of righteousness. -- "It takes an aroused man to make a chicken affectionate!" -- Spanish translation of Frank Perdue's chicken slogan. From kakearney at comcast.net Mon Feb 28 01:07:03 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:07:03 -0000 Subject: General curriculum categories Message-ID: Kelly waltzes into the catalogue office, alternately dancing to Billy Joel, singing hilarious, politically incorrect songs (with puppets), and trying valiantly but unsuccessfully to belt the final lines of "Defying Gravity", before crashing into the huge mountain of posts that seem to have replaced her desk. Sheesh, a girl can't take a vacation around here, can she? Since they don't seem to be claimed yet, I'll grab the General curriculum and timetables category and classes subcategories (previous 3.16.7, new 3.16.8). Those should be pretty quick and straightforward. -Kelly From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Feb 28 04:28:00 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 04:28:00 -0000 Subject: (McGonagall) Re: Oh No! Complete Revision of Categories IMPORTANT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn bursts into the office, slamming the shutters closed with her wand as she moves to the front of the room. "Turn to page 394," she says, tapping an odd looking slide projector. Potioncat sits up and stares at the pretty colors on the screen as Carolyn lectures. > > In brief, we are currently using five levels of heading: > > 1. > 1.1 > 1.1.1 > 1.1.1.1 > 1.1.1.1.1.... > Potioncat nods as if she understands perfectly and hopes Carolyn won't call on her. But of course she does. Potioncat has only once chance. She boldly gives her report on McGonagall. Well, you see...originally there were 320 posts under McGonagall. But you very wisely added ESE!McGonagall as a code. So now we have McGonagall 142 posts ESE!MM 32 posts total 174 posts I'll take on Alastor Moody next. I already know there are some codes to Madeye that belong to Barty Jr. How would KellyK like me to recode those? Recode and add 5.6? or do not recode, but add 5.6 and a note? Carolyn isn't fooled for a moment. But it isn't a bad report. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Mon Feb 28 06:50:13 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:50:13 +1100 Subject: Religious stuff report Message-ID: <20050228065013.GB27832@aardvark.net.au> I'm halfway through Ginny and forgot to post my Religious Banning/Abanes report: Initial posts: 339 (263 + 76) Final posts: 327 (251 + 76) Nothing to say about the Abanes category, but it was news to me that he'd even been on the list. Removed sundry Stouffer posts and a couple of obvious OT's, but otherwise left Religious Banning intact. Although the serried ranks of proud Wiccans was an eye-opener. And some of those anti-Harry sites are still up, running and ... totally barmy. Thanks for the many queries lol: the original Frank Perdue slogan is "It takes a strong man to make a tender chicken". You see, you didn't need the original after all :) -- "It takes an aroused man to make a chicken affectionate!" -- Spanish translation of Frank Perdue's chicken slogan. From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Mon Feb 28 08:50:49 2005 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:50:49 -0000 Subject: Oh No! Complete Revision of Categories IMPORTANT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I have moved up the anagrams & acronyms section to 1.2.5 ? it may not > belong here. As I recall it is about two things ? firstly JKR's love > of word games: these posts belong in narrative style really; > secondly ? fans love of acronyms: these posts belong with reader > response. [Laurasia please comment]. In that category there were things that dealt with anagrams that people had found, anagrams of Voldemort in other languages and a few references to Perseus Evans. TAGS and TABOULI are to do with some fans' love of putting acronyms to their theories. The category "Anagrams and Acronyms" itself contains no references to acronyms at all (only the next level). All the posts in that category could be moved closer to narrative style. And I agree that the TAGS and TABOULI posts would do much better in reader response. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Mon Feb 28 10:07:36 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:07:36 +1100 Subject: Ginny Weasley Report Message-ID: <20050228100736.GA7361@aardvark.net.au> In my quest to remove Weasleys, I report the following success: Ginny Weasley Initial Posts: 440 Final Posts : 350 Actually most posts were well coded until little spats between the pro-Hermione and pro-Ginny camps broke out. Much suggests some serious issues with little sisters and apparently nice girls. Fortunately the cat comes under the magnificently looney Neville+Ginny theories, my favourite of course being WOLFGANG AMADEUS MOZART and all the others(!) in 37628, although it must be noted that UGANDA (37573) and TABOULI (37614) were also coined in this cat. Sadly no sight of SICK LANGOSTINO WOMAN yet, but I am interested in why some of the Ginny acronyms have ended up in the Neville cat and vice-versa. Sean (one more Weasley to go....oh my god where's the bourbon...thatsh be'er) -- "It takes an aroused man to make a chicken affectionate!" -- Spanish translation of Frank Perdue's chicken slogan. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Feb 28 10:22:18 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:22:18 -0000 Subject: Reviewing process... Message-ID: Jen: What is the trick I'm missing? Sean whips through posts like a hot knife through butter, but it seems the more I do, the more that needs to be done. Like if I keep post A coded to a chapter, well a couple of posts up and down the thread that *didn't* get coded need to be added for thread continuity. Or an entire thread is coded to a chapter, but really only the first two posts pertain to it. Where is my trusty sword? I used to slice and dice with great abandon, back in the day.... Sean: There's really no trick to it. I keep a text file handy to mark down irrelevant posts on my subject. If a post cries out to be fixed, I'll fix it, but that should be far and few between, you'll go mad otherwise. For instance, discussions including Ron Weasley get included if the post is about Ron Weasley, not about Chapter 16 of GoF mentioning something Ron said and two paragraphs about how it makes Harry feel. OTOH, if you're coding for Chapter 16 of GoF and the thread is about vampire!Snape, is that at all relevant to you? IMHO you shouldn't be trying to code threads unless we are going to have a Fantastic Threads section (not a bad idea though), we're trying to keep the most relevant posts on a topic for useful searching. Potioncat: I'll take on Alastor Moody next. I already know there are some codes to Madeye that belong to Barty Jr. How would KellyK like me to recode those? Recode and add 5.6? or do not recode, but add 5.6 and a note? Carolyn: I think Sean is right. You have to have a certain amount of ruthlessness about this process, or we will never finish. The first and most important thing is only to think about the subject category you are dealing with, and that from the point of view of a reader coming to the topic expecting a coherent bunch of posts to look through, that doesn't diverge into other areas more than necessary. I tend to read the category once through with great concentration, keeping notes as I go as to which ones don't fit the subject. Admittedly, it takes a little while to decide in your own mind what the core of the topic should be, and that may mean you get a quarter or a third in, and have to go back to the beginning and re-think what's for the chop and what isn't. On some topics an obvious sub-category emerges, and I tend to use a highlighter on my handwritten list to indicate those as I go along. Then, obviously, post your thoughts here to let people know what you are planning to do, request new sub-categories etc....and then do it. As far as adding codes/recoding posts, I work on the basis of what's left on a post if I have to remove the code I am dealing with. If an obvious code has been left off, for whatever reason, then I add it and click 5.6, or if I spot an obvious error, I'll change it, but I don't primarily review for these problems. [Potioncat, your question about Alastor vs Barty Crouch Jr does probably come into the obvious error category, but be careful, as those posts often do deserve both codes as they are comparing what the real Alastor might have thought/done vs what the imposter does - some of them are fascinating bits of detective work]. This also means that when I go to actually implement my proposed changes, I am only dealing with posts where I think the code I am dealing with should be taken off. The ones that I leave as ok don't really get their coding reviewed again, unless I had marked it on my list as a really glaring error to address. Remember to properly reject a post if there is no code left once you have removed your subject code. On the definitions side, I am going to compile a list of what people have decided so far on the categories we have dealt with, but when we are reporting on a category it would be a good idea to say what should *not* be included, as well as what it should be about. Any help? Carolyn From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Feb 28 16:21:31 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:21:31 -0000 Subject: Reviewing process... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sean: > There's really no trick to it. I keep a text file handy to mark > down irrelevant posts on my subject. If a post cries out to be > fixed, I'll fix it, but that should be far and few between, you'll > go mad otherwise. > IMHO you shouldn't be trying to code threads unless we are going > to have a Fantastic Threads section (not a bad idea though), we're > trying to keep the most relevant posts on a topic for useful > searching. Carolyn: > I think Sean is right. You have to have a certain amount of > ruthlessness about this process, or we will never finish. > I tend to read the category once through with great concentration, > keeping notes as I go as to which ones don't fit the subject. > Admittedly, it takes a little while to decide in your own mind > what the core of the topic should be, and that may mean you get a > quarter or a third in, and have to go back to the beginning and re- > think what's for the chop and what isn't. Jen: OK, you two have inspired me to get the job done without overthinking it. I'll try the first read-through technique rather than the post-by-post method, which is cumbersome and leads to being ensnared in threads rather than the category at hand. Thanks for the tips. So this isn't exactly the time and place for thread reviews, but I'm wondering about it for the future. I've run across several posts which are supposed to be multi-part posts and only one is coded up, or where almost an entire thread is dropped except for one or two posts and the continuity is lost. Pulling these posts up as an end- user, people might wonder the same thing I did, "Here's post 1, what happened to post 2?" Or, "I see this post by X quoted here, but I can't find the original to read the part that got snipped." I'm certain each post was rejected for perfectly valid reasons taken out of context, but is there a point where we need to favor the context over the individual post? I think so. In the end, I'd rather read a Fantastic Thread with a few annoying posts to skip over rather than a Fantastic Post with nothing surrounding it to bouy it up or refute it. And it's not like we have only one or the other--there are plenty of mostly intact threads, and plenty of great posts which can stand alone. I'm not proposing a reinvention of the wheel. Carolyn: > On the definitions side, I am going to compile a list of what people > have decided so far on the categories we have dealt with, but when we > are reporting on a category it would be a good idea to say what > should *not* be included, as well as what it should be about. > > Any help? Jen: Yes, much help :). Back to reviewing, with speed this time. Just watch, I'll have a report by the end of the day. From kakearney at comcast.net Mon Feb 28 17:00:50 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:00:50 -0000 Subject: Reviewing process... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jen wrote: > I'm certain each post was rejected for perfectly valid reasons taken > out of context, but is there a point where we need to favor the > context over the individual post? > > I think so. In the end, I'd rather read a Fantastic Thread with a > few annoying posts to skip over rather than a Fantastic Post with > nothing surrounding it to bouy it up or refute it. And it's not like > we have only one or the other--there are plenty of mostly intact > threads, and plenty of great posts which can stand alone. I'm not > proposing a reinvention of the wheel. I'd also keep in mind that the catalogue isn't replacing Yahoo's archive of the group. If someone is interested in a thread and finds some frivolous posts from the thread missing from the catalogue, they can always use the post numbers to go back to the original source. When you avoid the horrible search engine and go straight to the post number box, Yahoomort is actually quite helpful. -Kelly From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Feb 28 17:43:51 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:43:51 -0000 Subject: New category list.. Message-ID: I'll take the lack of screams as a yes, then? If a category you are working on suddenly disappears or re-numbers itself, that's because I am shifting things about for a few hours, ok. Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Feb 28 22:57:13 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:57:13 -0000 Subject: My contribution to the 'I love Molly' thread... Message-ID: Just made the mistake of catching up with the main list. Here is my contribution, for anyone that missed it last time this debate came round: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/115410 Carolyn not taking prisoners.. PS List changes not yet fully implemented, can't add new categories for some reason at the moment. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Mon Feb 28 23:24:51 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 10:24:51 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] My contribution to the 'I love Molly' thread... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050228232451.GA1482@aardvark.net.au> On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:57:13PM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > > > Just made the mistake of catching up with the main list. Here is my > contribution, for anyone that missed it last time this debate came > round: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/115410 > > Carolyn > not taking prisoners.. Why can't *I* have that kind of hilariously vindictive imagination? And I've just been re-reading OotP, so your post is the funniest thing I've read in ages. Serves me right for not reading my digests these days... I really get on with my Ron and Hermione Must Snog Or Explode campaign. > PS List changes not yet fully implemented, can't add new categories > for some reason at the moment. Ah. All the better to avoid my last Weasley for a bit longer then :) -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse.