MD detention looms/updating definitions list

[carolynwhite2]

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Debbie" <elfundeb at c...> 
wrote: 
> No detention, please!  I didn't imagine the flawed potion debate.  
I offer you the following --

<snip *hastily assembled* crib notes>

> Ok, I'd forgotten that it wasn't part of the original post, but 
> there was definitely a flawed potion involved.  *Before* it 
involved a magic dishwasher.
> 

Carolyn (currently writing a Theory exam syllabus for List Elves):

Huh. Flawed potion is indeed a very important thread within MD, and 
explained in mind-boggling depth as part of Spying Games I & II - but 
is only one of a great many complex propositions within the theory.

BTW, for those struggling with what any of this has to do with 
kitchen appliances (answer, not a lot), see posts 39823 and 39854.

The coding up of MD is going to need massive concentration on 
everyone's part. The huge number of diverse threads, and hundreds of 
posts related to it are a real challenge, but very important to hold 
together. IMNVHO it is one of the best things on HPfGU, though we are 
still waiting for further updates ::peers hopefully into the members' 
list, but decides against prodding Pip::

As it is, some us (eh, Kelly ?/me guilty of this too..) have acquired 
a habit of handing out MD to unsuspecting enquirers wondering if 
there is a bit more to the plot than meets the eye <veg>.


Jen:
I'm updating my printout of the Category definitions back to Nov.
10th, and found the Dec. 19th update confusing. 

Also, are the new Snape codes meant to replace the acronyms, like
replacing BELA LUGOSI with Vampire!Snape?

Finally, in the update on Dec. 5th:

Jen, already hassling the Admin after one day on the job...

Carolyn:
Not a problem Jen, great that anyone takes this amount of interest in 
my lists. The reason for these anomalies is that the hard copy of the 
catalogue in our files is not fully up to date at present with some 
quite big numbering changes I have made recently on the category list 
online.

I reconcile the two of them from time to time, and I will try and 
bring the definitions list back up to date this weekend, sorry for 
any confusion caused. I assure you that there is no duplication of 
numbers in reality.

Re the Snape sub-heads, the answer is no, they don't replace. They 
were just providing group headings for some of the myriad Snape 
theories. It also enables you tick something like 'Snape & love' when 
the post is about that, but doesn't refer to eg LOLLIPOPS 
specifically. A policy decision we should make is whether we should 
also tick the main head 'Snape' as well every time.

We are pursuing a policy of only ticking the acronym if the theory is 
actually mentioned by name in the post, or if the post is a very 
detailed discussion of/response to a specific theory but carelessly 
just doesn't happen to mention the name. 

That way you don't actually have to try and remember the fine print 
of what every theory is about, fortunately. Besides, it would be a 
nightmare, as they overlap, diverge and duplicate so much, as you may 
know <g>.

Carolyn