From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Mar 1 01:29:03 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 01:29:03 -0000 Subject: My contribution to the 'I love Molly' thread... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "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.. Jen: Hehehe--Dumbledore retreating to his tower to fiddle with his silver balls? My only disappointment was the lack of counter-attack, dismissing you as a cruel & heartless reader who doesn't understand these are *children's* books for gosh sakes, and could you show a little compassion for a mother of seven, please? I couldn't resist cutting and pasting a bit: "First off, we are likely not looking at a massacre apparently in these books, just a selection of corpses, carefully chosen for maximum impact. And what better candidate than Molly? I'd recommend it to occur in the autumn term, in the run-up to Christmas. With a bit of luck, she won't have finished next year's jumpers either..." "Arthur desolated; no idea how to use the washing machine; living on muggle canned food; takes to drink just like Sirius did." "Snape (who didn't like her cooking anyway), continues on his own personal plan regardless." From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Mar 1 03:24:41 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 03:24:41 -0000 Subject: My contribution to the 'I love Molly' thread... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "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.. > > PS List changes not yet fully implemented, can't add new categories > for some reason at the moment. Well, I for one am completely outraged. I can't believe you could do such a thing. You're *caught up* on the *main list?* Anne who can't even keep up w/TOC these days From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Mar 1 11:08:14 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:08:14 -0000 Subject: Accio programme.. Message-ID: I have just picked up this: http://www.accio.org.uk/events.shtml What are other people's reactions? You can probably guess mine. Carolyn From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Tue Mar 1 12:01:08 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 23:01:08 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Accio programme.. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050301120108.GB26770@aardvark.net.au> On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 11:08:14AM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > > > I have just picked up this: > > http://www.accio.org.uk/events.shtml > > What are other people's reactions? You can probably guess mine. "Don't send a boy to do a man's job: Hermione Granger, Severus Snape and their unlikely pairing in Fan Fiction: Kecia Ali" I think that sums it up for me. I can't wait until they publish . -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Mar 1 12:40:28 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:40:28 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Accio programme.. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > I have just picked up this: > > http://www.accio.org.uk/events.shtml > > What are other people's reactions? You can probably guess mine. > > Carolyn > > I thought it was supposed to be fun? Unless there's entertainment/wit/mischief hidden beneath some very anorak-type headings I fear that some may be taking themselves too seriously by far. I really should have completed my landmark of literary criticism: "Semiotic psychosis in the aesthetics of bildungsroman epics: is Ron a plonker?" Is that Hans I see tucked away in the middle of the programme? Hells teeth. Determined to batter the audience with old ideas married to new age fervour, I'll bet. Nope. Sorry. Can't see anything there that'd tempt me to stir from Schloss Kneasy -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 872 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Mar 1 13:30:29 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:30:29 -0000 Subject: Accio programme.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > I thought it was supposed to be fun? > > Unless there's entertainment/wit/mischief hidden beneath some very > anorak-type headings I fear that some may be taking themselves too > seriously by far. > > > Nope. Sorry. Can't see anything there that'd tempt me to stir from > Schloss Kneasy Naturally, being a highly-strung, emotional, professional editor and producer of conferences, when I first saw the outline I initially considered: a) unsubbing from all HP Yah groups immediately and abandoning the catalogue forthwith on a pearls before swine basis b) running an invitation-only alternative event of my own devising On further, mature reflection, I bought some chocolate, made sure there was a plentiful supply of alcohol in the house and got on with something more important. Carolyn From quigonginger at yahoo.com Tue Mar 1 14:10:51 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 06:10:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Accio programme.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050301141052.55045.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com> carolynwhite2 wrote: I have just picked up this: http://www.accio.org.uk/events.shtml What are other people's reactions? You can probably guess mine. Carolyn Ginger: OOOOOOOOOOOH! There's a SHIPping discussion! And is that OUR Tim presenting, or am I mixing up names? And would Rosemary Watson be.....? (Yes, I'm 73% sure) There is one other that I'd like to go to, but only as a heckler. Bad Ginger. Go iron something. Unfortunately, there is a large body of water between me and there, and an even larger stack of bills preventing me from crossing it. Haven't given up hope for the Witching Hour. Could be fun. Besides, isn't the fun going and meeting people? (Preferrably over drinks?) Kind of like we do here, but without the categories. Glad to have met you all, Ginger --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Mar 1 16:37:45 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:37:45 -0000 Subject: Accio programme.. In-Reply-To: <20050301141052.55045.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Potioncat's coding terminal shuts down, so she takes the time to join the coffee klatch in the corner of the office that pretends to be a staff lounge. As usual several conversations are going on at once. Carolyn is saying: > 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:.... > Potioncat shakes her head. Carolyn, slandering poor Molly Weasley, the kind, loving mother who is so often misunderstood. Potioncat wonders if she's up for a tennis match with Carolyn hmm perhaps a post on "Lilly as Madonna and Molly as Elizabeth with Harry the Christ figure and Ron as John the Baptist" that would set Carolyn's teeth on edge .no, it's not worth my job . Jen however is laughing about it: Hehehe--Dumbledore retreating to his tower to fiddle with his silver balls? My only disappointment was the lack of counter-attack, dismissing you as a cruel & heartless reader who doesn't understand these are *children's* books for gosh sakes, and could you show a little compassion for a mother of seven, please? Potioncat: Dumbledore's silver balls . Carolyn is spending entirely too much time around Kneasy. Of course, someone has to write those sorts of posts to fill in the gap that he left. Sean's talking about Perdue and his chickens. I remember those commercials and I still buy that brand chicken. Wednesday's suppers will never be the same. And what did he expect to find at DeviantArt? Still as repulsive as a Snape/Granger ship is, Crouch! Moody/Granger is worse. Now the Accio conference comes up. Topics are listed and eyes roll, but a few look interested. There are a couple of noted authors Kneasy is saying: > I thought it was supposed to be fun? > > Unless there's entertainment/wit/mischief hidden beneath some very > anorak-type headings I fear that some may be taking themselves too seriously by far. Potioncat chokes on her coffee. We're spending hours reading, evaluating, coding, and reviewing posts from years ago about a children's series that's still being written, taking time off to discuss rules and regulations to make future posts better .and Kneasy thinks "they" take "themselves" too seriously? Case of a kettle calling a cauldron leaky if you ask me. Potioncat's cell phone rings, (or what ever a T-Bay equivilant would be) She listens, then yells, "How many times do I have to tell you kids not to bother me when I'm coding!" Potioncat hangs up just as Ginger says: Besides, isn't the fun going and meeting people? (Preferrably over drinks?) Kind of like we do here, but without the categories. > > Glad to have met you all, Ginger Potioncat nods, Yeah, it is a pretty interesting bunch of people .She heads back to see if the coding machine is working .. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Mar 1 17:20:51 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:20:51 -0000 Subject: Molly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Potioncat shakes her head. Carolyn, slandering poor Molly Weasley, > the kind, loving mother who is so often misunderstood. > Carolyn is spending entirely too much > time around Kneasy. Of course, someone has to write those sorts of > posts to fill in the gap that he left. > > Carolyn: Alas, I think you'll find he likes the wretched woman - backbone of olde Englande or some such garbage. A lesser race, born to tend and clean up, so that men can go out and conquer the world..and come back to find tea waiting. Don't spare the spanking is my advice. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Tue Mar 1 17:55:55 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 17:55:55 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26f1bdabf3cfb092542b7fab0995e2d4@btconnect.com> Right. REST - 1 post (which doesn't define what REST is an acronym of). UNNECESSARY - 2 posts GARBAGESCOW - 11 posts TOUCHE - 3 posts 1.3.3 (which transmogrified into 1.2.7 half way through) Plot development. At start 591; now 426. Moderately brutal with this lot; "X will die" was not considered suitable for inclusion. But "X will die because..." or "X will die and the repercussions will be..." stood a pretty good chance of getting in. The category has fuzzy edges - it gets so it's indistinguishable from Foreshadowing and clues, Authorial intent, Classic themes, Predictions and the two Agenda categories. It's sometimes a matter of judgement which one suits the post best, especially if the relevant bit is less than a paragraph. To get included in more than one of these categories there needed to be some meat on the bone. Kneasy is saying: > I thought it was supposed to be fun? > > Unless there's entertainment/wit/mischief hidden beneath some very > anorak-type headings I fear that some may be taking themselves too seriously by far. Potioncat chokes on her coffee. We're spending hours reading, evaluating, coding, and reviewing posts from years ago about a children's series that's still being written, taking time off to discuss rules and regulations to make future posts better?.and Kneasy thinks "they" take "themselves" too seriously? Case of a kettle calling a cauldron leaky if you ask me. Nah. I don't consider this lot to be classed as 'taken too seriously'. It's a chore that'll rectify a deficiency in the Yahoo set-up. Nothing more than moving the furniture around and occasionally finding some small change behind the cushions as a bonus. In context 'taken too seriously' would be categorising the posts so as to analyse the results to produce some half-assed study stuffed with ersatz erudition and semi-intellectual buzz words and demonstrating not very much. Except how anally orientated the analyst is. So far as I'm concerned *nothing* about HP should be taken seriously - apart from the release date of the next book, that is. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 2142 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Tue Mar 1 19:44:48 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 06:44:48 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Accio programme.. In-Reply-To: References: <20050301141052.55045.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050301194448.GA741@aardvark.net.au> On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:37:45PM -0000, potioncat wrote: > Potioncat's coding terminal shuts down, so she takes the time to > join the coffee klatch in the corner of the office that pretends to > be a staff lounge. As usual several conversations are going on at > once. Block out the horror for a moment...:) > Sean's talking about Perdue and his chickens. I remember those > commercials and I still buy that brand chicken. Wednesday's > suppers will never be the same. And what did he expect to find at > DeviantArt? Still as repulsive as a Snape/Granger ship is, Crouch! > Moody/Granger is worse. I do my own stuff at deviantart.com which has nothing to do with Potterverse - there are limits beyond which I will not stray :) And I've seen the CM/G ship post, which was meant to be funny, S/H is unfortunately not. Good to see that Perdue has survived bad translation though :) > Potioncat chokes on her coffee. We're spending hours reading, > evaluating, coding, and reviewing posts from years ago about a > children's series that's still being written, taking time off > to discuss rules and regulations to make future posts better.and > Kneasy thinks "they" take "themselves" too seriously? Noooo :) We're trying to bring some sanity to the fandom :) Think Fountain of Magical Brethren! Wands aloft, choirs singing...oh dear the caffeine must have worn off... -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Tue Mar 1 19:49:04 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 06:49:04 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Accio programme.. In-Reply-To: <20050301141052.55045.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050301141052.55045.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050301194904.GB741@aardvark.net.au> On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 06:10:51AM -0800, Ginger wrote: > Unfortunately, there is a large body of water between me and there, and an > even larger stack of bills preventing me from crossing it. Haven't given up > hope for the Witching Hour. Could be fun. I know that feeling; I've practically been ordered to appear in the US at some point this year, and sadly even if I sold everything I owned I'd only just make a one-way ticket. There must be a rich lonely HP fan out there somewhere...:) > Besides, isn't the fun going and meeting people? (Preferrably over drinks?) > Kind of like we do here, but without the categories. Or the drinks :( > Glad to have met you all, Ginger Yes, thank deity for Net. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Mar 1 20:03:11 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:03:11 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Accio programme.. References: <20050301141052.55045.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com> <20050301194448.GA741@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: Potioncat then > Sean's talking about Perdue and his chickens. I remember those > commercials and I still buy that brand chicken. Wednesday's > suppers will never be the same. Potioncat now: Yes, well the thought of good old Frank Perdue and the translation...still makes me laugh. Sean: And I've seen the CM/G ship post, which was meant to be funny, S/H is unfortunately not. Good to see that Perdue has survived bad translation though :) Potioncat now: Yeah, the Hermione/Moody post I read was funny...it was the image in my brain that made it bad. Add that to Minerva and Hooch and their grandson Crookshanks and I'm off all ships! Sean: Noooo :) We're trying to bring some sanity to the fandom :) Think Fountain of Magical Brethren! Wands aloft, choirs singing...oh dear the caffeine must have worn off... Potioncat: My family thinks I'm crazy for reading posts about Potter, they'd send me therapy if they knew I was cataloging it! Is the site back up yet? or was it just my computer in the first place...I'd better go look. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Mar 1 21:14:28 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:14:28 -0000 Subject: Narrative style/Plot development In-Reply-To: <26f1bdabf3cfb092542b7fab0995e2d4@btconnect.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > Right. > > REST - 1 post (which doesn't define what REST is an acronym of). > > UNNECESSARY - 2 posts > > GARBAGESCOW - 11 posts > > TOUCHE - 3 posts > > 1.3.3 (which transmogrified into 1.2.7 half way through) Plot > development. > > At start 591; now 426. > > Moderately brutal with this lot; "X will die" was not considered > suitable for inclusion. But "X will die because..." or "X will die and the repercussions will be..." stood a pretty good chance of getting in. > > The category has fuzzy edges - it gets so it's indistinguishable from Foreshadowing and clues, Authorial intent, Classic themes, Predictions and the two Agenda categories. It's sometimes a matter of judgement which one suits the post best, especially if the relevant bit is less than a paragraph. To get included in more than one of these categories there needed to be some meat on the bone. > Barry, marginally confused - Did you include POV narration (formerly 1.4.2 now 1.2.6.5) and Humour (formerly 1.3.6 now 1.2.6.6) in this latest sort out ? These two are in 1.2.6 Narrative Style with REST, UNNECESSARY, GARBAGE SCOW & TOUCHE. Also, when you say Plot development, did you mean entire group, 1.2.7 through to 1.2.7.6? Maybe not from the numbers of posts mentioned.. Finally, if you had to define what should go in Plot Development and what shouldn't, what are the guidelines? From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Mar 1 21:21:03 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:21:03 -0000 Subject: Religious stuff report In-Reply-To: <20050228065013.GB27832@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > 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. > Sean - point of clarification - should I merge together the religious banning category (1.1.1.3) with the Abanes/Harry Potter & The Bible section (1.1.1.3.1) ? Really I need to in order to remove this 5th level heading, but this will disperse the Abanes thread throughout the other section. OTOH, the dates on the Abanes thread may mean it stays together as an episode within the main thread. Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Mar 1 21:28:32 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 21:28:32 -0000 Subject: Categories sort out Message-ID: Apologies this isn't quite done yet and there are some odd headings all over the place. I am in touch with Paul to find out what the problem is (me doing something wrong I expect). I've gone back to doing another category for the time being (Peter Pettigrew). I expect it will be sorted in a day or two - it is largely there, just some headings to be added. Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Mar 1 22:01:00 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 22:01:00 -0000 Subject: Avada Technologies... Message-ID: An old one from the Yahoo Club days (7052)..tee hee.. "The Voldemort Years" paperback *has* caused a sensation in the publishing world. There has been considerable debate whether to market this book in the biography or business sections, due to the major profile pieces recently published in Forbes. Since his last rebirth, Voldemort has taken to using the name V.Thomas Riddle and has founded Avada Technologies, an Internet ASP dedicated to "taking the dark side out of Internet investing", using its proprietary Kedavra technology. "We decided as a strategic model that dead people don't spend money", said company spokesman Peter Pettigrew. "We were reducing our own customer base, so we made the shift to a voluntary enslavement model. Now they'll come to us." Avada stock rose to 23Galleons 11Sickles in trading yesterday. In other developments, Avada announced it had filed suit against one Harry Potter for infringement of Avada's lightning-bolt trademark. "Let's see him dodge this one", said Pettigrew. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Wed Mar 2 03:19:03 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:19:03 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Religious stuff report In-Reply-To: References: <20050228065013.GB27832@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: <20050302031903.GD741@aardvark.net.au> On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 09:21:03PM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > Sean - point of clarification - should I merge together the religious > banning category (1.1.1.3) with the Abanes/Harry Potter & The Bible > section (1.1.1.3.1) ? Really I need to in order to remove this 5th > level heading, but this will disperse the Abanes thread throughout > the other section. OTOH, the dates on the Abanes thread may mean it > stays together as an episode within the main thread. Whoops almost missed this in the hailstorm of recent mail - I don't think we have much choice in this. For your comfort, it isn't just Abanes who published anti-HP screeds, several different media including books have been used on behalf of religious interests; by far the biggest thread is of course the banning of HP in schools (and not just the American South either). I agree that Abanes is in keeping with much of the category timewise, the issue seems to have been largely dealt with in the club phase. Keep in mind that interested parties will hopefully have options to search this kind of stuff. Sean -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Wed Mar 2 09:24:09 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 20:24:09 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Avada Technologies... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050302092409.GE741@aardvark.net.au> On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 10:01:00PM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > > > An old one from the Yahoo Club days (7052)..tee hee.. Some of my all-time favourite posts: eggplant: 1959 Dirty Harry 2722 Judge Judy 3049 Snape attempts to bury Molly's biography of Harry 5309 Weasley Industries busted ala Microsoft And Joywitch took up the call: 5456 more Daily Profit eggplant again: 5794 Wizard Radio transcript Sean (who's _really_ _honestly_ halfway thorugh Weasley R) -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Mar 2 10:31:32 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:31:32 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Narrative style/Plot development In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8dd5640ea0d90f3708fc1de7e15fb88a@btconnect.com> > Barry, marginally confused - > Did you include POV narration (formerly 1.4.2 now 1.2.6.5) and Humour > (formerly 1.3.6 now 1.2.6.6) in this latest sort out ? These two are > in 1.2.6 Narrative Style with REST, UNNECESSARY, GARBAGE SCOW & > TOUCHE. > Not yet. That's why it's not checked off on the database. One step at a time. See previous rant re: cataloguing gets fitted into whatever gaps there are in what I laughingly call my life. The only things lower in my priorities are ironing and cleaning the oven. If this is unsatisfactory, just let me know. > > Finally, if you had to define what should go in Plot Development and > what shouldn't, what are the guidelines? > > Mostly it's defined by what it isn't - with the other overlapping categories I mentioned it's much easier to decide what is applicable. Clues, foreshadowing, DD's agenda etc. are much easier to identify. What didn't fit comfortably in those but discussed things like plot arc, Jo's story construction (past and future) and the like got the plot development label. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Mar 2 10:51:11 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:51:11 -0000 Subject: Narrative style/Plot development In-Reply-To: <8dd5640ea0d90f3708fc1de7e15fb88a@btconnect.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > Not yet. That's why it's not checked off on the database. > One step at a time. > See previous rant re: cataloguing gets fitted into whatever gaps there > are in what I laughingly call my life. The only things lower in my > priorities are ironing and cleaning the oven. If this is > unsatisfactory, just let me know. > ..anyone who thought I was misrepresenting him in my year's summary of the life of the catalogue, please think again. What was the phrase he used? Oh, yeah..'oozing milk of human kindness'.. your friend and mine, Uncle Barry. I'll give you rant. The Editor's lot is not a happy one. Besieged on all sides by recalcitrant authors who imagine 'deadline' means 'hand in after death'; idiots who couldn't tell a concept from their coccyx; the plain bewildered; the analytically challenged... Fortunately, help is at hand, the 2005 chocolate of the year selection from: http://www.hotelchocolat.com/cx1/ From quigonginger at yahoo.com Wed Mar 2 14:17:00 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 06:17:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Accio programme.. In-Reply-To: <20050301141052.55045.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050302141700.17012.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com> I previously wondered: And would Rosemary Watson be.....? (Yes, I'm 73% sure) And now I am 100% sure! It is our own Pippin, lecturing on Lupin. That would be a good one. I'd also like to hear the one about splinched in translation. That would be interesting. Side note to Sean: I'll fax you a bourbon. Ginger --------------------------------- Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Mar 2 14:55:28 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:55:28 -0000 Subject: Accio programme.. In-Reply-To: <20050302141700.17012.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Ginger wrote: > > I previously wondered: > > And would Rosemary Watson be.....? (Yes, I'm 73% sure) > > And now I am 100% sure! It is our own Pippin, lecturing on Lupin. That would be a good one. I'd also like to hear the one about splinched in translation. That would be interesting. > > Side note to Sean: I'll fax you a bourbon. > > Ginger > Carolyn: Yes, it's Pippin, and I've also seen the first draft of the paper. Obviously, I am keen on all subversive theories per se, and would love to meet Pippin and hear her defend ESE!Lupin post-HBP (especially given the possibility that it will be demolished). Unfortunately, though, that's not enough of an incentive on its own to make me pay for two day's compulsory attendance (and an overnight stay) in order to listen to a load of other stuff that I am simply totally uninterested in/borderline very seriously dislike. I'll probably order the papers in case there is some worthwhile content that I've missed. I am an efficient re-cycler, so the rest can go towards pushing up daisies. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Wed Mar 2 17:46:55 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 17:46:55 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: 1.2.7.7 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700dcbad87606a5432772ed8a33fa440@btconnect.com> I'm about half-way through this bunch - War and Military strategy - only 39 posts in the category, but I'm thinking that many don't deserve to be there. A mention of the forthcoming battle with Voldy or discussing who can't be trusted to stay loyal doesn't gel with my idea of the category heading. Just what are the criteria for this one? Barry From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Mar 2 18:17:58 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:17:58 -0000 Subject: 1.2.7.7 In-Reply-To: <700dcbad87606a5432772ed8a33fa440@btconnect.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > I'm about half-way through this bunch - War and Military strategy - > only 39 posts in the category, but I'm thinking that many don't deserve > to be there. > > A mention of the forthcoming battle with Voldy or discussing who can't > be trusted to stay loyal doesn't gel with my idea of the category > heading. > > Just what are the criteria for this one? > > > Barry Oh, ok - I took a look at this section last week, but did not implement my comments because I thought best to wait and see what happened to the rest of the section. As you can see there was only one short thread which I thought was really on topic (the Grey Wolf, Pip one). The other major one could be left under Good & Evil if you like, don't feel that strongly about it. Here's my message again: Carolyn: 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. From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 2 21:22:06 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:22:06 -0000 Subject: Has anyone made eye contact with her lately? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" > (sort of) wrote: Oh, yes. I'm all caught up on the Main List, TOC, etc. I'm speeding through my review categories as well as my review of The Review and recategorizing process, I'm running my own business, I'm doing my level best to keep a certain whiskered curmudgeon happy, and I'm throwing a fabulous dinner party this afternoon. (Scampers off, humming a cheerful little tune ...) --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: You're *caught up* on the *main list?* > > Anne > who can't even keep up w/TOC these days Talisman: A bit Stepford, isn't it? From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 2 21:44:06 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:44:06 -0000 Subject: Review of 1.2.2.1. Adult/Child Lit? Message-ID: Talisman stumbles through the Catalogue door, to rousing choruses of "Ding, Dong the... Hey! I'm not dead yet! Just MIA in RW Troll wars. Then to, I thought I'd better make some progress before I showed my face. Finished my review of 1.2.2.1. Adult/Child Lit.; scheduled executions; and, fell to my knees praising God that I won't have to read any more "think of the kiddies" arguments, at least until the next duffer starts up... I'm axing 100 of the 297 in this category. Could have axed a few more if I really WAS jealous of Kneasy's percentages. :P (Just wait and see what happens now you've whet his appetite for whacking categories en masse. His initial urge to purge that Military Strategy/Tactics set was palpable.) I like the slurry of close combat, anyway. Back to kiddie lit: Lots of nothing new, nothing at all, mere agreement, and OT. Kept some posts that were really not all that fresh but were at least carefully argued, maybe entertaining (rare), or closely tied to arguments in other categories that were useful. (E.g. better about genre, but closely tied to older ideas about age appropriateness.) Kept some posts that were mostly regurgitations of topic-appropriate articles critiquing the HP series because I think someone who actually wants to research this issue will find these references helpful. Going forward, I would say: only code posts here if they provided a useful link/reference or a justified argument (for defining a target audience) drawing from a persuasive source, be it canon, critical technique, external references, etc. There should be something clearly beyond the poster's bald statement, personal feelings/morals, or experiences with local children. Even when an opinion is based on canon, let's shoot for insightful and interesting use of canon. Not just "If DD betrays Hermione's trust the children will never do their homework again, blah, blah, blah." I thought I was done with this category-combo. I hadn't noticed that I had the 1.2.2.2. NY Times articles, too. (Damn, can`t argue it doesn't belong here.) Did this happen in the reshuffle? Or was I just blinded by optimism? Ah well, I guess I'm going back in now so that I can finally put paid to the accursed lot. Abandon hope, all ye who enter here. Talisman P.S. Carolyn: Love your Molly Weasley bit. I quite seriously believe she's ripe for the skewer. A Dark Mark over The Burrow? Garden Gnomes dancing merrily in pools of collecting blood, tossing Lockhart's text about for confetti? My pulse quickens. Kneasy: I am trying. I have started yet another post to you (currently at 6 pages, responding to your TOC quip re the pensieve memory-edit). As I trudge back into the catalogue, I fear for it joining the heap of dusty, unfinished posts that will never serve a purpose--other than to cause my will to be contested for insanity when surviving relations sort through them. Anne, I see you waving at me. I just wonder why your thumbs are in your ears... From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Mar 2 23:38:19 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:38:19 -0000 Subject: Kiddie lit, murder etc Message-ID: Talisman: A bit Stepford, isn't it? Carolyn: ..more Desperate Housewives.. T: I thought I was done with this category-combo. I hadn't noticed that I had the 1.2.2.2. NY Times articles, too. (Damn, can`t argue it doesn't belong here.) Did this happen in the reshuffle? Or was I just blinded by optimism? Ah well, I guess I'm going back in now so that I can finally put paid to the accursed lot. C: It's mainly Penny's rants. Once you have read the first one or two, I expect you can chop a lot. Even she apologises for repeating herself. Think it was there originally in that group ..(hopes..). Talisman P.S. Carolyn: Love your Molly Weasley bit. I quite seriously believe she's ripe for the skewer. A Dark Mark over The Burrow? Garden Gnomes dancing merrily in pools of collecting blood, tossing Lockhart's text about for confetti? My pulse quickens. ::purrs:: At last, someone who understands... From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 3 01:52:08 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 01:52:08 -0000 Subject: Seemed reasonable... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote:> RE:1.2.2.2. NY Times articles> > C: It's mainly Penny's rants. Once you have read the first one or > two, I expect you can chop a lot. Even she apologises for repeating > herself. T: I loved this from one of Penny's posts: "But, what about 2005? All 7 books are written & sitting there on the shelves of your local libraries & bookstores." Way back in August 2000 one might have thought so, eh? Carolyn >> ::purrs:: > At last, someone who understands... Talisman We'll make a pact: If Rowling doesn't cap her soon, you drive and I'll shoot. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Thu Mar 3 03:05:40 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 14:05:40 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Kiddie lit, murder etc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050303030540.GA945@aardvark.net.au> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 11:38:19PM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > Talisman > > P.S. Carolyn: Love your Molly Weasley bit. > I quite seriously believe she's ripe for the skewer. > > A Dark Mark over The Burrow? Garden Gnomes dancing merrily in pools > of collecting blood, tossing Lockhart's text about for confetti? My > pulse quickens. > > > ::purrs:: > At last, someone who understands... Am I going to hear some reasons for this bloodlust, or is there a nice juicy post to refer me to? Still on Ron Weasley but progress is slow due to a screaming tooth which will be yanked tomorrow; it's hard to concentrate for more than an hour at a time :( Have been examining the Evil Overlord rules and I do believe Voldy has broken a few more in OotP, to wit: 47. If I learn that a callow youth has begun a quest to destroy me, I will slay him while he is still a callow youth instead of waiting for him to mature. (seems to have great trouble with this one) 75. I will instruct my Legions of Terror to attack the hero en masse, instead of standing around waiting while members break off and attack one or two at a time. (cf. idiotic tactics at MoM) 98. If an attractive young couple enters my realm, I will carefully monitor their activities. If I find they are happy and affectionate, I will ignore them. However if circumstance have forced them together against their will and they spend all their time bickering and criticizing each other except during the intermittent occasions when they are saving each others' lives at which point there are hints of sexual tension, I will immediately order their execution. (Ron and Hermione - dead giveaway) 115. I will not engage an enemy single-handedly until all my soldiers are dead. (well he just can't help it) 117. No matter how much I want revenge, I will never order an underling "Leave him. He's mine!" (always check for presence of DD first) There should be a new one: 153. If by chance I need to find out the meaning of the prophecy which tells the hero how to destroy me, it might be a good idea to go after the oracle and whoever heard it first instead of trying to manipulate the hero into it and sending my incompetent lieutenants after him. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Thu Mar 3 04:52:51 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 15:52:51 +1100 Subject: quotey things Message-ID: <20050303045251.GB945@aardvark.net.au> Everyone seems to think if Ron isn't a seer it's his Mum's fault. Oh, and he can't be trusted...arghh.. A couple of quotes I though Carolyn might appreciate: In America only the successful writer is important, in France all writers are important, in England no writer is important, and in Australia you have to explain what a writer is. -- Geoffrey Cottrell Everywhere I go I'm asked if I think the university stifles writers. My opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them. There's many a bestseller that could have been prevented by a good teacher. -- Flannery O'Connor I KNEW I didn't have a novel in me :) -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Mar 3 10:59:32 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 10:59:32 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] more... In-Reply-To: <20050303045251.GB945@aardvark.net.au> References: <20050303045251.GB945@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: <94b57c34e6ef4356ba20b76d2d07f773@btconnect.com> 1.2.7.5 Bangs and ambushes - was 76, now 70 1.2.7.6 Foreshadowing, clues and misdirection - was 405, now 395 1.2.7.7 War and military strategy - was 39, now 25 Not much to tickle the fancy apart from a theory that Rita Skeeter is a bloke in drag (even does interviews in the closet) and an early post expressing confidence that JKR is not the sort of writer to kill her characters. Such touching naivety deserves nothing but the most traumatic disillusionment. Serve 'em right, says I. That clears all the 1.2.7 section. Talisman - bugger the catalogue - finish your posts. Sean - the Molly posts. It's a female thing. They tend to get a bit stroppy when women aren't characterised as thrusting, go it alone, "take charge of your life, Girl!" types. Mind you, when they do they end up like Dolores or Bella. Sad really. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Thu Mar 3 14:22:25 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 01:22:25 +1100 Subject: Weasel-words et. al Message-ID: <20050303142225.GA16892@aardvark.net.au> Hm looks like Catalogue Central is down for the time being. While I wait to finish the last Weasley, I've been rereading Potterverse and two things come to mind: 1. What is the significance of the Hanged Man tarot to canon? It pops up at the beginning of GoF and yet again in OotP. Generally the Hanged Man is self-sacrifice/renewal, which makes sense in the GoF context (renewal of Voldy) but the OotP sense is directed at Ron, and is much less clear. Since Ron is Everyman, a spot of renewal sounds a bit dodgy. And why does Luna read magazines upside-down, hmmm? 2. I've become increasingly aware of some oft-repeated Rowlingwords, and the most visibly annoying is 'bracingly'. As in: "Don't worry, I'm sure they'll be able to stick it back on, Harry", said Ron bracingly. Every author is guilty of such things, but Rowling often reminds me of Christie and this is one of the less endearing similarities. So far the bracing talk is all male-oriented, but I'm sure Hermione will be bracing any time now. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Mar 3 14:34:56 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:34:56 -0000 Subject: Seemed reasonable.../site is temporarily down In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" wrote: > > Carolyn > >> ::purrs:: > > At last, someone who understands... > > Talisman > > We'll make a pact: If Rowling doesn't cap her soon, you drive and > I'll shoot. Kneasy stirs: Talisman - bugger the catalogue - finish your posts. Sean - the Molly posts. It's a female thing. They tend to get a bit stroppy when women aren't characterised as thrusting, go it alone, "take charge of your life, Girl!" types. Mind you, when they do they end up like Dolores or Bella. Sad really. Carolyn: You're on for that drive-by shoot up, Talisman. However, we need to do a detour en route to Devon - emergency call from mid-Wales. An old lion gone native, can't cope with the 20th century, let alone the 21st apparently. Sad when it happens, but we could try tranquilisers first (anything with gin really), although I see Melclaros is recommending Ovaltine over on TOC. Also - apologies to all - the database is down at the moment. Paul and I need to sort something out rather urgently. Hopefully usual service will be restored later today. From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Mar 3 16:29:50 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:29:50 -0000 Subject: Recreational Interlude Message-ID: Talisman: >Anne, I see you waving at me. I just wonder why your thumbs are in >your ears... *hastily sticks hands behind back* Talisman (on post for Kneasy): >I fear for it >joining the heap of dusty, unfinished posts that will never serve a >purpose--other than to cause my will to be contested for insanity >when surviving relations sort through them. They already know you're insane, due to your habit of repeatedly accompanying groups of teenyboppers into the wilderness for days on end. If *I* ever do that again, it will be in a proper cabin with heat/AC, full baths, a private bedroom, and fully equipped kitchenette. And if someone is kind enough to build a fire outside, I will deign to sit beside it, poke it with a stick, and eat the marshmallows and chocolate straight from the packages. You can have the graham crackers. To Carolyn: Hey. I like Molly. But I also like mayhem. *has dilemma* Okay, can Molly take out a few DEs before she gets it? 'Cause you *know* she can. :> Anne *wanders off singing "I am strong... I am invincible... I am womaaaan..."* From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Mar 3 16:42:25 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:42:25 -0000 Subject: Recreational Interlude In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Anne wrote: > > Okay, can Molly take out a few DEs before she gets it? 'Cause you > *know* she can. :> > > Anne > > *wanders off singing "I am strong... I am invincible... I am womaaaan..."* Potioncat: I maintain that Molly Weasley was fighting the Dark Arts in the Black house even if the kids thought it was just house cleaning and she could easily become the DADA teacher...of course she might need help with Boggarts. I'm sure Professor Snape would be glad to step in for that chapter. Potioncat, another Molly fan...and do I detect Girl Scout leaders in this bunch? From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 3 18:39:19 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 18:39:19 -0000 Subject: more...and more In-Reply-To: <94b57c34e6ef4356ba20b76d2d07f773@btconnect.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith wrote> > Sean - the Molly posts. It's a female thing. They tend to get a >bit stroppy when women aren't characterised as thrusting, go it >alone, "take charge of your life, Girl!" types. Mind you, when >they do they end up like Dolores or Bella. > Sad really. Talisman's little ears perk up. Don't approve of those "thrusting" types? Quelle honte, mon ami. But must we really choose between Molly or Delores? Hyman's beard! (And, when did you and Bella break up?) Consider Madame Rosmerta. She seems cheerful enough. I'll bet she gets bent over her bar on a regular basis, all in those sparkling turquoise heels. Then serves up a nice pint of mead. What more could a man want? Lily appears to have been a foxy witch with both a wicked charm wand and a capacity for domesticity. `Course Rowling snuffed her before we ever got started. No, darling, I'm all shakti to your shiva. But Molly Weasley is a thoroughly tiresome creature. If you enjoy the company of people who are amusing and thoughtful, you will skip her altogether. I've never bothered, but there are plenty of posts out there that will run-down her abysmal attributes, if you've missed them. Here's just a bit. Molly is a "Mother." Right? Sure, she is Arthur's woman, but she's still more a mother than a lover. All he gets is a dry peck on the cheek and a good scolding, even when he's lying in St. Mungo's. In fact, I'd say he's more bawled out than balled, at least nowadays. And you can't put that all down to POV. She may be a new recruit to the Order, but it turns out she's a bit of a crybaby. We've yet to see her do more than clean house(what's wrong with a few doxies?)cook and take a turn at guard duty. Still well within the motherly ambit. So, just what sort of mother is she? You know as well as I do. She's slightly better than Petunia, if that's the index we're using. Otherwise, she's just the sort of mother from whom you'd escape at the very first opportunity. That Percy idolization nonsense. That alone warrants a kick in the rear. You may recall, Kneasy, the Pre-OoP dialogue we had about the Weasley's names, etc. I still like the traitorous Hotspur as a name- sake for old Percy, but the name also reflects on Molly's character. Percy is a synonym for a mollycoddled mama's boy, a pantywaist, a lily-livered goody-goody. I'm not making this stuff up, it's all at Roget's 421.10. He didn't get there by himself. As I said so long ago, in predicting (no-brainer) Percy's betrayal, I was really looking forward to Molly getting some of the comeuppance she deserves. Well, she hasn't gotten nearly enough. It may chafe that her shining little Prefect/Head Boy/ M.O.M. star has turned his back on his parents, but she is too stupid to recognize her own failures of judgment in the matter. She's still keeping score on how many prefects are in the family and, for most of OoP, the twins are still keeping all their plans secret. Of course we do wonder what she gets up to all day at The Burrow, at least prior to OoP. Not Pilates. Not any clever little way to turn a dime for managing school supplies. Perhaps it has something to do with Arthur's batteries and a picture of Lockhart. No, forget that, that would actually be fun. In any event, in spite of the fact that she's supposed to be this Mother figure, she apparently can't be bothered thinking about her children's feelings or even how to make a decent sandwich There was a time in my life when I was feeding seven people--while working a demanding professional job--and I can tell you no one went off for so much as a day trip with a sandwich they didn't like, let alone a sack of dry ones. And, I didn't even have a wand. If Rowling wanted to keep Molly the personification of Motherhood, and yet mitigate her thoughtlessness, she should have had Arthur knock her up a few more times and at least given her a busy nursery to cope with. Something. Oh, but that's right. It's not that she hasn't any time. We see that she can doodle snitches all over chocolate Easter eggs for Harry, if she feels like it. How about the bullshit of giving a budding adolescent boy a lace covered rag to wear to his first ball? Yeah, I could give a shit about you, Ron. Don't have time to try to fix it, either. I'm too busy knitting my darling new pseudo-son's jumper and kissing Percy's pasty arse. Sick of Percy? Juxtapose the Twins: powerfully magical, talented, bright, enterprising, courageous and--lo and behold--amusing! Yes, some how, in spite of all her stomping around and honking like a goose, she has managed some children you might want to know. And what does she do? Her level best to squash it out of them. She's a prig and an ass and a human Howler. Pitch her in the flames and be done with it. Love and Kisses, Talisman, Who has been predicting Snape for DADA Prof. in Books 6 and 7, since July 2003(HPfGUs #73715)in spite of the fact that bboy was skipping around a few months ago chirping:"you heard it here first." P.S. When I was a Girl Scout we carried weapons and swam naked. Carolyn: Those tranquilizer darts sound like just the thing. And you know the way? From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Mar 4 01:06:18 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 01:06:18 -0000 Subject: more...and more In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith > wrote> > > Sean - the Molly posts. It's a female thing. They tend to get a > >bit stroppy when women aren't characterised as thrusting, go it > >alone, "take charge of your life, Girl!" types. Mind you, when > >they do they end up like Dolores or Bella. > > Sad really. > > > Talisman's little ears perk up. > > She's a prig and an ass and a human Howler. Pitch her in the flames > and be done with it. > > Love and Kisses, > > Talisman, > > > P.S. When I was a Girl Scout we carried weapons and swam naked. > > Carolyn: Those tranquilizer darts sound like just the thing. And you > know the way? Alas, the wretched man is right..you really must finish some of those posts, even at the expense of the catalogue. This had me convulsed at the end of an exceptionally annoying day... no mean achievement; I thank you. Making an immense effort to be charitable to JKR, since Molly is such a dreadful stereotype, do you suppose she's really trying to make some sort of point about manipulative motherhood and the dubious joys of family life? As the Weasleys unravel, I am reminded somewhat of Ivy Compton Burnett's remorseless dissections - ever read 'Mother & Son' ? I was once moved to give it to a particularly frightful quasi- mother in law for Christmas. Very effective. But this is just wishful thinking methinks. Sadly, our Moll seems far from complex, just a stock figure to fit into the 1950s landscape. Sean, Kneasy's comments tell you all you need to know as to why that inspires undiluted rage in a sub-section of female readers. Ok, so he's amusing himself pressing some buttons to get a reaction, but the truth is the books do only provide these terribly limited female characters. The only possible response is to treat the whole thing as a joke, and a bad one at that. Carolyn PS Talisman, it's pretty easy to find him apparently.. the billowing clouds of green and black smoke, the screams of people he's annoyed, the empty bottles and broken bones..a grim sight, not for the faint hearted, I'm told. Your girl guide training will be invaluable - on the couple of occasions I was forced to go, all we did was learn to lay the table :( From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Mar 4 01:30:22 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 20:30:22 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: more...and more References: Message-ID: Talisman: > P.S. When I was a Girl Scout we carried weapons and swam naked. > Potioncat: Well! In my Girl Scout Council, that kind of outing would require a mountain of paperwork! The last time there were weapons on a camping trip, I was with the Marines. Carolyn: Ok, so he's amusing himself pressing some buttons to get a reaction, but the truth is the books do only provide these terribly limited female characters. The only possible response is to treat the whole thing as a joke, and a bad one at that. Potioncat: Oh come on, you're taking Molly much too seriously, or not seriously enough. She is funny. Carolyn Your girl guide training will be invaluable - on the couple of occasions I was forced to go, all we did was learn to lay the table :( Potioncat: My days as a girl in Girl Scouts was pretty much like that. Now the girls go rock climbing, cave exploring, wind surfing, horse back riding, weapon...erm, rifle shooting. But we still make s'mores. By the way, Sean, have you finished the Granger section? What did you do with Hermione/Moody ship posts? I'm reviewing Moody, but haven't taken action yet. If you're going to keep any, I'll leave Moody in. If you do reject, are you coding Just for a Laugh as well? Kathy W. 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 ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Fri Mar 4 04:16:09 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:16:09 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: more...and more In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050304041609.GA3986@aardvark.net.au> On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 08:30:22PM -0500, Kathy Willson wrote: > Carolyn: Ok, so he's amusing himself pressing some buttons to get a > reaction, but the truth is the books do only provide these terribly > limited female characters. The only possible response is to treat the > whole thing as a joke, and a bad one at that. > Potioncat: Oh come on, you're taking Molly much too seriously, or not > seriously enough. She is funny. Also take into account Harry's POV, which is to say the least, ignorant of Modern Mother Techniques. I've seen women do worse with only two kids, so Molly isn't unusual or unrealistic. She is a scatterbrain though. > By the way, Sean, have you finished the Granger section? What did you do > with Hermione/Moody ship posts? I'm reviewing Moody, but haven't taken > action yet. If you're going to keep any, I'll leave Moody in. If you do > reject, are you coding Just for a Laugh as well? Potioncat, I've done Granger (to death with a mallet bwahaha). If I haven't already coded for Laughs, please do so. I can't check with the database just now :( -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From kking0731 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 4 05:44:42 2005 From: kking0731 at hotmail.com (snow15145) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 05:44:42 -0000 Subject: more...and more In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Talisman's little ears perk up. >snip> > > Molly is a "Mother." Right? > > Sure, she is Arthur's woman, but she's still more a mother than a > lover. All he gets is a dry peck on the cheek and a good scolding, > even when he's lying in St. Mungo's. In fact, I'd say he's more > bawled out than balled, at least nowadays. And you can't put that > all down to POV. > > She may be a new recruit to the Order, but it turns out she's a bit > of a crybaby. We've yet to see her do more than clean house(what's > wrong with a few doxies?)cook and take a turn at guard duty. Still > well within the motherly ambit. > > So, just what sort of mother is she? You know as well as I do. > She's slightly better than Petunia, if that's the index we're > using. Otherwise, she's just the sort of mother from whom you'd > escape at the very first opportunity. > > That Percy idolization nonsense. That alone warrants a kick in the > rear. You may recall, Kneasy, the Pre-OoP dialogue we had about the > Weasley's names, etc. I still like the traitorous Hotspur as a name- > sake for old Percy, but the name also reflects on Molly's character. > > Percy is a synonym for a mollycoddled mama's boy, a pantywaist, a > lily-livered goody-goody. I'm not making this stuff up, it's all at > Roget's 421.10. > > He didn't get there by himself. > > As I said so long ago, in predicting (no-brainer) Percy's betrayal, > I was really looking forward to Molly getting some of the > comeuppance she deserves. > > Well, she hasn't gotten nearly enough. It may chafe that her shining > little Prefect/Head Boy/ M.O.M. star has turned his back on his > parents, but she is too stupid to recognize her own failures of > judgment in the matter. She's still keeping score on how many > prefects are in the family and, for most of OoP, the twins are still > keeping all their plans secret. > > Of course we do wonder what she gets up to all day at The Burrow, at > least prior to OoP. Not Pilates. Not any clever little way to turn > a dime for managing school supplies. Perhaps it has something to do > with Arthur's batteries and a picture of Lockhart. No, forget that, > that would actually be fun. > > In any event, in spite of the fact that she's supposed to be this > Mother figure, she apparently can't be bothered thinking about her > children's feelings or even how to make a decent sandwich > > There was a time in my life when I was feeding seven people--while > working a demanding professional job--and I can tell you no one > went off for so much as a day trip with a sandwich they didn't like, > let alone a sack of dry ones. And, I didn't even have a wand. > > If Rowling wanted to keep Molly the personification of Motherhood, > and yet mitigate her thoughtlessness, she should have had Arthur > knock her up a few more times and at least given her a busy nursery > to cope with. Something. > > Oh, but that's right. It's not that she hasn't any time. We see > that she can doodle snitches all over chocolate Easter eggs for > Harry, if she feels like it. > > How about the bullshit of giving a budding adolescent boy a lace > covered rag to wear to his first ball? Yeah, I could give a shit > about you, Ron. Don't have time to try to fix it, either. I'm too > busy knitting my darling new pseudo-son's jumper and kissing Percy's > pasty arse. > > Sick of Percy? Juxtapose the Twins: powerfully magical, talented, > bright, enterprising, courageous and--lo and behold--amusing! Yes, > some how, in spite of all her stomping around and honking like a > goose, she has managed some children you might want to know. And > what does she do? Her level best to squash it out of them. > > She's a prig and an ass and a human Howler. Pitch her in the flames > and be done with it. Snow: Ahhhhh, why are you picking on poor Mrs. Weasley, she is the epitome of motherhood! She loves all of her son's equally, doesn't she? There's Bill who she berets constantly and insultingly over the length of his hair, nothing that I can remember said to or about Charley (from her), the twins are persecuted at a daily, if not hourly rate but then, but then you have Percy, the much beloved son who can do no wrong in her eyes, Ron who also made prefect like his brothers Bill and Percy, which allows him to be considered at about the same rate as Bill. Molly is a very interesting mother figure. The one child whom Molly dotes over, even over the only girl in the Weasley clan for three generations, is the very one to leave her high and dry, how ironic. I have to throw my couple cents worth in and say that all these children do not belong to her, naturally. I don't know how many of you, if any, read my Weasley/Prewett twins theory: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/101911 I will stand by this theory even though when Rowling was asked about the Prewett brothers she said, "their history is not particularly significant in terms of the overall plot". Doesn't mean that there is no significance at all, just to the overall plot. It makes perfect sense to me that Molly shows prejudice; not only for others and their circumstances, but also to the family that she has raised. I wouldn't mind at all if Molly got her comeuppance! Talisman, > P.S. When I was a Girl Scout we carried weapons and swam naked. Snow: Lucky you, all we did was sing Kumbaya and memorize the handbook. Brownies wasn't too bad though. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Mar 4 11:02:10 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:02:10 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: more...and more In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <64221abfb45e03fb042d49706ba3786b@btconnect.com> On 4 Mar 2005, at 01:06, carolynwhite2 wrote: > > > > > > Talisman's little ears perk up. > > > > > > She's a prig and an ass and a human Howler. Pitch her in the flames > > and be done with it. > > > > Love and Kisses, > > > > Talisman, > > > > > > P.S. When I was a Girl Scout we carried weapons and swam naked. > > > > Carolyn: Those tranquilizer darts sound like just the thing. And you > > know the way? > > > Making an immense effort to be charitable to JKR, since Molly is such > a dreadful stereotype, do you suppose she's really trying to make > some sort of point about manipulative motherhood and the dubious joys > of family life? As the Weasleys unravel, I am reminded somewhat of > Ivy Compton Burnett's remorseless dissections - ever read 'Mother & > Son' ? I was once moved to give it to a particularly frightful quasi- > mother in law for Christmas. Very effective. > > But this is just wishful thinking methinks. Sadly, our Moll seems far > from complex, just a stock figure to fit into the 1950s landscape. > Sean, Kneasy's comments tell you all you need to know as to why that > inspires undiluted rage in a sub-section of female readers. > > Ok, so he's amusing himself pressing some buttons to get a reaction, > but the truth is the books do only provide these terribly limited > female characters. The only possible response is to treat the whole > thing as a joke, and a bad one at that. > > Carolyn > > PS Talisman, it's pretty easy to find him apparently.. the billowing > clouds of green and black smoke, the screams of people he's annoyed, > the empty bottles and broken bones..a grim sight, not for the faint > hearted, I'm told. > > Your girl guide training will be invaluable - on the couple of > occasions I was forced to go, all we did was learn to lay the table :( > A slow smile can be discerned slightly to the north of his grizzled beard. His red-rimmed eyes (the result of drinking from wet glasses) can be seen twinkling behind gold-framed spectacles. He detects thrashing in the water. A touch of insecurity perhaps? A need to validate personal choices? My, my. Can it be this easy? Besides, the site is still down and I need entertainment from somewhere. Last year the BBC broadcast a series - Grumpy Old Men - (all of the participants younger than me, so they've still got time to get *really* irascible) complaining of the vicissitudes of modern life. Mobile phones, shops, modern youth, fashion, Christmas, etc. Quite entertaining. Now they're doing Grumpy Old Women. I detect a difference. While the men complained about society, the women complain about themselves. Enlightening. Such self-absorption. Such a seeking to comply with a chosen stereotype. Still; only to be expected from a sub-set gullible enough to believe that somebody else's idea of beauty can be bought over the counter in a fancy-shaped bottle. "Igor! Start boiling the oil. We could have visitors." -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 3574 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Mar 4 12:24:38 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 12:24:38 -0000 Subject: more...and more In-Reply-To: <64221abfb45e03fb042d49706ba3786b@btconnect.com> Message-ID: Kneasy wrote: > Last year the BBC broadcast a series - Grumpy Old Men - (all of > the participants younger than me, so they've still got time to > get *really* irascible) complaining of the vicissitudes of modern > life. Mobile phones, shops, modern youth, fashion, Christmas, etc. > Quite entertaining. Now they're doing Grumpy Old Women. I detect a > difference. While the men complained about society, the women > complain about themselves. Enlightening. Such self-absorption. > Such a seeking to comply with a chosen stereotype. Still; only to > be expected from a sub-set gullible enough to believe that > somebody else's idea of beauty can be bought over the counter in a > fancy-shaped bottle. > > "Igor! Start boiling the oil. We could have visitors." Ah. So I wasn't the only one who noticed. Enlightening, wasn't it? I'm not sure I'd put the women's complaints down to self-absorption though, more an inability to stop giving a damn about society's expectations of them. The old men were far more arrogant: pronunciations from on high about everything that's wrong with the world, and why it should conform to their expectations of it and how horribly unfair it is that mobile phones exist. The women were complaining about how irritating it is to have to conform to society's expectations of them. It's awfully sad that they still feel they have to. I'd be fascinated to know what the grumpy oldies of fifty years hence will be bitching about. Will the male and female groups be more similar in their grumping subjects, or is an obsession with female appearance something our species is stuck with? I have a horrible feeling it's the latter. If only we were descended from birds rather than mammals, then it'd be the blokes having to deal with keeping the bright colours bright, and the impracticality of maintaining overly-long absurdly-coloured lice-free tail feathers... I wonder what they'd complain about then. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Mar 4 12:31:06 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 12:31:06 -0000 Subject: more...and more/site still down In-Reply-To: <64221abfb45e03fb042d49706ba3786b@btconnect.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, the bored and unspeakable Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > "Igor! Start boiling the oil. We could have visitors." Trusting this refers to a delightful saute of some kind, preparatory to some pretty serious cooking, I know we'd both be delighted to accept. Your wine cellar sounds excellent. After all, you have a lot of explaining to do, and we'll set aside plenty of time... *Meanwhile* Apologies for continuing lack of access to the site. This isn't a communications problem of the sort we have had before, but because Paul has had to close the site down whilst he works on the database to fix a problem (erm, caused by me...sorry). I'm working on compiling a long list of our definitions so far in the interim..we could check it over .. She pauses. Carolyn is astonished at all the glum faces; they didn't really think they were getting a half day just because it was Friday and the weekend coming up did they? From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Mar 4 15:27:47 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:27:47 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: more...and more In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4c581f3736c99cbef50e8d03288b8c1a@btconnect.com> > > Ah. So I wasn't the only one who noticed. Enlightening, wasn't it? > > I'm not sure I'd put the women's complaints down to self-absorption > though, more an inability to stop giving a damn about society's > expectations of them. The old men were far more arrogant: > pronunciations from on high about everything that's wrong with the > world, and why it should conform to their expectations of it and how > horribly unfair it is that mobile phones exist. Almost. The truly unreasonable and extremely irritating aspect of mobile phones isn't that they exist, it's that others use theirs to call you. Something I avoid by refusing to have one - even when BT offered me one for free. Being instantly available at *someone else's* beck and call is unacceptable. This drawback has been neatly side-stepped by all modern businesses, who insist that customers speak to a computer instead. > The women were > complaining about how irritating it is to have to conform to > society's expectations of them. It's awfully sad that they still > feel they have to. > Bugger society. It can mind it's own damn business. What you have to worry about are individuals. You can safely ignore anyone who can't screw up your life. Sitting in my dentist's waiting room I browse through the women's mags - and you know what? It looks to me that most of the pressure on women is coming from other women. "Do that....look like this...enjoy the other....or you're a dowdy old bag and a failure to boot." I'll let you into a little secret. Men aren't all that fussy. They're just thankful for finding somebody who regards them as even faintly interesting. So much so that they'll usually end up marrying this person with such remarkable insight. > I'd be fascinated to know what the grumpy oldies of fifty years > hence will be bitching about. Will the male and female groups be > more similar in their grumping subjects, or is an obsession with > female appearance something our species is stuck with? I have a > horrible feeling it's the latter.? If only we were descended from > birds rather than mammals, then it'd be the blokes having to deal > with keeping the bright colours bright, and the impracticality of > maintaining overly-long absurdly-coloured lice-free tail feathers... > > I wonder what they'd complain about then. > Same sort of stuff. Biology and evolution don't move as fast as technology. That's a major part of the problem of course...... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 2829 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Fri Mar 4 15:32:37 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 02:32:37 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: more...and more In-Reply-To: References: <64221abfb45e03fb042d49706ba3786b@btconnect.com> Message-ID: <20050304153237.GA16960@aardvark.net.au> With an eeek of disappointment, a surly glance at the silent Deux ex Catalogua, and an air of injured martyrdom, the penguin sets down the popcorn and fizz, adjusts Wollongong Warriors scarf, and beadily eyes dungrollin: > I'm not sure I'd put the women's complaints down to self-absorption > though, more an inability to stop giving a damn about society's > expectations of them. The old men were far more arrogant: > pronunciations from on high about everything that's wrong with the > world, and why it should conform to their expectations of it and how > horribly unfair it is that mobile phones exist. The women were > complaining about how irritating it is to have to conform to > society's expectations of them. It's awfully sad that they still > feel they have to. There is one noticeable difference: the men project outwards, the women project inwards. Men have merely mastered the art of blaming everyone but themselves. Women are still clinging to the false belief that the smallest violin in the world is actually audible. Not bashing each other over the head with the tiny things would be a good start, although much less entertaining. > I'd be fascinated to know what the grumpy oldies of fifty years > hence will be bitching about. Will the male and female groups be > more similar in their grumping subjects, or is an obsession with > female appearance something our species is stuck with? I have a > horrible feeling it's the latter. If only we were descended from > birds rather than mammals, then it'd be the blokes having to deal > with keeping the bright colours bright, and the impracticality of > maintaining overly-long absurdly-coloured lice-free tail feathers... > > I wonder what they'd complain about then. Another red herring: it is true that women have a dangerous obsession with self-image; it doesn't change the fact that they are still essentially in control of the mating game. So gaudy or not, men are still flitting about gathering impressive trinkets, beating their absurd six-packs and roaring about something or other with ever-so-careless glances in the direction of the female herd. Trust a penguin: when they've got you sitting on an egg for six months in the middle of Antarctic snow blizzards while they swan off north to stuff themselves, you know who's got the better end of the deal. The penguin reflects hopefully on the coming Ashes^H^H^H^HQuidditch tour of England. We've been thrashing the Moutohora Macaws, the Chudley Cannons should be a walk-over. Hmm...*swigs fizz* *munches popcorn* I'll wait till the next round before I turn the telly back on... ewe2 -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From timregan at microsoft.com Fri Mar 4 19:59:00 2005 From: timregan at microsoft.com (Tim Regan) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:59:00 -0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Accio programme.. Message-ID: <47DA59BF3D32334DAF6A67C7508991AB01589A9A@EUR-MSG-20.europe.corp.microsoft.com> Hi All, Oh dear, this isn't my week for feeling loved by the HP-fandom. Having been roasted for a work project over on The Leaky Cauldron's readers' comments section ( http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/MTarchives/005553.html and http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=55 53 ) I then come here to find that the conference I'm on the organising committee for is attracting much criticism: "what are other people's reactions? you can probably guess mine", "can't see anything there that'd tempt me". Luckily I didn't give up reading the thread, and got through to Ginger's call out for my presentation and Potioncat's reminder that we should be the last group on the planet to complain that others take fan theories about the HP books too seriously. Obviously you'll have to take my thoughts on the matter with a pinch of salt since I am spending loads of time helping to organise Accio (you can see me at the first committee face-to-face on the website at http://www.accio.org.uk/about_accio.shtml ). My main reason for attending is the late night discussions with people over a beer. These will be fans I've read and respected on-line and I'm really really excited to meet some of them in the flesh. It's such a shame that most of these events (Nimbus 2003, Convention Alley 2004, The Witching Hour 2005, and Lumos 2006) are all in the American continent. Surely British and other European fans deserve a conference of our own. There is a tension between treating it as a fan get together or as a more academic discussion of the books and the cultural phenomenon, but I hope we've got the balance right. If Accio is a success (I hope it is, despite some of the comments here) then I'm sure we'll have learnt loads about how to do this and could put on an even better do in the future (Edinburgh 2007 is in our minds). I really thought this was the kind of group that would relish an opportunity like Accio. Cheers, Dumbledad From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Mar 4 20:47:31 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 20:47:31 -0000 Subject: Accio programme.. In-Reply-To: <47DA59BF3D32334DAF6A67C7508991AB01589A9A@EUR-MSG-20.europe.corp.microsoft.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Tim Regan" wrote: > Hi All, > > Oh dear, this isn't my week for feeling loved by the HP-fandom. Carolyn: Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt. See Feedback. I then come here to find that the conference I'm on the organising > committee for is attracting much criticism: "what are other people's > reactions? you can probably guess mine", "can't see anything there > that'd tempt me". Well, not much criticism, the comments were from just two people, the usual awkward squad. Take comfort, most people seemed to like it. My main reason for > attending is the late night discussions with people over a beer. These > will be fans I've read and respected on-line and I'm really really > excited to meet some of them in the flesh. Yes, you've made that point to me off-list. I would really like to meet a lot of the people too, but we disagree in that we have very different expectations of the content. I want to be fascinated by what I have come to listen to, not have to ignore most of it, otherwise it is a pretty expensive beer. Surely British > and other European fans deserve a conference of our own. There is a > tension between treating it as a fan get together or as a more academic > discussion of the books and the cultural phenomenon, but I hope we've > got the balance right. Yes, I agree that we do, it is very important to get a European perspective, and I am quite upset about the balance of the content. I don't think you have got it right, I'd even go as far as saying I thought there was a definite agenda going on, but I realise you had to work with what was submitted. I suggest you take a read through the Ottawa papers to see what you are going to get. There is one good paper, two passable and the rest complete rubbish, including one (IMO) completely unreadable (and I have had a lot of practice in reading academic tosh). > > I really thought this was the kind of group that would relish an > opportunity like Accio. > I certainly relish the idea of the concept, and you will remember how enthusiastically I have responded to discussions about it since we first discussed it last summer. I can't tell you how much I was looking forward to it when I first heard Pippin's paper had been accepted at Christmas. Now, I am extremely fed up. But, nothing new there. If it's any help, I expect you are the only person who could make computer-supported linguistic text analysis funny and interesting. I would come and listen to it if there were more papers at the whole event that made the trip worthwhile for me. Carolyn From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sat Mar 5 16:35:45 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 16:35:45 -0000 Subject: more...and more In-Reply-To: <20050304153237.GA16960@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: Kneasy (or was it Barry?) wrote: > Bugger society. It can mind it's own damn business. What you have > to worry about are individuals. You can safely ignore anyone who > can't screw up your life. > > Sitting in my dentist's waiting room I browse through the women's > mags - and you know what? It looks to me that most of the pressure > on women is coming from other women. "Do that....look like > this...enjoy the other....or you're a dowdy old bag and a failure > to boot." > But it's not that simple. What are we to make of studies that show a person is considered more attractive (to both sexes) if they're standing next to a thin person than if they're standing next to a fat person in a queue? Not being somebody else's idea of fashionable or attractive *can* screw up a woman's life. Eddie and Patsy only work as comic characters because they're an exaggeration of a type that we've all met. There was another "Grumpy Old Women" on last night, which I caught part of (purely for research purposes). I noticed a difference in attitude according to age, too (half of them weren't old at all). One of them actually said "When I die, I'm going to come back as a 50-year-old man." > I'll let you into a little secret. Men aren't all that fussy. > They're just thankful for finding somebody who regards them as > even faintly interesting. So much so that they'll usually end up > marrying this person with such remarkable insight. Er... Well, okay. I'm not convinced. Anyway, even if you're right, it must be a very recent development, because something sure as hell selected for women to preferentially lay fat down on their hips, which has the single useful effect of making their waists look smaller. By which I mean to say that female body shape has most definitely been selected for by male preference. As you said, evolution isn't too quick off the mark, so I'd reckon that the male preference is still there. Some men somewhere at some age must have been fussy, or at least had the opportunity (lucky them) to be fussy, otherwise we wouldn't have invented make-up. You're not perhaps extrapolating from your own wisdom to a generalisation which might not be applicable to the majority of men, are you? But then, maybe we're talking at cross-purposes. Getting married is, after all, not what matters to evolution. Sean wrote: > Another red herring: it is true that women have a dangerous > obsession with self-image; it doesn't change the fact that they > are still essentially in control of the mating game. So gaudy or > not, men are still flitting about gathering impressive trinkets, > beating their absurd six-packs and roaring about something or > other with ever-so-careless glances in the direction of the female > herd. I'd argue that neither side is in control. Men gathering status symbols (which they do far more than women), and women seeking physical beauty (which they do far more than men) are rather different behaviours. Both are used for (or have the effect of) attracting the opposite sex. Not to say there aren't some extremely vain men around, nor women obsessed with status. But there is a reason why successful (though not necessarily good-looking) men in their forties leaving their wives, buying a sports car and shacking up with a 25-year-old blonde is a clich?. Unfortunately the rules for the game as played by both sides, are still based on what worked well in the African savanna, and aren't necessarily best suited to the constraints of modern life. Funny how all biological thinking puts sex centre-stage. And yet I can't abide Freud. Dot Who's not sure whether she's ever actually seen a genuine six-pack, except on the telly. From paul-groups at wibbles.org Sat Mar 5 18:26:39 2005 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (kippesp) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 18:26:39 -0000 Subject: catalog update Message-ID: Hi all, It seems Carolyn has found a bug in one of my maintenance scripts. Once she and I have a chat to locate it, I'll fix it from happening again. She and I will also have to sort out what problem this caused--I'll have a better time at doing that once I identify the problem. I have backups going back 15 days. So there is little risk that any existing work was lost. But it does look like I'll need to do some patchwork since right now at least one category was accidentally dropped. The fix is a simple matter of copying from a backup to the current database. Family matters have kept me until now from dealing with the catalog. My dog of 10 years had to be put to sleep on Friday. He made tons of people happy and will be missed. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sat Mar 5 18:51:03 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:51:03 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] catalog update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050305185103.GA31367@aardvark.net.au> On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 06:26:39PM -0000, kippesp wrote: > > > Hi all, > > It seems Carolyn has found a bug in one of my maintenance scripts. > Once she and I have a chat to locate it, I'll fix it from happening > again. She and I will also have to sort out what problem this > caused--I'll have a better time at doing that once I identify the > problem. Ah. Good beta testing :) > I have backups going back 15 days. So there is little risk that any > existing work was lost. But it does look like I'll need to do some > patchwork since right now at least one category was accidentally > dropped. The fix is a simple matter of copying from a backup to the > current database. And the people I sysadmin for wonder why I go on about backups...thanks Paul. > Family matters have kept me until now from dealing with the > catalog. My dog of 10 years had to be put to sleep on Friday. He > made tons of people happy and will be missed. Sorry to hear that. I think the withdrawal-symptoms have been manageable, though, and we've all found something to disagree on which can only be a good thing :) Sean -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Mar 5 21:50:13 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:50:13 -0000 Subject: Chapter Coding Proposal Message-ID: First off, sorry to hear about your dog, Paul. We had to make that decision for our cat when he went into diabetic ketoacidosis at only 6 years old. Aack--it tore at my heart. Hope you're making it through OK. ************************ I finished reviewing PS chapter coding and am about halfway through COS. I think I've done enough to make a proposal for future coding: 1) Coding to the First Category, the Book Title. This is the spot for general book reviews and for posts touching on 3 or more chapters in a given book. That's an entirely arbitrary number on my part, but typically if a post is using multiple chapter examples, it starts straying into the territory of reviewing the book. This one is a judgement call, of course. If all the examples are relevant but there's no connection made between them, it's better to code to individual chapters. 2) Coding to Chapters. So far, almost every chapter has a seminal event discussed ad nauseam which has become synonymous with the chapter. Examples: 'The Mirror of Erised' and the socks; 'Quidditch' and Snape saving Harry's life; 'Through the Trapdoor' and discussion about the tasks/DD's agenda. Readily identifiable events where most people can tell you *exactly* what chapter they occurred in. In light of this pattern, I left threads about very specific events coded to the chapter headings. I think people interested in Dumbledore and his socks will naturally tend to click on 'The Mirror of Erised' chapter code as a logical entry point for discussion. But there are other events that most of us can't recall the exact chapter, nor do we care, and they aren't discussed nearly as often as the key events. Take for example Justin Finch-Fletchley discussing his background in COS. That doesn't need to be coded to the chapter IMO, because most people won't know right off the bat where to find it anyway. Personally I would look up JFF first. 3) Posts with Extensive Canon References. Initially I was going to keep these coded to chapters, but then realized it was redundant. These posts are trying to make a point about the series, plot development, characterization, etc., not about the actual canon points used in the discussion. There were a couple of these discussions, a very few, that seemed relevant to the chapters. Example: The POV shift in several key chapters. For those posts I left the chapter coding in as a reference guide. *********************** Questions, concerns, couldn't care less? :) Jen From kakearney at comcast.net Sun Mar 6 00:59:58 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 00:59:58 -0000 Subject: Chapter Coding Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jen wrote: > I finished reviewing PS chapter coding and am about halfway through > COS. I think I've done enough to make a proposal for future coding: > > 1) Coding to the First Category, the Book Title. This is the spot > for general book reviews and for posts touching on 3 or more > chapters in a given book. That's an entirely arbitrary number on my > part, but typically if a post is using multiple chapter examples, it > starts straying into the territory of reviewing the book. > > This one is a judgement call, of course. If all the examples are > relevant but there's no connection made between them, it's better to > code to individual chapters. > > 2) Coding to Chapters. So far, almost every chapter has a seminal > event discussed ad nauseam which has become synonymous with the > chapter. Examples: 'The Mirror of Erised' and the socks; 'Quidditch' > and Snape saving Harry's life; 'Through the Trapdoor' and discussion > about the tasks/DD's agenda. Readily identifiable events where most > people can tell you *exactly* what chapter they occurred in. > > In light of this pattern, I left threads about very specific events > coded to the chapter headings. I think people interested in > Dumbledore and his socks will naturally tend to click on 'The Mirror > of Erised' chapter code as a logical entry point for discussion. How are you planning to deal with the graveyard scene in GOF? This scene covers three chapters but in my mind qualifies as a "very specific event". I had trouble deciding whether to code to chapters (and in the end I did check all three) when I came across the thread discussing sexual overtones in the graveyard scene. -Kelly From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Mar 6 01:17:50 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 20:17:50 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Chapter Coding Proposal References: Message-ID: Kelly wrote: How are you planning to deal with the graveyard scene in GOF? This scene covers three chapters but in my mind qualifies as a "very specific event". I had trouble deciding whether to code to chapters (and in the end I did check all three) when I came across the thread discussing sexual overtones in the graveyard scene. Kathy W. The other big scene that I've coded to several PoA chapters in the past is the event between Trio, Snape and former Marauders in the Shrieking Shack. You know: who did Lupin see on the map, why didn't he take his potion, who did Snape see, why didn't he bring potion, what was being said...what did Snape hear? what wasn't being said...etc, etc, etc... How should we code that sort of thing in the future? Good job, Jen! and I'm glad it's you and not me!!!! Kathy W. 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 quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Mar 6 04:28:14 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 20:28:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: more...and more In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050306042814.9834.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com> Dot said: What are we to make of studies that show a person is considered more attractive (to both sexes) if they're standing next to a thin person than if they're standing next to a fat person in a queue? Not being somebody else's idea of fashionable or attractive *can* screw up a woman's life. Ginger now: I have been watching this with great amusement. As the fat person in the queue, I can assure you that anyone looks good next to me. Ah, the joys of being homely. Aside from basic hygene, and the monthly removal of one's mustache, personal care is not the expensive time-consuming process that it is for the sisterhood of beauty-seekers. I do believe Barry had a point about the magazines. After 22 years of hair dye, I decided to let the grey go, and it was the women who fussed and worried. The men thought it looked great, barring a few "skunk" and "Bride of Frankenstein" references from those close enough to be addressed as "Hey, Buttugly" on a regular basis. No, I must say that as an observer of humanity, the lengths we go to to look good is silly. Anyone remember leg warmers? What was up with that? Did we really think men would be attracted if we resembled Clydesdales? Maybe it was the unconcious connection to beer. Highly impractical. North Dakota. 20 degrees below 0, and the women still have to have exposed navels so the boys will think they are cute. Yeah, nothing sexier than frostbite. Good to be past that stage in life. Paul- My condolences. I remember the loss of my dog of many years. He comes back in dreams, and I have learned to cherish those moments. Take care, all, Ginger --------------------------------- Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Mar 6 05:09:04 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 05:09:04 -0000 Subject: Chapter Coding Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Kelly wrote: > > How are you planning to deal with the graveyard scene in GOF? This > scene covers three chapters but in my mind qualifies as a "very > specific event". I had trouble deciding whether to code to chapters > (and in the end I did check all three) when I came across the thread > discussing sexual overtones in the graveyard scene. > Kathy W. > The other big scene that I've coded to several PoA chapters in the past is the event between Trio, Snape and former Marauders in the Shrieking Shack. You know: who did Lupin see on the map, why didn't he take his potion, who did Snape see, why didn't he bring potion, what was being said...what did Snape hear? what wasn't being said...etc, etc, etc... Jen: Those are tough ones. I guess I'll have to read the posts for those chapters and see if they fall into an obvious order or not. Probably big events will stay coded to several chapters, and people will just have to sort through a few posts until they find the issue of interest. The problem I'm finding with coding to chapters is things aren't always obvious. Like there was quite a bit of discussion about H & H getting in trouble with McGonagall over the Norbert incident. Discussions about rule-breaking, why Hagrid didn't try to bail them out, why they couldn't tell McGonagall the truth, etc. You'd think by cruising through the chapter titles that all this discussion should go into "Norbert the Norwegian Ridgeback," but the actual punishment and interaction with McGonagall takes place in the next chapter. Now this isn't a huge deal; most people not finding discussions will either look up the reference in the book or just automatically click on the next chapter heading until they find what's needed. So, coding to the three graveyard chapters (or three POA chapters) might cause a little confusion, but not so much as coding more minor events to a chapter. All my opinion of course; please dissaude me now if you see a better way! > > Good job, Jen! and I'm glad it's you and not me!!!! > Kathy W. Thanks, I think? I was a little overly-optimistic taking all the chapter reviews, but hey...I'll be able to throw around canon references with the best of 'em, should I ever find time to post on the main list again! From kakearney at comcast.net Sun Mar 6 05:22:16 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 05:22:16 -0000 Subject: more...and more In-Reply-To: <20050306042814.9834.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Dot said: > > What are we to make of studies that > show a person is considered more attractive (to both sexes) if > they're standing next to a thin person than if they're standing next > to a fat person in a queue? Not being somebody else's idea of > fashionable or attractive *can* screw up a woman's life. Ginger now: > I have been watching this with great amusement. As the fat person in the queue, I can assure you that anyone looks good next to me. > > Ah, the joys of being homely. Aside from basic hygene, and the monthly removal of one's mustache, personal care is not the expensive time-consuming process that it is for the sisterhood of beauty-seekers. > > I do believe Barry had a point about the magazines. After 22 years of hair dye, I decided to let the grey go, and it was the women who fussed and worried. The men thought it looked great, barring a few "skunk" and "Bride of Frankenstein" references from those close enough to be addressed as "Hey, Buttugly" on a regular basis. > > No, I must say that as an observer of humanity, the lengths we go to to look good is silly. Anyone remember leg warmers? What was up with that? Did we really think men would be attracted if we resembled Clydesdales? Maybe it was the unconcious connection to beer. > > Highly impractical. North Dakota. 20 degrees below 0, and the women still have to have exposed navels so the boys will think they are cute. Yeah, nothing sexier than frostbite. > > Good to be past that stage in life. You have some good points, Ginger, but there's a difference between looking good and looking trendy. Legwarmers and exposed navels fall into the latter category. However, most aspects of beauty are not arbitrary, society-induced characteristics. They are instead indicators of health and youthfulness, and favored among most animals as indicators of reproductive ability. I see nothing wrong with trying to look one's best; I think it indicates a respect for oneself. And regarding the magazines, come on, Barry, you don't honestly think women take everything in those things seriously, do you? They're entertaining, good fluff to read when you don't feel like thinking too much. It's fun to look at fashions, admire some and ridicule others, but I think most women past the age of 16 understand that there's more to life than looking like a model. Regarding Molly, despite the apparent female thing, I must admit I don't understand the severe dislike of her character either. Bill, Charlie, Fred, George, Ron, and Ginny don't seem nearly as traumatized by Molly's evil favoritism as several listmembers. Molly has a very narrow definition of success, but I never read that as affecting her love for her children. I find her humorous. -Kelly From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sun Mar 6 12:12:18 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 12:12:18 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: more...and more In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > > You have some good points, Ginger, but there's a difference between > looking good and looking trendy.? Legwarmers and exposed navels fall > into the latter category.? However, most aspects of beauty are not > arbitrary, society-induced characteristics.? They are instead > indicators of health and youthfulness, and favored among most animals > as indicators of reproductive ability.? I see nothing wrong with > trying to look one's best; I think it indicates a respect for > oneself.??? > > And regarding the magazines, come on, Barry, you don't honestly think > women take everything in those things seriously, do you?? They're > entertaining, good fluff to read when you don't feel like thinking too > much.? It's fun to look at fashions, admire some and ridicule others, > but I think most women past the age of 16 understand that there's more > to life than looking like a model. > > Regarding Molly, despite the apparent female thing, I must admit I > don't understand the severe dislike of her character either.? Bill, > Charlie, Fred, George, Ron, and Ginny don't seem nearly as traumatized > by Molly's evil favoritism as several listmembers.? Molly has a very > narrow definition of success, but I never read that as affecting her > love for her children.? I find her humorous.? > > -Kelly > Kneasy has another moan: sort of. I agree it wouldn't do to stretch the argument too far - however - it's not just the magazines. Dunno about you, but I find that TV, both programmes and more particularly the adverts, are even worse. Yep, they're silly - every 15 mins viewers are expected to believe that "healthy shiny hair' is the true path to happiness and success. It might be - for a Shetland Collie. It's an insult to the intelligence of anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size. But all this stuff is pretty well ubiquitous, it's become part of the background noise. It does affect people - or the advertisers wouldn't do it. And many of the criteria for what looks good, or healthy, or whatever - they change. They are an aspect of fashion IMO. I can remember when Marilyn Munroe was considered one of the most desirable and damn near perfect women in the world; just look at her in 'Some Like it Hot' - or Elizabeth Taylor in 'The Taming off the Shrew' - voluptuous is the word - and how often do you hear that word today? You don't. Yet it is a characteristic that many males find attractive, and accurately or not is historically associated with fertility. It's not so much looking good that is the selling point of most of this stuff -- as Ginger observes it's youth - a denial that we change physically as we age - a biological inevitability. Now you may think I'm odd (quiet at the back, please) but I'm of the opinion (after decades of enjoying the company of women) that there are no beautiful women under the age of 35; before then they are merely pretty - nought but a child, and hardly yet formed. This youth thing is itself a modern aberration - until fairly recently in western society, and still so in other cultures, age is the repository of wisdom, of knowledge, of experience, of continuity. Age had a value. But things have changed; folk don't go to their grand-parents for advice anymore, they go to a best-seller. Consequently aging is becoming purposeless except as an end in itself and even so it's best to pretend it isn't happening - lest those aging become seen as irrelevant has-beens with the possibility of eventually being viewed as useless encumbrances. (The Queen sends centenarians a congratulatory message - personally I'm convinced it says "Drop dead, you silly old bugger.") But there's a benefit to my personal circumstances thanks to this youth craze; I don't feel compelled to behave with the gravitas appropriate to my grey hairs. A disreputable old age awaits, may indeed have already arrived. Yippee! As for Molly, I expressed my opinion in post 84023 on HPfGU. I've seen nothing to persuade me to change my mind. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 4318 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Mar 6 16:01:24 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 16:01:24 -0000 Subject: New definitions files Message-ID: Whilst the DB has been closed down I have gone back over our discussions since the start of this review and collected together everyone's discussions and definitions into three files called: REVISED DEFINTIONS: 1 Text Analysis REVISED DEFINITIONS: 2 Character Analysis REVISED DEFINITIONS: 3 Wizarding World (See files section). They are rather big files, but just scroll down - they are organised using the revised number system as well. I was rather hoping that Yahoo had a file format that everyone could edit, so you could add your own contributions, but it seems not, so I suppose I will have to keep them up to date each week. Then you can easily dip in and see what we have agreed goes under each category heading. Eventually I could transfer a shortened version into the DB itself - currently there are many out of date descriptions under each category. Carolyn From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sun Mar 6 16:27:15 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 03:27:15 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] New definitions files In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050306162715.GA12967@aardvark.net.au> On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 04:01:24PM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > Whilst the DB has been closed down I have gone back over our > discussions since the start of this review and collected together > everyone's discussions and definitions into three files called: > > REVISED DEFINTIONS: 1 Text Analysis > REVISED DEFINITIONS: 2 Character Analysis > REVISED DEFINITIONS: 3 Wizarding World > > (See files section). Good handy reference. Alas, as the DB is down, I can't give you some idea of the Friendship & loyalty cat which is also dubious from my admittedly scanty view so far. A lot of it appears connected to the Trio again, but I want to finish Ron and Hagrid first - I've a feeling Hagrid (any friend/supporter of the Trio) is going to figure in F & L too. > I was rather hoping that Yahoo had a file format that everyone could > edit, so you could add your own contributions, but it seems not, so > I suppose I will have to keep them up to date each week. spose you could do a kind of yahoo DB with a space for each of us to comment? would be massive tho. you've done a great precs already. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Mar 6 17:51:29 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 17:51:29 -0000 Subject: Back in business... Message-ID: With considerable relief, I can tell you that site is back up and we have sorted the problem which occurred last Thursday morning. We owe Paul mega thanks, as always, especially as it was such a bad week for him. Carolyn From kakearney at comcast.net Sun Mar 6 23:01:42 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 23:01:42 -0000 Subject: Seer category Message-ID: I'm currently reviewing category 3.16.7.7 Divination, and a large percentage of the posts discuss who may or may not be a Seer. Because these posts tend to focus more on the characters being discussed than the topic of divination, I thought we could use a new category for Seers. I'm not quite sure where the best location would be, though. Suggestions... 1) Subcategory of 3.16.7.7 Divination 2) Subcategory of 1.1.3 Freewill, choice, and fate 3) Subcategories of individual characters as with ESE, e.g. Harry as Seer, Ron as Seer, Trelawney as Seer, Lily as Seer, etc. Note: The Harry posts are often cross-referenced to Harry's dreams, but the other Seer posts are usually coded only to the character and Divination. Any thoughts? -Kelly From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Mar 6 23:33:12 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 23:33:12 -0000 Subject: UPDATE, Sunday, March 6th Message-ID: PROGRESS Obviously we are not coding at the moment, but for the record, the current number of posts coded is 49339, and we have rejected 26955 of those (54.6%). Our reject rate is going up slowly as we go through the review process. We have now completed 26 of our 105 review sections. Obviously, we were held back by the dbase problem... REJECT/NON-REJECT status It's been a while since I combed through for these, so they are higher than usual. Erm, Potioncat..what can I say (!). I think this number must be related to a section you sorted out and forgot to finish or something.... Kelly: 41635, 41640, 41627, 32112 Debbie: 40291 Doug: 36131 Corinne: 39047 Talisman: 5835, 23084 Laurasia: 28613 Sean: 16362, 31322, 20799, 31394, 2492, 31647 Potioncat: 34124, 14988, 18643, 28690, 28691, 36973, 37535, 32362, 39614, 32632, 35722, 36671, 28304, 28398, 36671, 29960, 28360, 27750 CLEANING UP 1ST & 2ND LEVEL HEADS I have now put all the new sections in place on the category list, and brought the database in the file section up to date and in sync with them. When Paul has a minute, he is going to take the check-boxes off the first and second level heads so that we can't code to them in the future. However, in the short term there are some posts left where they should not be. Mostly, we should just try and clean them up as we tackle sections, but here is a list as of today: 1.1 Meta themes (6) 1.8 PS/SS (44) - Jen, these go to the general review category for book 1.9 CoS (53) - ditto 1.10 POA (62) - ditto 1.11 GoF (118) - ditto 1.12 OOP (2) - ditto 1.15 FB&WTFT (74) - ditto 1.16 QTTA (34) - ditto 2.1 Min Magic Emp (3) 2.3 Hogwarts staff/non Snape (7) 2.5 Hogwarts pupils (Gryff) (5) 2.6 Hogwarts pupils (SLyth) (8) 2.9 Durmstrang &Beauxbatons (30) 2.12 Historical Wizards (6) 2.14 Beings (4) 2.15 Beasts (27) 2.16 Spirits (3) 3.1 WW History (6) 3.3 Law & order (2) 3.4 Health & Phys (10) 3.5 Bloodlines & Inherit (13) 3.7 WW Culture (4) 3.8 Magic (16) 3.9 Dark Arts (23) 3.10 Magic Travel (11) 3.11 Personal Possess (10) 3.12 Magic plants (4) 3.14 Toys & games (14) 3.15 Geography (7) 3.16 Hogwarts school (67) 6 Admin flags (1) From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Mon Mar 7 05:23:48 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:23:48 +1100 Subject: Ron Weasley Message-ID: <20050307052348.GB12967@aardvark.net.au> Ron Weasley Report ****************** Initial Posts: 925 (after culling in other cats) Final Posts: 683 I won't be going into Ron's many acronyms; we all know CRAB, and the posts reflecting the others can practically be counted on one hand, SACRIFICE being the most viable after CRAB. That says a lot when you compare Ron to Hermione; Ron just doesn't inspire the same vitriol. Most posts reflect the CRAB nature of Ron characterization. Very interested to see how the List veers post-OotP particularly considering how much of List opinion depended on Ron's not having achieved 2 of his 3 erised ambitions. So the whole Ron betrayal thread still has life but must surely be taking a battering these days... Just one person correctly predicted that ron and hermione would become prefects and even accurately represented Harry's POV (#27692); OTOH #35227 is also accurate. Honourable mentions go to #5502 for some of the earliest GoF-based prediction, and #5590 which appears to be the earliest poke at Ron the Seer, a thread which refuses to die. And of course all those bloody ships... there's no way in HELL H/H is convincing any more, and the ambivalence of R/H drove many a nutty poster to tears. Sadly no ships on the bizarre level of Hermione either. I was able to cut out more of the absolute *profusion* of Weasley coding (Code it! It's a Weasley!!!) in the process as well as help out with the Harry Potter cat. Trio Dynamics once again played a major part (now 243 posts), as does Friendship & Loyalty. Ron was frequently used to hang Molly with, but that's a Molly subject not a Ron one. On F & L, which I will be doing next: at this point, Trio Dynamics is looking more and more like a special case of F & L. Trio SHIPping, when applied to "outsiders" often overlaps also, but unless I'm mistaken, I think Hagrid will be the only other major character outside the Trio to feature heavily in F & L, notwithstanding the use of its subcategories for aspects of the Marauders and Pettigrew. In fact, that argues more strongly for TD to be subsumed into F & L, considering the large number of posts concerning parallels between them. Think upon it as I delve into its mysteries.... Sean (penguin of mystery wooooo) -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Mar 7 06:29:47 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 06:29:47 -0000 Subject: Glitch with re-coding to new level heads (Re: UPDATE, Sunday, March 6th) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > CLEANING UP 1ST & 2ND LEVEL HEADS > I have now put all the new sections in place on the category list, > and brought the database in the file section up to date and in sync > with them. > > When Paul has a minute, he is going to take the check-boxes off the > first and second level heads so that we can't code to them in the > future. However, in the short term there are some posts left where > they should not be. Mostly, we should just try and clean them up as > we tackle sections, but here is a list as of today: Jen: I started recoding PS to the correct level heading and in the process noticed other codes are being automatically dropped when I make the change. For instance, group post 6866 was coded to PS and Differences Between Editions. When I changed the PS code to 1.8.0, the other category dropped off. Luckily I noticed this happened and re-coded it to the DBE category. It appears to be happening to every code with a level heading change as far as I can tell. Just wanted to let everyone know you to watch closely or the **codes will drop off without you even realizing it** and won't be automatically re-coded to a different level of the same category. Jen From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Mar 7 09:03:16 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:03:16 -0000 Subject: Glitch with re-coding to new level heads (Re: UPDATE, Sunday, March 6th) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > Jen: I started recoding PS to the correct level heading and in the > process noticed other codes are being automatically dropped when I > make the change. For instance, group post 6866 was coded to PS and > Differences Between Editions. When I changed the PS code to 1.8.0, > the other category dropped off. Luckily I noticed this happened and > re-coded it to the DBE category. It appears to be happening to every > code with a level heading change as far as I can tell. > > Just wanted to let everyone know you to watch closely or the **codes > will drop off without you even realizing it** and won't be > automatically re-coded to a different level of the same category. > Carolyn: Eeek ..I don't think this should be happening. I will contact Paul about it.. thanks for alerting us. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Mar 7 12:48:55 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:48:55 -0000 Subject: UPDATE, Sunday, March 6th In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > REJECT/NON-REJECT status > It's been a while since I combed through for these, so they are > higher than usual. Erm, Potioncat..what can I say (!). I think this > number must be related to a section you sorted out and forgot to > finish or something.... > Potioncat: 34124, 14988, 18643, 28690, 28691, 36973, 37535, 32362, > 39614, 32632, 35722, 36671, 28304, 28398, 36671, 29960, 28360, 27750 KathyW. Hmmm. I can't be the only one, but it appears I am. See, I told you I could take something simple and make it complicated. In looking at a few of these, here is what's going on: In reviewing McGonagall, I've determined these posts ought to be rejected. However, they have codes that "belong" to other reviewers. Some of these I'm sure will agree and maybe for a few, the post will earn a "keep" status. So I've removed the McGonagall code, added both 5.6 and reject. Where the post was good, but not really about McGonagall I only removed the McGonagall code and did not add reject. Where a previous coder had checked reject & 5.6 leaving only McGonagall, I completly rejected it. Or if an unclaimed catagory remainded, I also went ahead and rejected it. So...how should I proceed both with these posts and the ones I'm about to tackle? Kathy W. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Mar 7 13:32:59 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 13:32:59 -0000 Subject: UPDATE, Sunday, March 6th In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > In reviewing McGonagall, I've determined these posts ought to be > rejected. However, they have codes that "belong" to other reviewers. > Some of these I'm sure will agree and maybe for a few, the post will > earn a "keep" status. So I've removed the McGonagall code, added both > 5.6 and reject. > > > Where a previous coder had checked reject & 5.6 leaving only > McGonagall, I completly rejected it. Or if an unclaimed catagory > remainded, I also went ahead and rejected it. > > So...how should I proceed both with these posts and the ones I'm > about to tackle? > Carolyn: Oh, I understand now how it happened. I thought there must be a reasonable explanation, as you are really very careful usually (!) The simple answer to both these situations is never to click a reject sub-code+reject button if there is any other code still left on the post after you have removed your McGonagall code (or whatever category you are dealing with). If, in your view, the post should finally be rejected by the person who removes whatever remaining categories are left, then by all means put a note in the textbox to say so (and tick 5.6 for review), but don't click the reject boxes yourself. Hope this makes sense - sorry if the confusion arose from anything I said before. Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Mar 7 14:22:12 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:22:12 -0000 Subject: Chapter summaries Message-ID: Jen: I finished reviewing PS chapter coding and am about halfway through COS. I think I've done enough to make a proposal for future coding: Carolyn: My two sickles is that the discussion of big events should stay coded to the relevant chapters. For instance, so much of Magic Dishwasher turns of the interpretation of the POA Shrieking Shack scene and the rebirth scene in GOF. In a way, I think it will be quite interesting to read through all this on a chapter basis, because the date order in which the posts come will give succeeding layers of interpretation some further meaning. It is very noticeable how the interest in the Shrieking Shack scene revvs up from posts 30000 etc onwards, compared to the early discussions of it. On the discussion of the smaller incidents, it is difficult to have one rule to fit them all. My definition as I have coded to chapter is if there was no other useful place to put it. Eg, discussions of the valentine in CoS - who sent it & why. Whilst that can be cross-coded to the various characters involved, in essence it is discussing an incident in Chapter 13. However, your JFF example should most probably go to the character, as you suggest. On incidents which have been wrongly coded to a chapter - then, of course, correct them (I do try and look up whenever I am not sure!). She has the bit-part-publishing habit of leaving an event hanging at the end of one chapter so as you dive into the next to find out what happens.. As mentioned in the round up on Sunday, any general reviews of a book as a whole should go in the sub-category I have created for them - really useful to read through in one go, I thought. I found it really annoying not to be able to find these sort of posts when I first joined HPfGU. The next thing is the chapter summaries and the questions related to them. Obviously, the headline summary should go to the chapter code, but then my rule of thumb has been to code reponses on a diminishing returns basis - ie, once they start to wander off into separate sub- threads rather than stay answering all the questions, I stopped coding to chapter. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Mar 7 14:23:18 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:23:18 -0000 Subject: Divination & seers Message-ID: Kelly: I'm currently reviewing category 3.16.7.7 Divination, and a large percentage of the posts discuss who may or may not be a Seer. Because these posts tend to focus more on the characters being discussed than the topic of divination, I thought we could use a new category for Seers. I'm not quite sure where the best location would be, though. Suggestions... Carolyn: Certainly posts on who might be a seer should be taken out of this section. In as far as they can't be bounced back to their character categories (you need to be really firm about the Ron stuff going to that code for instance), I would vote for having a third subsection under 1.1.3 Freewill, choice and fate called 'Seers'. However, the definition of what goes there should be very narrow indeed - mainly the nature of seers, how many there have been etc. We need to ask Boyd, who is sorting out 1.1.3, how this might overlap with what he is finding there. There is a further problem, in that I expect it will include mentions of Cassandra Trelawney - really, she should then get her own code under '2.12 Historical Wizarding Characters'. From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Mar 7 14:45:01 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:45:01 -0000 Subject: Where am I? Message-ID: Hey, all. Just wanted to let you know I have another commitment that's hotted up -- writing hundreds of questions for my daughter's "Battle of the Books" team. I have to finish these for two books by Thursday, but I certainly hope to be done earlier, and after that I can devote lots more time to Harry dear. In case you're interested, the Battle of the Books is put on by our local library. Teams of 5-7 Middle-school children read eleven books, and then in mid-April they gather to answer *very* nitpicky questions, three per book. Real life rears its ugly head again. *eyeroll* Carolyn, do you have a projected date for finishing this review and recommencing regular coding? Anne From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Mon Mar 7 15:00:44 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:00:44 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3768bb21d4c46382a1020164bc55f3fc@btconnect.com> Finished: 1.2.6.5 POV - was 198, now 184 - those deleted mostly the result of authorial stereotyping cast as POV 1.2.6.6 Humour - was 62, now 61 1.2.6.7 Anagrams - 10 - unchanged. Surprising until I remembered that the great Droobles anagram frenzy came after OoP. 1.2.6.7.1 DARRIN - 0 posts. That completes the 2.6 section. Barry From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Mar 7 16:13:05 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:13:05 -0000 Subject: T-Bay and characters Message-ID: I went through and re-coded appropriate posts from Carolyn's update. I went ahead and rejected a few posts that had codes not yet under review. I'm almost done with the first stage of the Mad-Eye review. I've found Mad-Eye coded in some T-bay posts. He is a player in the posts, they are well written...but let's face it, some of them are almost fanfiction. What's the general feeling out there? Would you want to look up "Character" and read through a T-Bay post that the "Character" was a part of? In this case, Mad-Eye and Frank are chasing after Death Eaters.Mad-Eye isn't the main character in any of these so far, and I've had no trouble removing him from ones where he was mentioned in passing. But some seem less obvious. I'm also removing him from ones that discuss his injuries, leaving it for the magical injury heading. Oh, I have a question. After this review, we'll go back to coding. Will there be another review of coded posts? If so, will this section of posts be noted as reviewed or will there be another big review that looks at these again? Kathy W. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Mar 7 17:52:21 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:52:21 -0000 Subject: When will we be through? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn, do you have a projected date for finishing this review and recommencing regular coding? Anne --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > After this review, we'll go back to coding. Will there be another > review of coded posts? If so, will this section of posts be noted as > reviewed or will there be another big review that looks at these > again? > > Kathy W. I sense a wail of despair.. This review has taken a lot longer than I expected, not helped by not being able to get in to the database for four days (alas, unplanned). So we don't lose momentum, I suggest we give it one more week and see how many big sections we can finish by then. After that, those with energy and time could perhaps deal with some of the unfinished sections as and when they can fit them in, but we all basically go back to coding from Monday 14th March. When we do, the most important thing is that everyone reads, learns and inwardly digests what we've discovered - ie, that we have been massively over-coding, and that the definitions of some sections are extremely imprecise, or at least unclear to a lot of people. I am going to carefully maintain the documents I posted yesterday, as a ready reference to our consensus so far, and add to them as we go on, to try and prevent some of this in future. As to the timetable from there on in, well, we have roughly four months until HBP is published. I am not expecting anyone to be paying attention much to this project once that happens, though I hope people will come back to it once the initial fuss has died down - maybe by the end of August, if that's not too optimistic. With this in mind, and looking at what we have managed to code so far, I think it is possible that we might get another 20000 or so posts done by July 16, maybe more, maybe less, which would take us to about post 65000 on the main list. That would be enough content to launch with, IMO, so, assuming we have the search routines built and designed, it is not impossible that we could have the DB up and running for people to use at that point. However, I must admit, having had this review experience, I would prefer to have the chance to see what we had stashed away in the categories before exposing the sections to the ridicule of the whole membership. I don't think we could complete a review and that number of posts in that timescale, so it is perhaps more sensible to think of a launch much later towards the end of 2005. Carolyn From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Mar 7 18:30:55 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:30:55 -0000 Subject: "When will we be through?" they whined. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Anne: > Carolyn, do you have a projected date for finishing this review and > recommencing regular coding? Potioncat: > > After this review, we'll go back to coding. Will there be > > another review of coded posts? If so, will this section of posts > > be noted as reviewed or will there be another big review that > > looks at these again? Carolyn: > I sense a wail of despair.. Jen: Oh no, we're never finsished. Hasn't everyone figured that out yet? Resistance is futile. We have been assimilated . Carolyn: > When we do, the most important thing is that everyone reads, > learns and inwardly digests what we've discovered - ie, that we > have been massively over-coding, and that the definitions of some > sections are extremely imprecise, or at least unclear to a lot of > people. *Uh-oh Potioncat, there's that 'read and inwardly digest' part that tripped us up last time.* Seriously though, this review has been a good thing. I feel slightly abashed at my own inconsistent and somewhat manic coding style; I hope this experience will serve its purpose. Every time I code from now on I can think, "Remember the Review, Remember the Review" sort of like "Remember the Alamo" but without historical cred and the nifty souvenirs. Carolyn: > So we don't lose momentum, I suggest we give it one more week and > see how many big sections we can finish by then. After that, those > with energy and time could perhaps deal with some of the > unfinished sections as and when they can fit them in, but we all > basically go back to coding from Monday 14th March. Jen: I want to finish the chapter codings and the characterization/psychological assessment section before moving on. Can't guarantee those will be done by the 14th because we have Spring Break next week, but put me on the list for continuing to review until those are done (and any others left pending). From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Mar 7 19:02:06 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 14:02:06 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: When will we be through? References: Message-ID: Carolyn: I sense a wail of despair.. This review has taken a lot longer than I expected, not helped by not being able to get in to the database for four days (alas, unplanned). Potioncat: Not despair....frustration maybe. I'm committed to the project. I'm fine following directions without the slightest idea of how all this works. (I type a key and I read a post, that's all I really know.) But I've read a few posts that really could be rejected, yet three or four or more people have to read the same post and decide on their topics before it happens. One today was about 4 sentences long, with 4 codes. It seems a shame not to just wack away at it. Unfortunately, you don't know if someone has looked at it and is coming back or if you are the first to look at it. Maybe at this point it's too late to change, but could we all look at individual characters while looking at a larger heading? (Or at least those minor characters or ones not yet reviewed?) For example, if I was reviewing stereotypes I could go ahead and remove any characters who were inappropriately coded to that post. I'm not sure if this would make more chaos instead of less... I just read Jen's post. I agree, the review has been invaluable to future coding. And the posts I now want to reject made sense to code the first time around. BTW Jen, I've rejected some chapter codes on chapters you hadn't gotten to...just to save you the trouble. But like I said, I can continue on. Spring break will impact my productivity too. Kathy 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 ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Mon Mar 7 19:25:53 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 06:25:53 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: When will we be through? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050307192553.GA24061@aardvark.net.au> On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 02:02:06PM -0500, Kathy Willson wrote: > Potioncat: Not despair....frustration maybe. I'm committed to the project. > I'm fine following directions without the slightest idea of how all this > works. (I type a key and I read a post, that's all I really know.) > But I've read a few posts that really could be rejected, yet three or four > or more people have to read the same post and decide on their topics > before it happens. One today was about 4 sentences long, with 4 codes. It > seems a shame not to just wack away at it. Unfortunately, you don't know > if someone has looked at it and is coming back or if you are the first to > look at it. I've found posts I've reviewed in other categories and wondered why I kept some cats myself. But the more I review the better I am at getting at the essence of a post, if it has any relevance. > Maybe at this point it's too late to change, but could we all look at > individual characters while looking at a larger heading? (Or at least > those minor characters or ones not yet reviewed?) For example, if I was > reviewing stereotypes I could go ahead and remove any characters who were > inappropriately coded to that post. I'm not sure if this would make more > chaos instead of less... This is what I've been doing mostly, except by far the greatest over-coding is with major characters, particularly Harry, even when the posts are really about theories or relationships or repeating canon. And how many "I love Harry/Ron/Hermione/Molly/Neville/Snape etc posts can you have? I think our biggest problem is keeping in mind what's been done, what's particularly useful, funny, unique, whether's there's continuity that can be searched for. IOW big picture stuff that's hard when you're looking at a sentence and going "is this really worth coding?" -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Mar 7 19:37:34 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:37:34 -0000 Subject: When will we be through? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > Carolyn, do you have a projected date for finishing this review and > recommencing regular coding? > > Anne > > I sense a wail of despair.. > No, in my case it was guilt! But by the 14th, I should be able to finish up my daughter's Battle stuff *and* at least go through enough of Harry to give a decent report, even if I'm not done with him. My kids' spring break doesn't happen until Easter weekend, so I'm good here for a while. Anne From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Mar 7 18:46:23 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:46:23 -0000 Subject: Chapter summaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn: > On the discussion of the smaller incidents, it is difficult to > have one rule to fit them all. My definition as I have coded to > chapter is if there was no other useful place to put it. Eg, > discussions of the valentine in CoS - who sent it & why. Whilst > that can be cross-coded to the various characters involved, in > essence it is discussing an incident in Chapter 13. However, your > JFF example should most probably go to the character, as you > suggest. Jen: I forgot to mention the posts coded only to the chapter. I'm definitely keeping smaller incidents coded here esp. if there's no other logical place to start looking. Like you said, sweeping through a review of Ron's category to find a discussion on the slug incident with Malfoy would be infuriating. Carolyn: > The next thing is the chapter summaries and the questions related > to them. Obviously, the headline summary should go to the chapter > code, but then my rule of thumb has been to code reponses on a > diminishing returns basis - ie, once they start to wander off into > separate sub-threads rather than stay answering all the questions, > I stopped coding to chapter. Jen: As you know, I can't help myself from coding-to-thread a bit in these chapter summaries. Continuity and all. And right now we're still talking about *very few* chapters with more than 25 posts. I suspect in the end only a handful of chapters will have 100+ posts to wade through, maybe upwards of 200-300 when we get to post-OOTP. More than that would just be recycling the same arguments with each new wave of posters. We'll just have to pick the most definitive posts at each junture and then cull to the best of the best. From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Mon Mar 7 23:13:29 2005 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 23:13:29 -0000 Subject: And finally she joined... Message-ID: Sigune sits in her tower room, a bit cross-eyed after reading 100 Gilderoy Lockhart posts... "Another 52 to go," she mutters to herself. "You can do it, you know you can... Then you will be able to move on to Quirrell, who, at least, is one of those bad guys you are so fond of... And when you've finished that job, you will do the Slytherins; and maybe, just maybe, you will then have washed away that feeling of guilt that has been nagging you on seeing what mountains of posts others have been processing..." But you see, giving a creature of Sigune's severe disposition an order to review a category can lead to drastic results. If only you knew what she's doing... Because she has realised she doesn't possess the Obsure Acronymical Knowledge to deal with the object of her Platonic obsession, to wit, the less than delectable Potions master, she has decided to take out her frustration on the Lockhart category, dealing with that miserable excuse of a wizard just like Snape did before her. Hah! When she is finished with 2.3.5, she will have taken all the puff out of it - because oh yes, like the man it pretends to discuss, this category is largely insubstantial, and Sigune intends to leave it tight and trim, the way she likes it. And so, licking her lips at the prospect of the coming onslaught, the sinister damsel continues making damning notes... From paul-groups at wibbles.org Tue Mar 8 04:48:41 2005 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 22:48:41 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Glitch with re-coding to new level heads (Re: UPDATE, Sunday, March 6th) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm not following. This post (#6866) was only 1.8.0 tonight. I didn't even see an appropriate differences between editions. I coded it as a test to 1.8.0 and 4.2.1. Both categories were kept. I also messed around with one versus the other and such. How often does this happen? Do you ever have browser timeouts? Is there some caching going on either with your browser or ISP (like an AOL)? If you use IE, does it happen with Firefox? On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:03:16 -0000, carolynwhite2 wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" > wrote: > > > > Jen: I started recoding PS to the correct level heading and in the > > process noticed other codes are being automatically dropped when I > > make the change. For instance, group post 6866 was coded to PS and > > Differences Between Editions. When I changed the PS code to 1.8.0, > > the other category dropped off. Luckily I noticed this happened and > > re-coded it to the DBE category. It appears to be happening to > every > > code with a level heading change as far as I can tell. > > > > Just wanted to let everyone know you to watch closely or the > **codes > > will drop off without you even realizing it** and won't be > > automatically re-coded to a different level of the same category. > > > > Carolyn: > Eeek ..I don't think this should be happening. I will contact Paul > about it.. thanks for alerting us. > > > > > 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 stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Mar 8 05:09:49 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 05:09:49 -0000 Subject: Glitch with re-coding to new level heads (Re: UPDATE, Sunday, March 6th) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes wrote: > I'm not following. This post (#6866) was only 1.8.0 tonight. I > didn't even see an appropriate differences between editions. I coded > it as a test to 1.8.0 and 4.2.1. Both categories were kept. I also > messed around with one versus the other and such. > > How often does this happen? Do you ever have browser timeouts? Is > there some caching going on either with your browser or ISP (like an > AOL)? If you use IE, does it happen with Firefox? I'm not an AOL user and there's no caching going on. I've never had any trouble with the catalogue. Basically here's what will happen to one of these posts: Say I have a post coded to 1.9 COS, 4.4 JKR Inteviews and Comments, and Recommended Additional reading 4.6. So, I change the COS code to 1.9.0, hit 'set category' and everything should stay the same except for trading out the COS code, right? Nope, both the Recommended Additional Reading code 4.6 and the JKR Interview code 4.4 automatically drop off. If you see your losing codes great--you can go ahead and re-code to the new, appropriate level in the catalogue. If not, those codes will no longer exist for that post and it will remain coded only to 1.9.0 COS. I haven't seen other categories dropping off besides the purple 4- 4.6. Hope that explains it well. #6866 I left coded only to 1.8.0 as you mentioned above because it didn't appear coded correctly to begin with. But several posts lost codings that were useful and correct, and I had to go back and re-code. I don't think I lost any post codings, but am not for sure. Also, take the same post example as above--you don't even have to change anything for the codes to drop off. I tested one out by just hitting 'set category' without making any other changes and the codes from the purple section still dropped off. Jen From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Mar 8 10:24:08 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 10:24:08 -0000 Subject: Glitch with re-coding to new level heads (Re: UPDATE, Sunday, March 6th) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > > I haven't seen other categories dropping off besides the purple 4- > 4.6. > Carolyn: I have just gone in and introduced a new second level heading in this section, and I think this may solve the problem. All the posts in that section are now stored in level 3 and level 4 heading categories. I think what may have been happening is that you were trying to keep a second level head (eg 4.6 or whatever), but because Paul has written a general instruction to the DB not to code to that level (and taken off the checkboxes to prevent it), the DB was stripping the code everytime you tried to keep it. Anyway, that's my dim understanding of the programming. When you first reported the error, I thought it was happening on trying to transfer general chapter posts into the 'review chapter' sub- categories, ie it wouldn't let you do that. However, if the problem is specifically about keeping codes in section 4, and there are no problems with other categories, this may be the solution. Hm, I'm learning something every day about DBases... From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 13:32:39 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:32:39 -0000 Subject: Catching up ... Message-ID: 1413 From: "annemehr" Date: Mon Mar 7, 2005 9:45 am Subject: Where am I? >Carolyn, do you have a projected date for finishing this review and >recommencing regular coding? >Anne Talisman: Do you recall when our fearless/semi-bionic leader established that the review would take about 2 weeks? I snorted in my cocoa (and it wasn't pretty). Please don't bait her anymore. 1415 From: "potioncat" Date: Mon Mar 7, 2005 11:13 am Subject: T-Bay and characters >After this review, we'll go back to coding. Will there be another >review of coded posts? If so, will this section of posts be noted as >reviewed or will there be another big review that looks at these >again? >Kathy W. Talisman: 1.) Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof; 2.) don't give her any ideas; 3.) we could always throw an armed revolt. 1411 From: "carolynwhite2" Date: Mon Mar 7, 2005 9:22 am Subject: Chapter summaries >On the discussion of the smaller incidents, it is difficult to have >one rule to fit them all. My definition as I have coded to chapter is >if there was no other useful place to put it. Eg, discussions of the >valentine in CoS - who sent it & why. Whilst that can be cross-coded >to the various characters involved, in essence it is discussing an >incident in Chapter 13. However, your JFF example should most >probably go to the character, as you suggest. Talisman: Perhaps we could *establish* the events that are *big* enough to be coded to chapter with an explicit list--or, whether you mean events as they pertain to certain theories. I can see MD events in the Shrieking Shack/Graveyard. But, do you want every reference to these events coded to chapter? or just the ones that are directly responding to MD? Obviously every event happens in chapter. I'm concerned that these codes are susceptible to overuse and idiosyncratic use. In past, I have tended to use the chapter codes for 1) explicitly captioned summary discussions; 2) posts that explore the events in a given chapter fairly discretely AND have no other home. I don't mind adding major theories, in order to gain the retrieval option you suggest, but I'd prefer that we establish, rather than assume, which theories qualify. 1418 From: "Kathy Willson" Date: Mon Mar 7, 2005 2:02 pm Subject: Re: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: When will we be through? >But I've read a few posts that really could be rejected, yet three or four or more people >have to read the same post and decide on their topics before it happens. One today was >about 4 sentences long, with 4 codes. It seems a shame not to just wack away at it. >Unfortunately, you don't know if someone has looked at it and is coming back or if you >are the first to look at it. Talisman: I vote: whack the suckers. If it readily appears that the post is a reject, why make anyone else look at it again? (You know that if YOU want to whack it, I want to whack it.) This is especially true of those one paragraph posts that have been coded to 16 headings and don't say anything. If someone (and I want names) is "coming back" (presumably to add codes?) let the perp resuscitate the corpse. It will still be there. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 14:52:28 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:52:28 -0000 Subject: Catching up ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kathy (potioncat) > >But I've read a few posts that really could be rejected, yet three > or four or more people >have to read the same post and decide on > their topics before it happens. One today was >about 4 sentences > long, with 4 codes. It seems a shame not to just wack away at it. > >Unfortunately, you don't know if someone has looked at it and is > coming back or if you >are the first to look at it. > > Talisman: I vote: whack the suckers. If it readily appears that > the post is a reject, why make anyone else look at it again? (You > know that if YOU want to whack it, I want to whack it.) > > This is especially true of those one paragraph posts that have been > coded to 16 headings and don't say anything. If someone (and I want > names) is "coming back" (presumably to add codes?) let the perp > resuscitate the corpse. It will still be there. Now Ginger: AMEN SISTER! WHACK! WHACK! WHACK! Sorry, I've been in the General section of Shipping too long. I have whacked ruthlessly any posts that say "Harry and Herm would be so cute." regardless if they were coded to Harry and Herm as well. I don't wish to put those coders through the saccharine jolt I'm becoming accustomed to. On the other hand, if they say something else that may well be worth saving, then I just uncode ships and add a 5.1.6. Handy little device. On a related topic, I thought I had sent in a message earlier, but it hasn't come through, so I'll repeat myself. Sorry if the original shows up. In the new lineup, the category "General" replaces the old "RelationSHIPPING". It is a little odd to see a category just called "General". My first response was "General what?" and I was the one coding it. Could we change that to "General Ship" or something like that, so that it reflects the idea of Shipping? It's good to be back. I just about went nuts this weekend without the coding. I found I had forgotten what it was I used to do for fun. I read a book instead. The plot went over my head as usual, but the humour was good. Toodles, Ginger From quigonginger at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 13:00:06 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:00:06 -0000 Subject: SHIPping Message-ID: Could I make one recomendation? I'm back doing my review, and what was RelationSHIPPING is now General. May I suggest that it be General SHIP or something of that nature? It's odd when looking at posts to see General as a category. The first thing that popped into my head was "General what?" and I was the one doing the category! Would General SHIP be too long? It would be good for people (especially in future reviews) to know what general we are talking about. In general. Hi-ho-hi-ho, Ginger From boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com Tue Mar 8 17:22:17 2005 From: boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com (Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:22:17 -0600 Subject: Divination & seers Message-ID: #$*@%! My boogie shoes are freaking broken! Stubbed 'em on some heavy lifting at work, and now all I can do is mentally rap along with the seminal and very angry Chuck D (Public Enemy) while I finish my non-Catalogue chores. But soon I shall be done with my categories--this week, in fact, even if I have to go seriously old school to represent. [BTW, do not see Be Cool unless you have to choose between it and the execrable Man of the House.] Carolyn wrote regarding seers: >We need to ask Boyd, who is sorting out 1.1.3 [Freewill, Choice & Fate], how this might overlap with what he is finding there.< I think we'll be fine, actually. Posts that discuss seers (who, how, etc.) should go under the new Seer code. Anything that significantly discusses the *impact on freewill* of seers/prophecies goes in 1.1.3 Freewill. --Boyd "It's time to wake up and check the clock. Punch it! I go to work." -- Kool Moe Dee ('89) From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Mar 8 17:25:26 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:25:26 -0000 Subject: Questions, questions ...some fixes Message-ID: Anne: In case you're interested, the Battle of the Books is put on by our local library. Teams of 5-7 Middle-school children read eleven books, and then in mid-April they gather to answer *very* nitpicky questions, three per book. C: Pah, just *three* nitpicky questions per book! They wouldn't survive a millisecond on HPfGU... Potioncat: I've found Mad-Eye coded in some T-bay posts. He is a player in the posts, they are well written...but let's face it, some of them are almost fanfiction. What's the general feeling out there? Would you want to look up "Character" and read through a T-Bay post that the "Character" was a part of? In this case, Mad-Eye and Frank are chasing after Death Eaters.Mad-Eye isn't the main character in any of these so far, and I've had no trouble removing him from ones where he was mentioned in passing. But some seem less obvious. C: So what happens when you take him out? Are you effectively rejecting them?? ::sulks:: Sigune: And so, licking her lips at the prospect of the coming onslaught, the sinister damsel continues making damning notes... C: You should see her collection of featherboas. Always the quiet ones.. Jen: Also, take the same post example as above--you don't even have to change anything for the codes to drop off. I tested one out by just hitting 'set category' without making any other changes and the codes from the purple section still dropped off. C: I realised that this problem was not confined to section 4 headings, but would affect any posts that currently were still sitting in any level 2 heading (x.x). So, today, I have spent hours going through every such heading listed on my Sunday update and quickly moving the posts in them to a safe location. Otherwise, people could have accidentally lost the whole coding on complex ones just by hitting save and not seeing there was a level 2 head included in the list. Am I glad you spotted this Jen! And especially for you, I have moved all the posts sitting in the general book heads to a level 3 'book review' head. There are two versions of this for CoS, POA and GOF - the heading you had begun moving things to, plus a heading called 'OLD' reviews. These are the posts formerly in the book heading which you have not yet reviewed. They can now sit there safely until you get to them, rather than risking disappearing, should anyone be working on a post with a level 2 book code in it. Potioncat: It seems a shame not to just wack away at it. >Unfortunately, you don't know if someone has looked at it and is coming back or if you >are the first to look at it. Talisman: I vote: whack the suckers. If it readily appears that the post is a reject, why make anyone else look at it again? (You know that if YOU want to whack it, I want to whack it.) Now Ginger: AMEN SISTER! WHACK! WHACK! WHACK! Sorry, I've been in the General section of Shipping too long. C: Dear, dear..and you all seemed such nice women..perhaps it's the company in here. I agree, it is tempting, why not.. Ginger: In the new lineup, the category "General" replaces the old "RelationSHIPPING". It is a little odd to see a category just called "General". My first response was "General what?" and I was the one coding it. Could we change that to "General Ship" or something like that, so that it reflects the idea of Shipping? It's good to be back. I just about went nuts this weekend without the coding. I found I had forgotten what it was I used to do for fun. I read a book instead. The plot went over my head as usual, but the humour was good. C: I have amended the section title to read 'General SHIPPING' - I created the new heading for the same reason as above - to take the posts out of the level 2 head and down into a level 3 head. Alas, it is addictive. I have spent most of the day on this emergency fix, when I normally have a rule: 'no cataloguing before 6pm'.. So if the business goes belly up in 6 months time, you know what's to blame. Carolyn Who is far from bionic, but is nevertheless eyeing up the big wooden paddle on the wall in case of mass insurrection.. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Mar 8 18:14:56 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:14:56 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Questions, questions ...some fixes References: Message-ID: Potioncat: Mad-Eye isn't the main character in any of these so far, and I've had no trouble removing him from ones where he was mentioned in passing. But some seem less obvious. C: So what happens when you take him out? Are you effectively rejecting them?? Potioncat: Oh, no. I'm just removing the code for Moody from the post. For the most part it's been Memory Charm, Reverse Memory Charm, Fourth Man....I decided that if I was looking for real canon Moody those would not be posts I would want to read. Now Ginger: AMEN SISTER! WHACK! WHACK! WHACK! C: Dear, dear..and you all seemed such nice women..perhaps it's the company in here. I agree, it is tempting, why not.. Potioncat: Well, I took the advice and I feel much better. I finally decided that if someone was coming back to take action on a post, they were either going to reject it too or they could change it back just as easily. I've followed behind Sean and Jen who either left notes to reject or had already rejected. But if anyone finds a post I rejected that they didn't want rejected...It's Talisman's and Ginger's fault. They said I could. Carolyn Who is far from bionic, but is nevertheless eyeing up the big wooden paddle on the wall in case of mass insurrection.. Potioncat: I'm in favor of completing the review before we go back to coding. It's certainly a good thing we found some of these problems before the general membership did. And posts that looked good by themselves don't look so interesting next to several others on the same topic. I'm almost done with Moody. Are there any topics you'd like looked at sooner rather than later? If so, let me know. If not, I'll just browse and choose something. Kathy W. 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 quigonginger at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 23:19:44 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 15:19:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Questions, questions ...some fixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050308231944.94868.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com> C: I have amended the section title to read 'General SHIPPING' - I created the new heading for the same reason as above - to take the posts out of the level 2 head and down into a level 3 head. Ginger: Thank you! I had figured why you did it. The new title is definately more descriptive. Good day for whacking today. Got rid of a dozen back and forths on whether it is worth our time to ship at all. "Not saying you *can't* ship, just that it's pointless." "Well, we enjoy it, and if you don't like it, skip the posts." Repeat as nauseum. Best advice I've heard so far is to put yourself in the shoes of one reading the category. Now off to the real world. Drat. Ginger --------------------------------- Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 8 23:29:56 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 23:29:56 -0000 Subject: Friendly Fire Message-ID: >From 1384: Barry Arrowsmith Date: Fri Mar 4, 2005 6:02 am Subject: Re: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: more...and more >A slow smile can be discerned slightly to the north of his grizzled >beard. His red-rimmed eyes (the result of drinking from wet glasses) >can be seen twinkling behind gold-framed spectacles. He detects >thrashing in the water. A touch of insecurity perhaps? A need to >validate personal choices? My, my. Can it be this easy? Talisman, smooth of chin and clear of eye, wanders back into the Catalogue just in time to deflect a deadly twinkle ray with one highly polished fingernail: Ah. And, here I thought we were playing a delightful little game where you'd say something silly and I'd say something naughty back. Misled by my own deviancy, again. ::sigh:: Reminds me of a poem I once penned, which I would gladly perform should any of us ever find ourselves, gently intoxicated, in the same corner of a darkening evening. Back off, Igor, no one's in immediate danger. Thrashing? Insecurity? What is all this posturing about? Oh, I see...there, that raggedy bit of something sticking out of your aft pocket. Isn't that page 3 of that little pamphlet they hand out when your testosterone sets in? "When you can't keep up with the banter: a) smile annoyingly; b) redefine to win; and d) suggest her inadequacy." Tsk, tsk. Cribbing from the book. No points awarded. >Now you may think I'm odd (quiet at the back, please) but I'm of >the opinion (after decades of enjoying the company of women) that >there are no beautiful women under >the age of 35; before then they >are merely pretty - nought but a child, and hardly yet >formed. A reversal to disarm! Someone's been kissing the Blarney Stone-- but I like it. Full points, and I sheath my evil tongue. >But there's a benefit to my personal circumstances thanks to this >youth craze; I don't feel compelled to behave with the gravitas >appropriate to my grey hairs. A disreputable old age awaits, may >indeed have already arrived. Yippee! Thank goodness all those years of training weren't in vain. >I'll let you into a little secret. Men aren't all that fussy. >They're just thankful for finding >somebody who regards them as >even faintly interesting. So much so that they'll usually >end up >marrying this person with such remarkable insight. Hmmm. Coming from a Tina Turner/Abba Girls/Bellatrix aficionado, this is really rather sweet. Power is always an aphrodisiac, and beauty--as per beholder. I'm told pheromones can be dangerous. But positive feedback should never be discounted. It's been known to work wonders for politicians, office managers, parents, etc., heck, even your average dog trainer. There are, it turns out, amazingly few exemplars of the human species suffering from a sense of being over appreciated. So, no matter how you attract them, appreciation is a time-honored way to get them to their knees. Rue the day. The real secret is not to go about saying yes to the herds of appreciated people trying to marry you. It takes a bit more to sort out who is actually capable of recognizing how (ahem) truly marvelous you are, and who is only there to hear a lilting "good boy" whenever he fetches in the paper. But, back to that wench who started this off: I'm not bothered by the quality of female characters in HP land, let's face it, even among men, only Snape is perfect. But, my raging Electra Complex notwithstanding, I'm fairly sure that Rowling enjoys kicking Molly's bum around, herself. Even Molly apologists have to admit that one of her salient features is her determination to thwart the twin's dream of a joke shop, and steer them instead to a nice respectable Ministry job. (E.g. GoF 55) Molly is, among other things, the personification of the dream- basher. The worst sort really. Not someone from the other side of the ring, whom you'd expect to throw a sucker-punch, but someone who should have your back. Molly is the vehicle for exploring the friends, family members, and colleagues who think that what you want to do is a joke, and who try to take you down--for your own good, naturally. Rowling frequently relates how she was pressured out of taking the degree she wanted, because her parents envisioned a more practical career (in government--what a coincidence!). (E.g. Washington Post Interview 1999; JKR website Biography) These days she is recommending that kids wise up and tell their parents to sod off. (Washington Post 1999) She has reiterated stories of people who were disappointed to find her spending her free time scribbling her little tales, and how she tried to keep her silly writing ambitions a secret. (E.g. Independent 1997; Washinton Post 1999 ) It's hard not to see the echoes of her experiences in Weasley family dynamics. It takes a lot of heart to persevere against the odds. I have no question that Rowling resented her nay-sayers, and that she is enjoying some well-earned retribution whenever Molly gets the shaft. By the end of OoP, between Percy and the twins, the old girl is in the process of getting it both ways. I say in the process, because Percy hasn't hit bottom, and the twins will see greater glory yet. Yes, Molly dear, grit your teeth, there is more to come. I understand how readers can like Molly. Rowling plays her with a comic touch. The twins are in their room blowing things up, while Molly scurries around burning order forms and confiscating toffees. It's ingenious, really. She is played as a member of the "good team" just exactly so that she can dish out the sort of "friendly fire" that Rowling reveals to be as undesirable as mutant toad women. (Until the end of OoP, Harry hasn't been a particularly good lens for empathy. I think if you read closer, you'll the Weasley her children are suffering a bit more than you might think at first glance.) More than just the object of Rowling's satisfaction, Molly is set up as a particular kind of "foe" that Harry successfully "conquers" by the end of GoF. All of Rowling's baddies represent characteristics she dislikes in real people she has known. (Albert Hall interview 2003) Molly certainly fits the bill. She is not just a dream-buster, she also is the closest thing to a mother Harry has ever known. He clearly has a profound need for motherly affection, as dramatized at the end of GoF: "Mrs. Weasley set the potion down on the bedside cabinet, bent down, and put her arms around Harry. He had no memory of ever being hugged like this, as though by a mother he was screwing up his face against the howl of misery fighting to get out of him." (714) "So what," you say? Well, about here it would be good to recall Dumbledore's nattering, ? la Neville, about how it takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our friends. (SS/PS 306) Clearly this issue matters to Rowling; she reinforces it by having Lupin suffer from the "failing" of needing approval so much that he can't stand up to his buddies. (Albert Hall 2003, OoP 170 Harry could easily succumb to Lupin's weakness, and conform his actions to insure that he stays in the warm glow of motherly approval. But, we see that he does not. For the twins have come to grief. In spite of their spunky ingenuity, Bagman has cheated them out of their entrepreneurial seed money. There is no hope of parental assistance. Dad will only hide under the sofa, and any appeal to Mum will net them a swift kick in the ass, plus a satisfied cackle. This isn't Harry's problem--except for his saving-people thing--and, there is no doubt that he understands the potential repercussions. "Just don`t tell your mum where you got it..." (GoF 733). Reread OoP 679-680 for a demonstration of how much anxiety the trio experiences anticipating Molly's reaction. When Harry finally reveals that he bankrolled the shop, the "shocked silence" is broken by Hermione's burst of disapproval and Ron's great relief that it's Harry who'll catch the hell. Yep, there stands ol' Molly, love in one hand, thunder in the other, and the twins' dreams in the balance. But, even though he fears her displeasure, Harry performs the perfect end-run and empowers the twins to do exactly what Molly wants least: drop out of school and set up shop. Harry has both escaped Lupin's failing, and thwarted the dream-buster. Rowling approves. So, yeah. I think Molly is set up the way she is expressly so that Rowling can teach her a few good lessons. The reason I don't like Molly is simple enough: I wouldn't have put up with her when I was a kid, and I don't see any reason to start now. >Talisman: When I was a Girl Scout.. .blah, blah, blah >Snow: Lucky you, all we did was sing Kumbaya and memorize the >handbook. Talisman: Luck had nothing to do with it. It was a coup d'?tat. Every summer. Sure, there were girls skipping off to the craft lodge to exchange friendship sticks, but our noble cadre was belly-crawling up the embankment, with a precious roll of plastic wrap (nicked at great peril from the dining hall) just right for stretching over those dimly lit latrine holes. Ah, Camp Ledgewood, a little bit of heaven. Talisman, pausing for the salute: Viva le revoluci?n! From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Wed Mar 9 02:37:50 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:37:50 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Friendly Fire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050309023750.GA19609@aardvark.net.au> On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 11:29:56PM -0000, Talisman wrote: > Thrashing? Insecurity? What is all this posturing about? > > Oh, I see...there, that raggedy bit of something sticking out of > your aft pocket. > > Isn't that page 3 of that little pamphlet they hand out when your > testosterone sets in? > > "When you can't keep up with the banter: a) smile annoyingly; b) > redefine to win; and d) suggest her inadequacy." > > Tsk, tsk. Cribbing from the book. No points awarded. Howls of derisive laughter Bruce. > The real secret is not to go about saying yes to the herds of > appreciated people trying to marry you. It takes a bit more to sort > out who is actually capable of recognizing how (ahem) truly > marvelous you are, and who is only there to hear a lilting "good > boy" whenever he fetches in the paper. Sage advice, way way WAY too late for me. > Molly is, among other things, the personification of the dream- > basher. The worst sort really. Not someone from the other side of > the ring, whom you'd expect to throw a sucker-punch, but someone who > should have your back. Molly is the vehicle for exploring the > friends, family members, and colleagues who think that what you want > to do is a joke, and who try to take you down--for your own good, > naturally. If this is what the others have been getting at, then it was worth the wait: I can see now how Molly riles the female List population. But it is also a male fault: I never forgot my father's words "You can't eat expression!" when I told him I would be an artist, to express myself, one day (think I was 9 or 10 at the time). Of course he was perfectly correct, and totally wrong :) Indeed, expression is tough stuff to live on but I won't trade it for anything else. And there you have a corollary: for every gain of a self-censoring "good little" child, parents all too often inspire rebellion in other little hearts. For every Molly there is a Gred & Forge, and you've shed light on why their characterization seemed so simplistic to me, now it becomes obvious. Percy becomes more tragic in retrospect. > I understand how readers can like Molly. Rowling plays her with a > comic touch. The twins are in their room blowing things up, while > Molly scurries around burning order forms and confiscating toffees. > It's ingenious, really. She is played as a member of the "good > team" just exactly so that she can dish out the sort of "friendly > fire" that Rowling reveals to be as undesirable as mutant toad women. Perhaps the comic touch is there to remind us that these lessons are forever repeated and all of us are students, no matter how nasty the classroom seems. And Molly is increasingly becoming a bathetic figure, I suspect to temper Rowling's judgement of her parental failings. > The reason I don't like Molly is simple enough: I wouldn't have put > up with her when I was a kid, and I don't see any reason to start > now. I had no choice, but it was never a question of who was right or wrong. Never threatened at gunpoint to become a lawyer or anything :) -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From elfundeb at comcast.net Wed Mar 9 04:30:09 2005 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (Debbie) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 04:30:09 -0000 Subject: Long ago in a galaxy far away . . . Message-ID: . . . or so it seems, I began to sort out Other Literary Sources and Influences. Three weeks and one dead computer (carrying all my notes on the categories) later, I finally have finished. A couple of overall points: -Many of the posts (including some of the best) are technically comparisons, containing no suggestion that JKR was influenced by the work in question. Don't know if the title can or should be amended to reflect this ("Literary Sources, Influences and Comparisons"). -I generally deleted the code from posts that did not either suggest the work (or genre) as a source or make a substantive comparison (e.g., posts that said simply "JKR borrowed elements of [insert mythology/fantasy/etc]") -To what extent should this section overlap with What genre? (Very pleased that What genre? has been moved to this section.) A reader looking for posts on, e.g., how well HP fits a detective novel pattern would likely look under "detective novels," but it seems that the "Detective Novels" category was made for these comparisons so I've left posts with detailed comparison of JKR with specific genre rules in both categories. -There are numerous works that could be coded to more than one category (e.g., fairy tales and children's fantasy lit). The actual coding was a bit arbitrary, especially between fantasy lit and children's lit. It might make the decisions easier if we made Children's Classics disappear altogether. We could move the children's fantasy to Fantasy Lit, move the children's classics (Little Women, Anne of Green Gables, etc.) to classic lit and kick any leftovers to the general category, or to What genre/Are these kids' books. -I recommend that we amend the definitions to list works with substantial mentions so they are coded consistently to one place. Main heading (32 posts, now 15) -Thread on extent to which JKR drew on her own life experiences and ability to convincingly portray abuse and its effects; would like to move to Abuse, but none of them was coded there. Plus one post on the Mitfords as influencing JKR's writing. -Aside from the above, what's left here are (non-fantasy) movie and TV show comparisons. Tolkien (136/112)/CS Lewis (88/78) -Mostly straightforward except that Tolkien's name is misspelled in the catalogue and it's driving me crazy! -The Very Long Thread comparing HP to LotR and Narnia contained many thoughtful comments on the loose grammar in the series. IIRC, these were axed from Narrative Style, which makes sense, but is there no longer a place for discussions of JKR's use of language? (I confess, I enjoyed reading what people think of JKR's grammar, since it irks me enough to think it detracts from the quality of the series.) Children's Classics (91/71) -The fairy tales are here. So is Lewis Carroll, Oz, Roald Dahl and others that are arguably fantasy or legend. Let me know if I should move them. Science Fiction (64/62)/Fantasy (63/75) -Though I'm sure SciFi purists would disagree, instead of having to assign specific works being compared to one or the other category, it might be easier to combine these two categories. Myths & Legends (136/92) -I put all references to retellings of the King Arthur legend here, rather than in classic literature, because the myth predated the literature. -Also need to decide whether legends regarding specific creatures, such as basilisks and phoenixes, belong here or under the specific beast category. I think they should go under the specific beast category instead of (rather than in addition to) here, but want a second opinion before I delete this code. We could cut at least 20 more posts from this category. Classic Plot Themes (56/47) -The category now consists of specific discussions (not mere mentions) of recurring plot themes and devices, including the hero's journey, deus ex machina, the tragic hero, etc. -Where a classic plot was described with examples, I deleted all literary source codes except this one unless the post separately contained substantive analysis of a particular work. -Nicholas Flamel is not a legend. But apparently, this is a legend: "House Elves are too ugly and repulsive for anyone to have sex with except a big-time pervert. " Literary Classics (91/80) What shall I tackle next? -Portrayal of males/females/gays etc. -Parameters set by JKR/Authorial intent/What is canon/FAITH -Longbottoms I had signed up for the Longbottoms, but if we're not going to finish before getting back to coding maybe I should focus on something less straightforward. My view on the important issue of the day: Molly is poison to the Weasley family dynamic but the Twins are an equal but opposite poison; I find I can forgive Molly's bad parenting more readily than the Twins' cruelty. Debbie From paul-groups at wibbles.org Wed Mar 9 05:12:51 2005 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 23:12:51 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Glitch with re-coding to new level heads (Re: UPDATE, Sunday, March 6th) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It looks like I've gotten this worked out. On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 10:24:08 -0000, carolynwhite2 wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" > wrote: > > > > > > I haven't seen other categories dropping off besides the purple 4- > > 4.6. > > > > Carolyn: > I have just gone in and introduced a new second level heading in this > section, and I think this may solve the problem. All the posts in > that section are now stored in level 3 and level 4 heading categories. > > I think what may have been happening is that you were trying to keep > a second level head (eg 4.6 or whatever), but because Paul has > written a general instruction to the DB not to code to that level > (and taken off the checkboxes to prevent it), the DB was stripping > the code everytime you tried to keep it. > > Anyway, that's my dim understanding of the programming. When you > first reported the error, I thought it was happening on trying to > transfer general chapter posts into the 'review chapter' sub- > categories, ie it wouldn't let you do that. However, if the problem > is specifically about keeping codes in section 4, and there are no > problems with other categories, this may be the solution. > > Hm, I'm learning something every day about DBases... > > > > > 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 zanelupin at yahoo.com Wed Mar 9 05:39:29 2005 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 05:39:29 -0000 Subject: Glitch with re-coding to new level heads (Re: UPDATE, Sunday, March 6th) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yeah, Hi Everyone, Another little problem... I just unchecked 1.16.1 QTTA Canon discussion from post 15022 (because it's really only about FB). When I did so, the other categories, 4.1.2 Differences between editions & 1.15.1 FB&WTFT Canon discussion remained checked...and they're the only ones actually checked. However. For some reason when I hit 'set category' the following came up: Reviewer: kathy k 15022's categories: 1 TEXT ANALYSIS 1.1 Meta-themes 1.8 Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone 1.12 Order of the Phoenix 1.17 Predictions 2 CHARACTER ANALYSIS 2.1 Ministry of Magic Employees 2.3 Hogwarts Staff/non Snape 2.5 Hogwarts Pupils -Gryffindor 2.11 Other Wizard Characters 2.12 Historical Wizarding Characters 2.13 Muggles 2.14 Beings 2.15 Beasts 2.16 Spirits 3 THE WIZARDING WORLD 3.1 WW History 3.2 Economics & Politics 3.3 Law & Order 3.4 Health & Physiology 3.5 Bloodlines & Inheritance 3.7 WW Culture & Media 3.8 Magic 3.10 Magic Travel 3.11 Personal possessions 3.12 Magical plants 3.14 Toys & games 3.15 Geography/Location of WW places 4 OTHER TOPICS 4.1.2 Differences between editions 0 REJECT CATEGORIES 5 ADMIN FLAGS 1.15.1 FB&WTFT Canon discussion 2.6 Hogwart's pupils - Slytherin 2.7 Hogwart's pupils - Ravenclaw 2.8 Hogwart's pupils - Hufflepuff 1.13 Half Blood Prince 1.14 Book 7 0.0 Reject Codes 5.1 Admin categories 1.2 Literary Analysis 2.17 RelationSHIPPING 3.6 Quidditch 3.13 Food & drink 3.17 WW Education General 2.4 Hogwarts Staff - Snape only 2.10 Death Eaters 2.2 Order of the Phoenix Members 4.1 Other topic categories 1.15 Fantastic Beasts & Where To Find Them 1.16 Quidditch Through The Ages 2.9 Durmstrang & Beauxbatons staff & pupils 1.9 Chamber of Secrets 1.10 Prisoner of Azkaban 1.11 Goblet of Fire 3.16 Hogwarts School 3.9 Dark Arts Yikes! KathyK From zanelupin at yahoo.com Wed Mar 9 06:48:43 2005 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 06:48:43 -0000 Subject: Another one... Message-ID: I double-checked the HBP & Book 7 categories that should not have anything coded to them yet because my 15022 oddity ended up under both of them. I found another post with the same issue, 27422. Again, it's only got a few categories checked, 1.2.7, 1.9.0, & 1.10.0, but it has a slew of categories listed. KathyK, not touching another checkbox tonight From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 9 07:05:40 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 07:05:40 -0000 Subject: Friendly Fire In-Reply-To: <20050309023750.GA19609@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: > Talisman, trying to appear as though she understands, when she's really wondering:"Am I Bruce?" and "Do I look like a henhouse?" ventures: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: >If this is what the others have been getting at, then it was worth >the wait: I can see now how Molly riles the female List population. >But it is also a male fault ... Well, all I can do is speak for myself, and I just happen to be female. (I believe it was a certain whiskery individual who suggested that females have a specific problem with Molly) But I agree with you completely: it's not a gender specific trait. Men are every bit as bad when it comes to trying to tell other people what to do with their lives. I think Molly herself is an amalgam of any number of people in Rowling's life, of both genders and various ages, at least in that respect. Which is not to gainsay that she meshes, in other particulars, with the English Mum stereotype Kneasy recognized. >I had no choice, but it was never a question of who was right or >wrong. Never threatened at gunpoint to become a lawyer or >anything :) Well, there you are. My mother wanted to style me as a "princess" and had some wretched plan for me to be a sort of ballerina/stewardess. (Perhaps I was supposed to jet? about with the cocktails until Prince Charming grounded me?) Naturally I wasn't content until I'd put myself through law school. Showed her didn't I? Ack. T From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Mar 9 04:28:36 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 04:28:36 -0000 Subject: Questions, questions ...some fixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > C: > I realised that this problem was not confined to section 4 headings, > but would affect any posts that currently were still sitting in any > level 2 heading (x.x). So, today, I have spent hours going through > every such heading listed on my Sunday update and quickly moving the > posts in them to a safe location. Otherwise, people could have > accidentally lost the whole coding on complex ones just by hitting > save and not seeing there was a level 2 head included in the list. Jen: I guess we'll never know, huh? Or we'll find out the hard way when some valuable post comes up missing. Beta-testing at its finest. Well hell, they don't pay us enough anyway. I'm sure no posts were completely lost because it would be very obvious when setting the new category. Maybe a few lost a coding or two along the way, but we wanted to thin the ranks anyway,lol. Carolyn: > Am I glad you spotted this Jen! And especially for you, I have moved > all the posts sitting in the general book heads to a level 3 'book > review' head. There are two versions of this for CoS, POA and GOF - > the heading you had begun moving things to, plus a heading > called 'OLD' reviews. These are the posts formerly in the book > heading which you have not yet reviewed. They can now sit there > safely until you get to them, rather than risking disappearing, > should anyone be working on a post with a level 2 book code in it. Jen: Thanks! I'll let you know when I'm finished with the Old review categories so you can axe them. > Carolyn > Who is far from bionic, but is nevertheless eyeing up the big wooden > paddle on the wall in case of mass insurrection.. No, no..too cozy around here. Free admission, live entertainment, the occasional death-cage match between Kneasy and Talisman--what more could you want? Jen, who was in Girl Scouts, hated camping out, and now considers "roughin' it" to be a night at a cheap hotel. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Mar 9 09:05:10 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:05:10 -0000 Subject: Another one... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "KathyK" wrote: > > I double-checked the HBP & Book 7 categories that should not have > anything coded to them yet because my 15022 oddity ended up under > both of them. I found another post with the same issue, 27422. > Again, it's only got a few categories checked, 1.2.7, 1.9.0, & > 1.10.0, but it has a slew of categories listed. > > KathyK, not touching another checkbox tonight Carolyn: Jen also reported this post # to me offlist. I have contacted Paul about it immediately. All I can think of is that he was maybe testing something. Will report back... From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Mar 9 05:01:01 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 05:01:01 -0000 Subject: Questions, questions ...some fixes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > C: > I realised that this problem was not confined to section 4 headings, > but would affect any posts that currently were still sitting in any > level 2 heading (x.x). So, today, I have spent hours going through > every such heading listed on my Sunday update and quickly moving the > posts in them to a safe location. Otherwise, people could have > accidentally lost the whole coding on complex ones just by hitting > save and not seeing there was a level 2 head included in the list. Jen: I guess we'll never know, huh? Or we'll find out the hard way when some valuable post comes up missing. Beta-testing at its finest. Well hell, they don't pay us enough anyway. I'm sure no posts were completely lost because it would be very obvious when setting the new category. Maybe a few lost a coding or two along the way, but we wanted to thin the ranks anyway,lol. Carolyn: > Am I glad you spotted this Jen! And especially for you, I have moved > all the posts sitting in the general book heads to a level 3 'book > review' head. There are two versions of this for CoS, POA and GOF - > the heading you had begun moving things to, plus a heading > called 'OLD' reviews. These are the posts formerly in the book > heading which you have not yet reviewed. They can now sit there > safely until you get to them, rather than risking disappearing, > should anyone be working on a post with a level 2 book code in it. Jen: Thanks! I'll let you know when I'm finished with the Old review categories so you can axe them. > Carolyn > Who is far from bionic, but is nevertheless eyeing up the big wooden > paddle on the wall in case of mass insurrection.. No, no..too cozy around here. Free admission, live entertainment, the occasional death-cage match between Kneasy and Talisman--what more could you want? Jen, who was in Girl Scouts, hated camping out, and now considers "roughin' it" to be a night at a cheap hotel. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Mar 9 12:40:03 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:40:03 -0000 Subject: Another one... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Again, it's only got a few categories checked, 1.2.7, 1.9.0, & > 1.10.0, but it has a slew of categories listed. > > KathyK, not touching another checkbox tonight KathyW It's 7:30 Wednesday I just tried to take the Moody code off #34145 and the same thing happened to me. A long, very long list of codes at the top, though the checked boxes below don't reflect the headings. Gees, now I'll probably get caught up in the "What do you think the cover of the books means?" frenzy... From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Mar 9 12:58:58 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:58:58 -0000 Subject: Another one.../have emailed Paul In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Again, it's only got a few categories checked, 1.2.7, 1.9.0, & > > 1.10.0, but it has a slew of categories listed. > > > > KathyK, not touching another checkbox tonight > > KathyW > It's 7:30 Wednesday I just tried to take the Moody code off #34145 > and the same thing happened to me. A long, very long list of codes at > the top, though the checked boxes below don't reflect the headings. > > Gees, now I'll probably get caught up in the "What do you think the > cover of the books means?" frenzy... Carolyn: Alas, I don't know why this is happening. Paul will be getting my messages about it around now. I expect it can be quickly solved, but I agree, hold off cataloguing until he fixes it. From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Mar 9 13:20:50 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:20:50 -0000 Subject: Another one.../have emailed Paul/Molly Weasley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" > wrote: > > > > > > > Again, it's only got a few categories checked, 1.2.7, 1.9.0, & > > > 1.10.0, but it has a slew of categories listed. > > > > > > KathyK, not touching another checkbox tonight > > > > KathyW > > It's 7:30 Wednesday I just tried to take the Moody code off #34145 > > and the same thing happened to me. A long, very long list of codes > at > > the top, though the checked boxes below don't reflect the headings. > > > > Gees, now I'll probably get caught up in the "What do you think the > > cover of the books means?" frenzy... > > > > Carolyn: > Alas, I don't know why this is happening. Paul will be getting my > messages about it around now. I expect it can be quickly solved, but > I agree, hold off cataloguing until he fixes it. Anne: Oy. Must have something to do with the fix that stopped second-level categories from being dropped off -- now they're being added on? KathyK's list was all first and second level. About Molly: Talisman makes a lot of sense. I have a dad who was like that. I still like Molly, but then I still like my dad, too -- and though Jo's parents persuaded her into the wrong course of study, she certainly seems to love them. Anne From paul-groups at wibbles.org Wed Mar 9 14:11:17 2005 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:11:17 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Another one.../have emailed Paul In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Carolyn will verify my fix. But as far as I can tell, the fix is fixed. Sorry about that. I think the only problem was that after updating a category change, all level 1 and level 2 categories were checked. On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 12:58:58 -0000, carolynwhite2 wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" > wrote: > > > > > > > Again, it's only got a few categories checked, 1.2.7, 1.9.0, & > > > 1.10.0, but it has a slew of categories listed. > > > > > > KathyK, not touching another checkbox tonight > > > > KathyW > > It's 7:30 Wednesday I just tried to take the Moody code off #34145 > > and the same thing happened to me. A long, very long list of codes > at > > the top, though the checked boxes below don't reflect the headings. > > > > Gees, now I'll probably get caught up in the "What do you think the > > cover of the books means?" frenzy... > > > > Carolyn: > Alas, I don't know why this is happening. Paul will be getting my > messages about it around now. I expect it can be quickly solved, but > I agree, hold off cataloguing until he fixes it. > > > > > 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 carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Mar 9 14:43:18 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 14:43:18 -0000 Subject: Another one.../have emailed Paul In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Paul Kippes wrote: > Carolyn will verify my fix. But as far as I can tell, the fix is > fixed. Sorry about that. > > I think the only problem was that after updating a category change, > all level 1 and level 2 categories were checked. > > Carolyn: Paul has sent me a list of about 46 posts which may have been affected, and I will work through them one by one. He has also created a special back up version of the DB before this happened, so if by chance the coding on any post is accidentally lost, we can check what it was. For reference, the post numbers are: YCLUB 3745 5579 YGROUP 34145 27422 15022 36172 19820 39822 187 189 36174 50012 4092 4109 4219 4405 36189 5540 36175 36176 25860 25352 27373 27377 27378 27379 27385 27390 27393 27397 27399 25288 25295 27403 27408 27409 31084 33852 29141 29162 32824 36171 36173 24991 36178 36177 From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 9 16:41:33 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 16:41:33 -0000 Subject: Another one.../have emailed Paul/Molly Weasley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > > I still like Molly, but then I still like my dad, too -- and > though Jo's parents persuaded her into the wrong course of study, she certainly seems to love them. > Anne T: Hey, I'm not trying to dissuade you. Between JKR and the back-up drive by, Molly needs all the friends she can get. I would never suggest that Rowling doesn't love her parents. But, Molly isn't Rowling's parents. No character but Lockhart is a direct caricature. (Albert Hall 2003) Molly is *that aspect* of her parents. She is also a lot of other people who tried to dissuade Rowling, such as the older woman, Susan, who used to offer to watch Jessica, only to be "disappointed" when she found out JK was using the time to write. Rowling said: "We weren't dead certs for friendship." (Washington Post 1999) I'm just saying that I'm not the only one who thinks she needs a swift kick. Rowling's already given Molly a taste of the boot, and she's likely to continue. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Mar 9 19:20:02 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 19:20:02 -0000 Subject: Another one.../have emailed Paul/Molly Weasley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Talisman: > I'm just saying that I'm not the only one who thinks she needs a > swift kick. Rowling's already given Molly a taste of the boot, and > she's likely to continue. Jen: Yeah, her and everyone else. Was anyone immune to the boot in OOTP? Few characters were left standing by the end. Maybe Kingsley got to take the high road, and Mad-Eye had it together, but the rest... Actually, Snape also went up a notch in my book. That can only mean one thing--demolition job on the way. From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Mar 9 19:28:37 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 19:28:37 -0000 Subject: Another one.../have emailed Paul/Molly Weasley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > T: > > I would never suggest that Rowling doesn't love her parents. But, > Molly isn't Rowling's parents. No character but Lockhart is a > direct caricature. (Albert Hall 2003) > > > I'm just saying that I'm not the only one who thinks she needs a > swift kick. Rowling's already given Molly a taste of the boot, and > she's likely to continue. Anne: Agreed. I only thought that Jo was writing Molly partly as you describe, and partly sympathetically. She might be two-dimensional, but I don't find her completely one-dimensional. And, coming full circle to the beginning of the conversation, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Jo didn't intend for Molly to be taken sympathetically in exactly some of the areas that drive readers into rages. Jo often seems to be taken aback at the reactions readers have to her books. As for swift kicks, they could stand to be distributed quite generously throughout the roster, couldn't they? Plenty of characters I care about are sure to feel a few well-deserved ones. Anne From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Wed Mar 9 19:58:23 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 06:58:23 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Another one.../have emailed Paul/Molly Weasley In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050309195823.GA28951@aardvark.net.au> On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 07:20:02PM -0000, Jen Reese wrote: > Jen: Yeah, her and everyone else. Was anyone immune to the boot in > OOTP? Few characters were left standing by the end. Maybe Kingsley > got to take the high road, and Mad-Eye had it together, but the > rest... Not Tonks. Tonks rocks. Ok, she's a little clumsy but I find that endearing. And she loses that the minute she has Auror duty. Go Tonks. > Actually, Snape also went up a notch in my book. That can only mean > one thing--demolition job on the way. Oh yesss. But first, Harry has to feel sorry for him, so he can feel EXTRA guilty and probably sacrifice himself in book 7 "for all the misunderstood Snapes of mankind". Yechhh. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From elfundeb at comcast.net Wed Mar 9 20:47:34 2005 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (Debbie) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 20:47:34 -0000 Subject: Another one.../have emailed Paul/Molly Weasley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Jen: Yeah, her and everyone else. Was anyone immune to the boot in > OOTP? Few characters were left standing by the end. Maybe Kingsley > got to take the high road, and Mad-Eye had it together, but the > rest... > > Actually, Snape also went up a notch in my book. That can only mean > one thing--demolition job on the way. You left out the Twins, who shone like the sun until they flew off into the sunset. Too bad; I had visions of them entering into a supply agreement with a DE in disguise while their business was still in the startup stage. Yes, I know this is a minority view . . . . I was pleased with Snape, but I already thought James and Sirius were bullies. But whatever we learn about Snape in HBP, I doubt it will be good. Debbie who's been silent but highly amused by these debates From kking0731 at hotmail.com Thu Mar 10 00:36:32 2005 From: kking0731 at hotmail.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:36:32 -0000 Subject: Friendly Fire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Talisman snipped: Reminds me of a poem I once penned, which I would gladly perform should any of us ever find ourselves, gently intoxicated, in the same corner of a darkening evening. Snow: So you dabble in the poetry field as well. My husband and I started to write poems as a competition of who was better and it became an obsession with him to the degree of a web site. Mine aren't too bad but they seem to always end up being fitting of a Hallmark card. I've always loved reading poetry; maybe I could entice you to share? Talisman snipped: When I was a Girl Scout.. .blah, blah, blah Snow: Lucky you, all we did was sing Kumbaya and memorize the handbook. Talisman: Luck had nothing to do with it. It was a coup d'?tat. Every summer. Sure, there were girls skipping off to the craft lodge to exchange friendship sticks, but our noble cadre was belly-crawling up the embankment, with a precious roll of plastic wrap (nicked at great peril from the dining hall) just right for stretching over those dimly lit latrine holes. Ah, Camp Ledgewood, a little bit of heaven. Snow: Ah! A girl with guts didn't meet your type of independent personality til at least three years after my lame girl scouting experience. Our troop was so cheap we didn't go to a camping site; instead they had day camp for a week in the basement of the local church not quite the type of atmosphere for a memorable good time. I did however experience camping, just not as a scout, and I do mean the roughing it type camping complete with spring water and duel outhouses that supplied you with insects of every variety for entertainment if you were bookless when the urge to withstand the stench overpowered you to the degree of choices. Those outhouses had locks on both sides of the door so they were fun. I especially liked the snape hunts, and I'm not referring to Severus here, it's a prank where you encourage the other campers to go on a facetious hunt through the woods to find and attempt to capture a snape bird who only comes out at dusk. Booby traps are strategically placed for those gullible enough to make the attempt. You just can't fathom how many people you could sell the Brooklyn Bridge to. Snow- a recovering thinker who goes into relapse all the time From paul-groups at wibbles.org Thu Mar 10 00:51:35 2005 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 18:51:35 -0600 Subject: Catalog IP address changed Message-ID: This is why the site went down on Wednesday. The new address is: http://67.174.174.185:443/ From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 10 01:15:15 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 01:15:15 -0000 Subject: My Glove (was Another one.../have emailed Paul/Molly Weasley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > Talisman: > > > I'm just saying that I'm not the only one who thinks she needs a > > swift kick. Rowling's already given Molly a taste of the boot, and> > she's likely to continue. > > Jen: Yeah, her and everyone else. > Actually, Snape also went up a notch in my book. That can only >mean one thing--demolition job on the way. Talisman, wailing away on her whistle: Oh, foul. Where is Hassan Mostafa? Flag on the field! I give you a tight little argument with citations and you counter with a sweeping generality? So, everyone got the boot did they? Let's back up and examine just what kind of boot we are talking about. Mine was no flaccid wanker argument suggesting that JKR only causes bad things to happen to characters who represent attitudes or behaviors she doesn't like. I specifically tied Molly's character flaws to Rowlings RW experiences, and the shaft we are talking about is a specifically tailored shaft, readily recognizable as a direct response to Molly's behavior. In short: Poetic Justice. Now, if Molly's "boot" had consisted of her being wounded in the Death Chamber sortie, I wouldn't have a credible argument. It would not be the same thing at all. If you want to propose that virtually everyone received a cosmic comeuppance in OoP, you will have to back that up with canon, or quit the field, Madame. And really, threatening Snape? How can such villainy be borne? I will tell you this: Snape at the end of HBP will be approximately 180 degrees from Snape at the end of Book 7. Accordingly, I hope the final chapter of HBP finds all the Snape- haters doing obnoxious victory jigs. A little practice leaping will assist when you are all hoist with your own petards. Awaiting you on the grassy swarth, bring your Second. Talisman From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Mar 10 05:03:18 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:03:18 -0000 Subject: My Glove (was Another one.../have emailed Paul/Molly Weasley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Talisman, wailing away on her whistle: > > Oh, foul. Where is Hassan Mostafa? Flag on the field! > > I give you a tight little argument with citations and you counter > with a sweeping generality? Jen: Hey, no counter attacks intended from this end. Just, you know, making conversation, "How's the weather? So you think JKR shafted most of the major characters in OOTP or what?" Talisman: > Mine was no flaccid wanker argument suggesting that JKR only > causes bad things to happen to characters who represent attitudes > or behaviors she doesn't like. I specifically tied Molly's > character flaws to Rowlings RW experiences, and the shaft we are > talking about is a specifically tailored shaft, readily > recognizable as a direct response to Molly's behavior. In short: > Poetic Justice. Jen: Shucks, I don't deserve this much credit! A sweeping generalization by its very nature precludes actually 'reading and inwardly digesting.' And you are pretty much the last person I would accuse of flaccid wankerdom (wankiness?). If you want to hang out on the hook of poetic justice, don't let me stop you. Talisman: > And really, threatening Snape? How can such villainy be borne? I > will tell you this: Snape at the end of HBP will be approximately > 180 degrees from Snape at the end of Book 7. > > Accordingly, I hope the final chapter of HBP finds all the Snape- > haters doing obnoxious victory jigs. A little practice leaping > will assist when you are all hoist with your own petards. Jen: Oh dear, as our beloved friend DD said, "yes, I thought we might hit that little snag." Over *here*, are the Snape-haters. Over *there* are the Snapologists. And very firmly entrenched in the middle are a silent minority, a rare breed, called Couldn't-Give-a-Damn-about-Snape-It's Not-His-Story. It's not villainy nor wishful thinking nor any of the other grenades lobbed up by the feuding majority. No, we folks labor under the futile wish that Snape would spend more time puttering around his dungeon and less time obsessing about a teenage boy. > Awaiting you on the grassy swarth, bring your Second. Jen looks around to find she is pitifully alone. Talisman smirks, blood dripping from her mouth, knuckles cracking in anticipation of an easy kill. "Erm, I'll just...you know....see you tomorrow then, eh?" Jen flashes her most winning smile, backs up to the door and runs like hell out of the catalogue office. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Thu Mar 10 11:10:23 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:10:23 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: My Glove (was Another one.../have emailed Paul/Molly Weasley In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1aa3c24f3e010e169c6637e7b9c2d042@btconnect.com> Dear, oh dear. Unable to respond for a day or so and what happens? Talisman goes bananas. "Molly must suffer! This blot on the face of family dynamics must pay for daring to be the wrong stereotype! Only blood will wipe out this affront!" Nah. Don't think so. Well, not in the way our mid-western harbinger of doom sees it. I scan the cast list in the books and if Molly is for come-uppance there is no sympathetic, married, possible surrogate-mother-for-Harry type at all. Not one. And since JKR seems hell-bent on repopulating Scotland on her own I don't find this credible. Additionally, if JKR was highlighting her own 'struggles' with parental pressure I'd expect that Molly would be all over Ginny like a rash - and she ain't. Come-uppance no, suffer yes. She'll be mourning for dead kids - her own. A touch over the top for "That'll teach you to smother 'em," I'd have thought. And after the mourning - vengeance. She could kill her off (reading her biographical notes the deaths of her grandmother and mother seem to have had a much more lasting and devastating effect than career choices - it'd also be a chance to put her own evident distress into characters mouths) - but if she does I expect Molly to go down fighting, protecting her brood. Old Kippers again: "When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws, They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws, 'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale. For the female of the species is more deadly than the male. . . . She is wedded to convictions - in default of grosser ties; Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies! - He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild, Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child." Oh, and don't worry about ole Sevvy - he's for the chop - and it'll be the fault of that insufferable snot Potter. > So, everyone got the boot did they???? Let's back up and examine > just what kind of boot we are talking about.? > > Mine was no flaccid wanker argument suggesting that? JKR only causes > bad things to happen to characters who represent attitudes or > behaviors she doesn't like.? I specifically? tied Molly's character > flaws to Rowlings RW experiences, and the shaft we are talking about > is a specifically tailored shaft, readily recognizable as a direct > response to Molly's behavior.? In short: Poetic Justice. > > Now, if Molly's "boot" had consisted of her being wounded in the > Death Chamber sortie, I wouldn't have a credible argument.? It would > not be the same thing at all. > > If you want to propose that virtually everyone received a cosmic > comeuppance in OoP, you will have to back that up with canon, or > quit the field, Madame. > > And really, threatening Snape?? How can such villainy be borne?? I > will tell you this: Snape at the end of HBP will be approximately > 180 degrees from Snape at the end of Book 7.? > > Accordingly, I hope the final chapter of HBP finds all the Snape- > haters doing obnoxious victory jigs.? A little practice leaping will > assist when you are all hoist with your own petards. > > > Awaiting you on the grassy swarth, bring your Second. > > Talisman > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > ADVERTISEMENT > <22305_0205_016_b_300250_a.gif> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > ? To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/ > ? > ? To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > ? > ? Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service. > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 4495 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Mar 10 12:34:32 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:34:32 -0000 Subject: 1.2.3 Literary Sources & Influences/ the drive-by back up Message-ID: Debbie reported on 1.2.3 Literary Sources & Influences: -Many of the posts (including some of the best) are technically comparisons, containing no suggestion that JKR was influenced by the work in question. Don't know if the title can or should be amended to reflect this ("Literary Sources, Influences and Comparisons"). C: This is fair comment, I'll make this amendment to the title. -I generally deleted the code from posts that did not either suggest the work (or genre) as a source or make a substantive comparison (e.g., posts that said simply "JKR borrowed elements of [insert mythology/fantasy/etc]") C: The key word is 'substantive' - I think this is the same in all the categories. It's only when you see a whole series of posts together that you can make this judgement. -To what extent should this section overlap with What genre? (Very pleased that What genre? has been moved to this section.) A reader looking for posts on, e.g., how well HP fits a detective novel pattern would likely look under "detective novels," but it seems that the "Detective Novels" category was made for these comparisons so I've left posts with detailed comparison of JKR with specific genre rules in both categories. C: I'd personally like to see the posts pushed down into as specific a category as possible - so I could easily read all the Agatha Christie comparisons in one place, for instance. I suppose the extent to which a post defies easy categorisation under these heads, then it is a candidate for the more general 'What genre?' heading. -There are numerous works that could be coded to more than one category (e.g., fairy tales and children's fantasy lit). The actual coding was a bit arbitrary, especially between fantasy lit and children's lit. It might make the decisions easier if we made Children's Classics disappear altogether. We could move the children's fantasy to Fantasy Lit, move the children's classics (Little Women, Anne of Green Gables, etc.) to classic lit and kick any leftovers to the general category, or to What genre/Are these kids' books. C: I dunno. This is the essence of the NY Times bestseller list argument, isn't it? That you can't distinguish - the book either sells or it doesn't, and over time either drops into oblivion, or is seen as capturing eternal truths. I dither - re your examples below. I am more comfortable with Lewis Carroll or Pooh as classics, than Roald Dahl or Oz. I would be very seriously annoyed to find the dreadful Diana Wynne Jones anywhere near Virginia Woolf under the W's... What do others think? -I recommend that we amend the definitions to list works with substantial mentions so they are coded consistently to one place. C: Agreed. Main heading (32 posts, now 15) -Thread on extent to which JKR drew on her own life experiences and ability to convincingly portray abuse and its effects; would like to move to Abuse, but none of them was coded there. Plus one post on the Mitfords as influencing JKR's writing. -Aside from the above, what's left here are (non-fantasy) movie and TV show comparisons. C: The abuse thread doesn't sound literary - I would re-code as you suggest. Tolkien (136/112)/CS Lewis (88/78) -Mostly straightforward except that Tolkien's name is misspelled in the catalogue and it's driving me crazy! -The Very Long Thread comparing HP to LotR and Narnia contained many thoughtful comments on the loose grammar in the series. IIRC, these were axed from Narrative Style, which makes sense, but is there no longer a place for discussions of JKR's use of language? (I confess, I enjoyed reading what people think of JKR's grammar, since it irks me enough to think it detracts from the quality of the series.) C: Oops..I'll correct it. I'm no longer much of a fan, so I was careless there. Well, now, grammar. If it goes back anywhere near narrative style, I insist it has it's quarantined under its own sub- heading. Before we do, could we hear from Jo, who is tackling 4.1.2.1 Capitalisation, punctuation ? I think there is more of the same there. Hm, detracts from the series? How so? I caught this unbelievably crass comment on the main list the other day: 'If we want the child reader to have a hero that is a good example I don't think that we want him to be someone with poor grammar and low morals.' Give me strength.... Children's Classics (91/71) -The fairy tales are here. So is Lewis Carroll, Oz, Roald Dahl and others that are arguably fantasy or legend. Let me know if I should move them. C: See comments above. Science Fiction (64/62)/Fantasy (63/75) -Though I'm sure SciFi purists would disagree, instead of having to assign specific works being compared to one or the other category, it might be easier to combine these two categories. C: Barry, Sean - what do you think? I suspect you'd like to maintain the distinction, but there are not many posts. However, if Debbie is also proposing merging some children's classics into Fantasy, it becomes more important to keep the categories separate, IMO. Myths & Legends (136/92) -I put all references to retellings of the King Arthur legend here, rather than in classic literature, because the myth predated the literature. -Also need to decide whether legends regarding specific creatures, such as basilisks and phoenixes, belong here or under the specific beast category. I think they should go under the specific beast category instead of (rather than in addition to) here, but want a second opinion before I delete this code. We could cut at least 20 more posts from this category. C: I would agree, ie, beasts to beasts (!) Classic Plot Themes (56/47) -The category now consists of specific discussions (not mere mentions) of recurring plot themes and devices, including the hero's journey, deus ex machina, the tragic hero, etc. -Where a classic plot was described with examples, I deleted all literary source codes except this one unless the post separately contained substantive analysis of a particular work. -Nicholas Flamel is not a legend. But apparently, this is a legend: "House Elves are too ugly and repulsive for anyone to have sex with except a big-time pervert. " C: If you look at my initial review of this section, I thought the content was only 70% relevant. My main definition would be the Joseph Campbell-type stuff, archetypes and so on. Erm, I don't think he addressed the House-Elf question in detail... Literary Classics (91/80) What shall I tackle next? -Portrayal of males/females/gays etc. -Parameters set by JKR/Authorial intent/What is canon/FAITH -Longbottoms I had signed up for the Longbottoms, but if we're not going to finish before getting back to coding maybe I should focus on something less straightforward. C: Would you mind tackling one of the pain categories - I think it would be more useful to sort out good working definitions for these sections, because they confuse so many people. Section 1.2.4/1.2.4.1/1.2.4.2 would be helpful. The characters are easy to pick off as we go back to coding next week. My view on the important issue of the day: Molly is poison to the Weasley family dynamic but the Twins are an equal but opposite poison; I find I can forgive Molly's bad parenting more readily than the Twins' cruelty. C: Alas, I beg to differ. The twins are more or less the only characters in the whole sorry saga that give me pure pleasure. They are a force of nature, sufficient unto themselves, sharp, savvy, totally focused, but discerning enough to lend a helping hand to those that are worth the trouble. Unfortunately, they are boys and will be eternally hobbled by vague guilt about upsetting their mother (she'll make sure of that), but hopefully it won't stop them. I think Talisman is extremely accurate as to what is wrong with Molly - she is a wrecker and a destroyer of ambition and dreams. She's been stupid enough to define herself and her life only as a mother and wife, and forgotten her own identity. It is a 1950s caricature that it would be nice to see demolished, although Kneasy is probably right that JKR has no such plans. Carolyn The drive-by back up, simply boggling at the thought of Talisman as either a ballerina or air-hostess. Cripes, if I saw her coming down the aisle as trolly dolly, I'd be back down those steps even if we were taxiing down the runway, assuming I'd accidentally walked in an operation by the para-military wing of the Anti-Fluff Brigade. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Mar 10 15:36:15 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:36:15 -0000 Subject: Mad-Eye Message-ID: Mad-Eye was 177 is 77. What next? Is there a particular heading you'd like done? Anything but abuse, I'd just reject the whole silly discussion. KathyW From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Mar 10 16:18:16 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:18:16 -0000 Subject: Mad-Eye In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Mad-Eye was 177 is 77. > What next? Is there a particular heading you'd like done? Anything > but abuse, I'd just reject the whole silly discussion. > KathyW Kathy You choose - plenty left. How about the Timelines section (1.2.9)? It's a bit of a mess and probably can be reduced to one or two headings. Note that the Weasley ages argument has its own section now (1.3.3), but you could do both and reduce them a great deal I expect. This section might need to be part of the Weasley family dynamics perhaps. Carolyn From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Mar 10 16:57:36 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:57:36 -0000 Subject: Mad-Eye In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn said: > You choose - plenty left. How about the Timelines section (1.2.9)? > It's a bit of a mess and probably can be reduced to one or two > headings. > > Note that the Weasley ages argument has its own section now (1.3.3), > but you could do both and reduce them a great deal I expect. This > section might need to be part of the Weasley family dynamics perhaps. > KathyW: OK. I'll take timelines. Actually it was one I was thinking of anyway. I didn't catch the part about 1.3.3. Is that a new section that has already been reviewed and some of mine may move into it OR is it a section that also needs to be reviewed? From zanelupin at yahoo.com Thu Mar 10 17:13:25 2005 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:13:25 -0000 Subject: FB & QTA.....& HBP/Book 7 Message-ID: Finished with 1.13 through 1.16.1. Finally. Getting the easy part out of the way first, there is nothing coded to 1.13 HBP & 1.14 Book 7, as it should be. FB Canon Discussion 1.15.1 Was 74, then 88, now 48 with the potential of being reduced further. I was a little lenient with this category for posts placed there early on and a couple that would be rejected outright if I take away the FB code. Later on, anything that could be found simply by reading the schoolbook or visiting the Lexicon for information, I axed 1.15.1. Mostly these posts were about a particular beast or speculated about this or that (ie where the Potter's money came from, mentioning the invention of the golden snitch in GH) and had little to do with FB. Potential further chops: Club posts 4340 & 4371, & Group 12439 These three posts were written prior to the release of Fantastic Beasts and do discuss beasts, some that appear in FB (and 12439 is Lexicon Steve considering how to classify creatures on his site). They're not discussion of the book, they don't even pull from the book because it hadn't been published yet. There's no general category for beasts, right? Where do these go? I'm happy to keep them or toss 'em. 24528--about what 'dark creatures' are with just a passing mention of FB...If I remove 1.15.1 it will still be coded to 3.16.7.6 DADA & 3.16.7.5 COMC. Is this sufficient? 'Cause it sure don't belong under FB as far as I'm concerned. 25515, 25518, 25525--have to do with 'ghouls' (the Weasley's in particular) who appear in FB but do not have their own category. It's only 3 posts but if I were looking for past discussions on ghouls, I'd be looking for a 'ghoul' category. For now I'll leave 'em here. 33838--Has to do with Hagrid's obnoxious skrewt experiment. There's two that kind of belong under 'skrewt,' which we currently do not have. 33838 will have no category if I remove FB. I took the code off 33919 because it had another category, 3.7.2, attached. Really, though these two belong in a skrewt category. Putting them with Hagrid didn't seem quite right... QTA 1.16.1 was 34, now 23 posts Like with 1.15.1 I removed the code from any posts merely mentioning the book or discussing other things using quotes from QTA. I also removed it from a few that merely discussed quidditch as 3.6.1, History, players, balls & rules, sufficed. Best Post in the Categories: There's a great discussion on whether the two schoolbooks are canon that begins with Abigail in 38906. Off to Group Dynamics next, KathyK, who was irritated by Cindy's misspelling 'jobberknoll' throughout post 38890 but will somehow get over it From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Mar 10 17:15:43 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:15:43 -0000 Subject: Timelines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Carolyn said: > > You choose - plenty left. How about the Timelines section (1.2.9)? > > It's a bit of a mess and probably can be reduced to one or two > > headings. > > > > Note that the Weasley ages argument has its own section now > (1.3.3), > > but you could do both and reduce them a great deal I expect. This > > section might need to be part of the Weasley family dynamics > perhaps. > > > > > KathyW: > OK. I'll take timelines. Actually it was one I was thinking of > anyway. I didn't catch the part about 1.3.3. Is that a new section > that has already been reviewed and some of mine may move into it OR > is it a section that also needs to be reviewed? Carolyn: 1.3.3 used to be part of the other section. It is probably as well to do it at the same time as 1.2.9 - there is probably a lot of overlap, and I am not very convinced about the rationale for the headings. From kakearney at comcast.net Thu Mar 10 19:48:17 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:48:17 -0000 Subject: FB & QTA.....& HBP/Book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kathy wrote: > 24528--about what 'dark creatures' are with just a passing mention > of FB...If I remove 1.15.1 it will still be coded to 3.16.7.6 DADA & > 3.16.7.5 COMC. Is this sufficient? 'Cause it sure don't belong > under FB as far as I'm concerned. I just reviewed that post the other day; it's part of a larger thread discussing the definition of dark creatures and why they are studies in DADA rather than CoMC, and I think it belongs solidly in the DADA and CoMC categories, definitely not in FB. I agree you should ax that code. -Kelly From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Mar 10 19:53:34 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:53:34 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Timelines References: Message-ID: Carolyn: 1.3.3 used to be part of the other section. It is probably as well to do it at the same time as 1.2.9 - there is probably a lot of overlap, and I am not very convinced about the rationale for the headings. Kathy W. Got it. Search and destroy. 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 boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com Thu Mar 10 22:14:02 2005 From: boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com (Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:14:02 -0600 Subject: Tonks and SciFi/Fantasy Message-ID: Sean wrote: >Not Tonks. Tonks rocks. Ok, she's a little clumsy but I find that endearing. And she loses that the minute she has Auror duty. Go Tonks.< Endearing? Huh? Tonks is clearly up to something. Consider her introduction: clumsy, heavily-accented, appearance-changing, at cross purposes with ol' Mad Eye. Too much detail for a character who has done nothing yet in this story. Also won over Harry far too quickly. Definitely fishy. I figure she'll either A) be Harry's older love interest or B) do ESE deeds. Since this series is somewhat geared to young adults, I doubt the former (although it'd make for a good adult fanfic). Therefore she will obviously be the one to trick Harry into a situation in HBP so dire that DD will have to sacrifice himself to save the day, after which Harry will be forced to turn to Snape for help during book 7. QED Sorry, I'm just knee-deep in predictions at the moment, couldn't resist recycling that old one. Carolyn wrote re: Science Fiction (64/62)/Fantasy (63/75): >Though I'm sure SciFi purists would disagree, instead of having to assign specific works being compared to one or the other category, it might be easier to combine these two categories.< I was once an avid reader of SciFi/Fantasy, as well, and have no issue combining. They are often impossible to effectively distinguish, since one man's technology is another man's magic. Carolyn wrote: I would agree, ie, beasts to beasts (!) Hey! I know a veiled insult when I see one--and your father smelt of elderberries! --Boyd From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Thu Mar 10 23:20:26 2005 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:20:26 -0000 Subject: The Gilderoy Lockhart Report (*flourish*) Message-ID: Ooookay... Here is the report everybody has been waiting for: that on Category 2.3.5, Gilderoy Lockhart. I apologise for posting about such a straightforward task as sorting out a Character category, but it's my first, so I need someone's blessing . Ahem. I promised I would be ruthless, and lo: when I sorted posts that I thought were worth keeping under the heading, "Character analysis: Gilderoy Lockhart", I ended up with a paltry 27 out of 152, allowing for the fact that there are 15 about which I haven't quite made up my mind yet. Truth is, this category (like most character categories, I suppose) contains an awful lot of posts that just mention GL's name and nothing more. Among the more than 100 posts I propose to reject are: - Etymology of name (which I would say doesn't belong under 'characterisation') - (Very) idle speculations of all kinds, on SHIPs; on what GL might be good at in the WW; on marital status; on what house he might have been in (no canon + generally flimsy) - Discussions about Homorphus and Memory Charms (belong in those respective categories; add nothing about GL) - GL popping up in discussions about DD's appointment policy (I plead guilty to sometimes coding this kind of stuff to "Dumbledore's Agenda", which is probably not where it belongs - where *does* it belong, in fact?) - An absolutely *fascinating* discussion about the possibility of Lockhart sending all the Valentine cards himself, prompted by the supposition that Ginny couldn't possibly have composed that idiotic poem to Harry - Likes/dislikes ("I really *can't* stand Lockhart!" "Really? I think he's fun!") - Comparisons with other characters (preferably Trelawney), not adding anything - Passing mention in Chapter Discussion - Attraction (Molly & Hermione; Veela-like) (seems to belong to characterisation of Molly and Hermione, respectively; and what is the general feeling about GL speculated to be part Veela? There is *so* no canon for that stuff) - Mention of GL in general reviews of CoS, (dis)likes (belongs under 'review') The fifteen I haven't made my mind up about (out of guilt at criticising other people's work) are: - GL based on JKR's ex (refuted on the website) - Interview recounting ? GL based on an acquaintance (fact, though no characterisation) - Attraction, sexiness (is this character analysis?) - Teaching abilities (often comp. Trelawney) - Evil or not? (No great revelations) - Comparison of GL to Veela / speculation - GL as stereotype of a gay man? - Married or not? Some of these can also be found in my reject column; but the 'pending' ones are generally a bit more substantial. There. Can I put the chop in those 100-sumtinks? Yours severely, Sigune From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Fri Mar 11 00:57:17 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:57:17 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Tonks and SciFi/Fantasy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050311005717.GA17794@aardvark.net.au> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 04:14:02PM -0600, Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA} wrote: > Tonks is clearly up to something. Consider her introduction: clumsy, > heavily-accented, appearance-changing, at cross purposes with ol' Mad Eye. > Too much detail for a character who has done nothing yet in this story. Also > won over Harry far too quickly. > > Definitely fishy. Bah Humbug. She's the only female equivalent of Bill Weasley. Gotta be something good about that. And she figures in HBP apparently. Go Tonks. > I figure she'll either A) be Harry's older love interest or B) do ESE deeds. > Since this series is somewhat geared to young adults, I doubt the former > (although it'd make for a good adult fanfic). Therefore she will obviously > be the one to trick Harry into a situation in HBP so dire that DD will have > to sacrifice himself to save the day, after which Harry will be forced to > turn to Snape for help during book 7. QED Then again, anyone Harry cares about inevitably dies, so that's just as likely :( OTOH, I'd rather see Harry fall for Tonks than Luna. That girl's _weird_. And I want Snape to sacrifice himself, as payment for Sirius. =P > I was once an avid reader of SciFi/Fantasy, as well, and have no issue > combining. They are often impossible to effectively distinguish, since one > man's technology is another man's magic. Ooh them's almost fighting words! But since my local bookseller can't tell the difference, why should we. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Mar 11 01:30:22 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:30:22 -0000 Subject: The Gilderoy Lockhart Report (*flourish*) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: > > Ooookay... Here is the report everybody has been waiting for: that on > Category 2.3.5, Gilderoy Lockhart. > Among the more than 100 posts I propose to reject are: > > > - Etymology of name > (which I would say doesn't belong under 'characterisation') Anne: This brings up a question relating to how the search functions are going to work in the end product. I've been coding etymology of name to the character mentioned with the idea that people would want to search the database for "Etymology of name + Gilderoy Lockhart" (or whoever). On the other hand, that would be unnecessary if people can just go to the etymology category and then search there for the character they're interested in. Is that how it's going to work? > - (Very) idle speculations of all kinds, on SHIPs; on what GL > might be good at in the WW; on marital status; on what house he might > have been in > (no canon + generally flimsy) Anne: I do think we should keep a very few off-the-wall posts in the catalogue, just because they are part of the flavor of HPfGU, but only ones that are truly amusing. Either that, or make the "just for a laugh" category available. ~Anne From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Mar 11 03:12:16 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:12:16 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: The Gilderoy Lockhart Report (*flourish*) References: Message-ID: Eva wrote: > Among the more than 100 posts I propose to reject are: > > > - Etymology of name > (which I would say doesn't belong under 'characterisation') Anne: I've been coding etymology of name to the character mentioned with the idea that people would want to search the database for "Etymology of name + Gilderoy Lockhart" (or whoever). Kathy W. I've taken character's codes out of posts that have to do with etymology of names. It's a hard call, but the ones I came across had 6 or 7 characters listed and I was sure I wouldn't want to find that sort of post under a character heading. OTOH, would I want to read through all the posts about names to find out that McGonagall was a Scottish poet? I see it now. Eva takes a name out, Anne puts it back in. I come along and take it out again....Ginger passes by and chops the entire post!! OK that works. KathyW. 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 quigonginger at yahoo.com Fri Mar 11 07:27:12 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:27:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: The Gilderoy Lockhart Report (*flourish*) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050311072712.17871.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com> Kathy W: I see it now. Eva takes a name out, Anne puts it back in. I come along and take it out again....Ginger passes by and chops the entire post!! OK that works. Ginger: You do the Hokey Pokey and you turn yourself about..... Now, now, dear, I only take the weedwhacker to it if it is a SHIPPING post. I don't do drive-by whackings. Look at the SHIP section and I think you'll agree. That which should be whacked is pretty clear. In the case of GL, I'd only whack the SHIP part of the post and leave the rest of the codings. I am enjoying Ships. No such thing as ambiguity. I can count on one hand those on which I have wavered. Although I think it will be a long time before I can listen to the Commodores again. And I've had "Come, Sail Away" running through my head. Off to whack, 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 carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Mar 11 10:06:18 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:06:18 -0000 Subject: The Gilderoy Lockhart Report (*flourish*) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: > - Etymology of name (which I would say doesn't belong under 'characterisation') Anne: This brings up a question relating to how the search functions are going to work in the end product. I've been coding etymology of name to the character mentioned with the idea that people would want to search the database for "Etymology of name + Gilderoy Lockhart" (or whoever). On the other hand, that would be unnecessary if people can just go to the etymology category and then search there for the character they're interested in. Is that how it's going to work? Kathy W. I've taken character's codes out of posts that have to do with etymology of names. It's a hard call, but the ones I came across had 6 or 7 characters listed and I was sure I wouldn't want to find that sort of post under a character heading. OTOH, would I want to read through all the posts about names to find out that McGonagall was a Scottish poet? Carolyn: Hm: I thought we had decided to leave etymology of a specific character's name in that section, as well as cross-coded to etymology. I can see both arguments. Etymology of names certainly does give insight into what JKR might have intended, on the other hand, it would be more useful to find them all in one place rather than trawl through a whole character section to find them. It seems to me that we have two options. We either have an etymology sub-category for most of the big characters, or we break the general etymology category into lots of little sections. I slightly favour the former solution, which would leave the general etymology category for posts that were, well, too general to put under any particular character. On the how the search functions will work, Anne, there will be two main approaches. First you will be able to drill down, select and click on any one of our categories and just read through it. A variation on this is that you will be able to select multiple categories and get them to de- dupe against each other, and then read through the result. The second approach will be much more like Google - you type in a search word and see what comes up. There are pros and cons to both. For example, if you typed 'Snape' into the Google-type search, you would get so many results it would be useless. Much better to go to our selected and organised categories. OTOH, if you know just what you are looking for, eg all mentions of George, or all posts by a specific poster, then the Google approach will be better. Eva: - (Very) idle speculations of all kinds, on SHIPs; on what GL might be good at in the WW; on marital status; on what house he might have been in (no canon + generally flimsy) - Discussions about Homorphus and Memory Charms (belong in those respective categories; add nothing about GL) - GL popping up in discussions about DD's appointment policy (I plead guilty to sometimes coding this kind of stuff to "Dumbledore's Agenda", which is probably not where it belongs - where *does* it belong, in fact?) - An absolutely *fascinating* discussion about the possibility of Lockhart sending all the Valentine cards himself, prompted by the supposition that Ginny couldn't possibly have composed that idiotic poem to Harry - Likes/dislikes ("I really *can't* stand Lockhart!" "Really? I think he's fun!") - Comparisons with other characters (preferably Trelawney), not adding anything - Passing mention in Chapter Discussion - Attraction (Molly & Hermione; Veela-like) (seems to belong to characterisation of Molly and Hermione, respectively; and what is the general feeling about GL speculated to be part Veela? There is *so* no canon for that stuff) - Mention of GL in general reviews of CoS, (dis)likes (belongs under 'review') Carolyn: My thoughts on the above are: - DADA appointment policy; could be worth keeping some if they include any reasonable analysis of GL's actual character/suitability for job (or not) - The Valentine Incident - well, I suppose he could have sent it. Might be worth keeping one or two for posterity - or ensuring they are cross-coded to the relevant chapter, if that's where we have decided that discussion is to be located. On that topic, and what should or should not be found under the chapter codes/general book reviews generally, Talisman suggested a while back that we should have a clear list of our decisions on such subjects. Jen, could you bear to compile this, as it would be helpful ? I hadn't seen posts suggesting he was part Veela.....erm, curious. So the idea is that a man could somehow subvert a magic which women used to attract men, to enable him to attract women??? Eva: The fifteen I haven't made my mind up about (out of guilt at criticising other people's work) are: - GL based on JKR's ex (refuted on the website) - Interview recounting ? GL based on an acquaintance (fact, though no characterisation) - Attraction, sexiness (is this character analysis?) - Teaching abilities (often comp. Trelawney) - Evil or not? (No great revelations) - Comparison of GL to Veela / speculation - GL as stereotype of a gay man? - Married or not? Some of these can also be found in my reject column; but the 'pending' ones are generally a bit more substantial. Carolyn: - Well, whatever she says on her website, I wouldn't discount the possibility. Maybe keep one or two for posterity. - Attractiveness - I suppose, if someone can argue a reasonable case for it...I've always thought Molly's and Hermione's responses to him were particularly well-observed by JKR. - Teaching abilities - yes, I think I would keep those. Sounds relevant. - gay/married - yes, if any kind of substance to the posts Erm..you *have* taken to this, haven't you Carolyn From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Fri Mar 11 11:06:10 2005 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:06:10 -0000 Subject: The Gilderoy Lockhart Report (*flourish*) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn observed: > Eva: *Dear* Carolyn, if I am slow, it is not purely because I am so very inept - it's because I'm *thorough*, too. - Er - I think that makes me *thoroughly inept*, yes? I wrote: <<< - Etymology of name (which I would say doesn't belong under 'characterisation')>>> Anne: << This brings up a question relating to how the search functions are going to work in the end product. I've been coding etymology of name to the character mentioned with the idea that people would want to search the database for "Etymology of name + Gilderoy Lockhart" (or whoever). On the other hand, that would be unnecessary if people can just go to the etymology category and then search there for the character they're interested in. Is that how it's going to work?>> Me: Yes, it's with the Boolean (?) thingy in mind that I checked categories like mad when I first started coding... Now, reviewing, I kept very strictly to the idea that I was doing a "Character Analysis" category, and if the etymology post doesn't add anything substantial to an analysis of dear Gildy's character, I'd chuck it out. PotionKathy said: << I've taken character's codes out of posts that have to do with etymology of names. It's a hard call, but the ones I came across had 6 or 7 characters listed and I was sure I wouldn't want to find that sort of post under a character heading. OTOH, would I want to read through all the posts about names to find out that McGonagall was a Scottish poet?>> Me: That's what I mean. Carolyn: Me: I plead guilty to not knowing what we had decided. I vote for a comprehensive catalogue of directions per category :-) - else we are (or I am) going to create new messes, though arguably on a smaller scale. It's just that these are such flimsy posts (think one line, to point out that 'gild' refers to gold) that really don't *add* anything about Gildy. They should end up somewhere, I guess, but really not under character discussion. Carolyn: Me: System One has my vote. Carolyn: Me: Most don't; but they have made me wonder if we don't need a separate category for that general discussion about DADA and other appointments. It does keep popping up with the regularity of clockwork. Does it go under the general heading of 'Teachers', perhaps? Lots will have ended up under 'Snape', too, and under 'Trelawney'. I wouldn't want those posts to get lost somewhere; but they mostly don't belong under GL because they do no more than mention his name. Actually, some don't even do *that* (honest!). Carolyn: <- The Valentine Incident - well, I suppose he could have sent it. Might be worth keeping one or two for posterity - or ensuring they are cross-coded to the relevant chapter, if that's where we have decided that discussion is to be located.> Me: Aye aye. Er - *puzzled* - have we decided that? Carolyn: Me: Hear, hear! Carolyn: Me: I have become convinced that readers will do *anything* to explain away that an intelligent twelve-year-old Hermione could have a crush on a handsome fraud. BTW: I have once read a fic in which *Snape* was said to have Veela blood - that was made to account for his ugliness ("their faces were elongating into sharp, cruel-beaked bird heads" etc.)... You'll have to admit, it's more original than him being part vampire, no? Shall I go unchecking now? Eva From quigonginger at yahoo.com Fri Mar 11 11:32:04 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:32:04 -0000 Subject: General Shipping and other stuff Message-ID: First of all, my apologies to anyone who has had to deal with any post that I coded during my "I'm a newbie and I'm going to do a really good job and not miss clicking anything" phase. I had to deal with one of my own tonight. Not pretty. On to General Shipping (shouldn't it be Admiral? j/k) There were 264 posts. There are now 78. Before you think I got the weedwhacker too far into gear, let me reassure you I have only rejected 32 that were ship-only, and 60 that were ship+other categories. I uncoded shipping codes on 37 posts that were otherwise good, and moved 53 to other ship categories, where they are better represented. I will be moving on to Trio ships, which has 742 posts at this time. I fully intend to chop a lot there. Let's face it, there are only so many things you can say about HRH, and most of it has been said...and said...and said. I am going to try to keep the best of any combination that comes up and get rid of the rest. (Keeping the post and uncoding shipping, of course, where applicable.) I did find a funny which noted that in the WW women tend to take the name of their husband and that JKR likes alliteration, which, put together, could provide us a clue for shipping. I've spent way too much time musing on that. Ginger, who couldn't get into the new address, and found that she was misspelling the password. Duh. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Mar 11 12:03:49 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:03:49 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] 1.2.3 Literary Sources & Influences/ the drive-by back up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Science Fiction (64/62)/Fantasy (63/75) > -Though I'm sure SciFi purists would disagree, instead of having to > assign specific works being compared to one or the other category, it > might be easier to combine these two categories. > > C: Barry, Sean - what do you think? I suspect you'd like to maintain > the distinction, but there are not many posts. However, if Debbie is > also proposing merging some children's classics into Fantasy, it > becomes more important to keep the categories separate, IMO. > As a Sci Fi purist I'd hate to see it disappear - however there are very, very few worthwhile influences/parallels between HP and the pure stuff. Be interesting if someone wrote a decent essay on comparisons between them though - or at least comparing HP to a specific SF classic, 'A Canticle for Leibowitz' say. And no, I'm not volunteering. OK, update. 1.2.8 - Back History; was 120, now 114 1.2.8.1 - Godric's Hollow; was 481, now 443. Most of the rejects contained either a non-significant passing reference, considerations about the Fidelius Charm (in isolation) or why Sirius was laughing when Peter pulled a fast one. It might be worth considering adding an extra category - The missing 24 hours - some of the posts concentrate on this and mention of GH itself is only marginal. I seem to recall that '24 hours' (in its own right) has generated a lot of posts in the last couple of years. 1.2.8.2 - Shrieking Shack (not PoA); was 145, now 128. Despite the heading there were posts that dealt solely with the PoA episode. Once again, I tthink there should be a Shrieking Shack II added to the list - it's just the right time, too - Pip's 'Spying Game' posts have just hit the board and there's an awful lot of analysis of SS II from here on in. 1.2.8.3 - Chamber of Secrets; was 35, now 34. 1.2.8.4 - Longbottom torture; was 53, now 50. 40871- Voldy possesses Neville after GH and Neville tortures his own parents. I do admire sick thinking like that. 1.2.8.5 - About the OoP; was 35, now 26. Note that 'the old crowd' is not the same as OoP - there is an overlap but they are not identical - so if the former was discussed with no reference to the latter the post got the old heave-ho. 1.2.8.6 - About the DEs; was 181, now 159. Posts intent solely on discussing any particular character as DE got junked - Snape (of course) plus a few Bagman. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 2537 bytes Desc: not available URL: From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Mar 11 14:16:04 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:16:04 -0000 Subject: 1.2.3 Literary Sources & Influences/ the drive-by back up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Barry: > Once again, I think there should be a Shrieking Shack II added to the list - it's just the right time, too - Pip's 'Spying Game' posts have just hit the board and there's an awful lot of analysis of SS II from here on in. Kathy W. I agree. I know I've coded a lot of posts about the events in the Shack in PoA. Having it's own heading would eliminate the need to over code it. I haven't read Science Fiction in years. I lost interest when it merged into fantasy. Does anyone still write pure science fiction? Kathy W. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Mar 11 14:29:29 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:29:29 -0000 Subject: The Gilderoy Lockhart Report (*flourish*) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: CW: > - The Valentine Incident - well, I suppose he could have sent it. > Might be worth keeping one or two for posterity - or ensuring they > are cross-coded to the relevant chapter, if that's where we have > decided that discussion is to be located. Jen: I kept a thread about the Valentines because it was worth reading and was a pretty exhaustive look at all possible suspects and scenarios. I do think chapters are a good place to locate these threads with no other obvious home, cross-coded to characters like Eva is doing with a few of the Valentine posts. CW: > On that topic, and what should or should not be found under the > chapter codes/general book reviews generally, Talisman suggested a > while back that we should have a clear list of our decisions on such > subjects. Jen, could you bear to compile this, as it would be > helpful ? Jen: *Pouts* "Shouldn't Talisman have to since it was her suggestion?" Jen's mind wanders, suddenly imagining Talisman swinging her machete and lopping off carefully cultivated chapter topics. Hmmm...on second thought, what the hey, might be fun. But this weekend I'm going away for a girls getaway with no kids, no computer, a stack of books and hopes for recovering my sanity. So, maybe next week ;)? Way to go Eva, you did a really nice job. Were we supposed to run by all the posts we wanted to whack and I skipped a step? Oops. I didn't end up totally whacking very many posts though, although I did take chapter codes off a fair few for the reasons mentioned in my previous chapter summary post. Jen, hoping everyone else has a good weekend, too. From kakearney at comcast.net Fri Mar 11 14:30:37 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:30:37 -0000 Subject: The Gilderoy Lockhart Report (*flourish*) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn: > - DADA appointment policy; could be worth keeping some if they > include any reasonable analysis of GL's actual character/suitability > for job (or not)> Eva: > Most don't; but they have made me wonder if we don't need a separate > category for that general discussion about DADA and other > appointments. It does keep popping up with the regularity of > clockwork. Does it go under the general heading of 'Teachers', > perhaps? Lots will have ended up under 'Snape', too, and > under 'Trelawney'. I wouldn't want those posts to get lost somewhere; > but they mostly don't belong under GL because they do no more than > mention his name. Actually, some don't even do *that* (honest!). There is already a category for this: 3.16.7.6 DADA. At least, in my review, I deemed discussion of the DADA post and Dumbledore's questionable ability to fill it a suitable topic for this category. I'm almost done the 3.16.7 review; it should be completed this weekend at the latest. -Kelly From kakearney at comcast.net Fri Mar 11 14:38:05 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:38:05 -0000 Subject: The Gilderoy Lockhart Report (*flourish*) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Anne: > This brings up a question relating to how the search functions are > going to work in the end product... Carolyn: ... > On the how the search functions will work, Anne, there will be two > main approaches. > > First you will be able to drill down, select and click on any one of > our categories and just read through it. A variation on this is that > you will be able to select multiple categories and get them to de- > dupe against each other, and then read through the result. > > The second approach will be much more like Google - you type in a > search word and see what comes up. Kelly: Would it be possible to perform a Boolean search within a specific category (or two)? That could cut down on the necessity to cross- code. For example, to find etymology of a specific name, you could search for "Gilderoy Lockhart" in the category "Etymology of names". From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Mar 11 14:56:20 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:56:20 -0000 Subject: 1.2.3 Literary Sources & Influences/ the drive-by back up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Barry: > > Once again, I think there should be a Shrieking Shack II added > > to the list - it's just the right time, too - Pip's 'Spying > > Game' posts have just hit the board and there's an awful lot of > > analysis of SS II from here on in. > Kathy W. > I agree. I know I've coded a lot of posts about the events in the > Shack in PoA. Having it's own heading would eliminate the need to > over code it. Jen: I vote for a Shrieking Shack II category, as well as a category for the Graveyard. Otherwise the chapter headings will turn into the primary search vehicle for these particular scenes. As we discussed before, it could get a little frustrating with posts spread across three or more chapters. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Mar 11 15:23:38 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:23:38 -0000 Subject: Chapters vs back history In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > > Barry: > > > Once again, I think there should be a Shrieking Shack II added > > > to the list - it's just the right time, too - Pip's 'Spying > > > Game' posts have just hit the board and there's an awful lot of > > > analysis of SS II from here on in. > > > Kathy W. > > I agree. I know I've coded a lot of posts about the events in the > > Shack in PoA. Having it's own heading would eliminate the need to > > over code it. > > Jen: I vote for a Shrieking Shack II category, as well as a category > for the Graveyard. Otherwise the chapter headings will turn into the > primary search vehicle for these particular scenes. As we discussed > before, it could get a little frustrating with posts spread across > three or more chapters. Carolyn: I agree. Will add the categories. Jen - on the list, I only meant for you to give us a list of the decisions you had taken in each chapter as to what was to be included or not, in terms of incidents. We can then add and work on that as we go along. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Mar 11 16:25:26 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:25:26 +0000 Subject: *SPAM?* [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: 1.2.3 Literary Sources & Influences/ the drive-by back up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > I haven't read Science Fiction in years. I lost interest when it > merged into fantasy. Does anyone still write pure science fiction? > > Kathy W. > > Hell's teeth, yes. It went through the doldrums about 15 - 20 years back, about the time Niven went peculiar - but over the last ten years it's been revitalised. Space opera flourishes (try David Weber for that), Lois McMaster Bujold still entertains with her Vorkosigan series (if you haven't read it, start at the beginning with 'Cordelia's Choice'), but over the past few years hard science fiction has made a comeback - Alistair Reynolds, Vernor Vinge (his 'A Deepness in the Sky' is a cracker), Mary Russell - 'The Sparrow' - now that one's special. There's a whole new generation of writers out there, the problem is finding out about them, no mainstream newspaper or magazine reviews their books. On my shelves I've approx 1,200 SF titles (about 12 fantasy - and that includes the HP series) and I'd estimate 60% were first published in the last 7 years. Let me know what your tastes are and I'll recommend some titles for you to try. There's even (God help us) a series that has SHIPping as it's main theme. True love in the Spaceways. Ugh. Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1287 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Fri Mar 11 16:57:33 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 03:57:33 +1100 Subject: *SPAM?* [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: 1.2.3 Literary Sources & Influences/ the drive-by back up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050311165733.GA23305@aardvark.net.au> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 04:25:26PM +0000, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > On my shelves I've approx 1,200 SF titles (about 12 fantasy - and that > includes the HP series) and I'd estimate 60% were first published in > the last 7 years. Let me know what your tastes are and I'll recommend > some titles for you to try. There's even (God help us) a series that > has SHIPping as it's main theme. True love in the Spaceways. Ugh. I'm curious, Barry: have the styles of Gibson and Stephenson spawned noteworthy genres/writers? This is the sort of thing most difficult for an antipodean to gauge. And is Gaiman truly in a class of his own still? Sean, desperate for some SF/Fantasy freedom. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Fri Mar 11 17:19:05 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 04:19:05 +1100 Subject: Friendship, Loyalty and Toads Message-ID: <20050311171905.GB23305@aardvark.net.au> Friendship & Loyalty Report *************************** Initial Posts: 448 Final Posts: 276 Trust/Mistrust: 154 Spying/Betrayal: 44 What a terrible category. Not helped by a slow recovery from teeth extraction, I wallowed in this Slough of Despond this entire week, and have come to several conclusions: 1. It's generally useless except in terms of its two sub-categories. 2. It's all too frequently mistaken for Trio Dynamics. 3. It's easily the most overcoded category I've reviewed. The basic rule of thumb deriving from the above conclusion is, unless a post REALLY REALLY REALLY concerns F & L, don't even think about it, and ESPECIALLY (clears throat to attract the attention of colourfully-singing Ginger bashing around in the back-posts), NOT as an alternative to Trio Dynamics. TD exists precisely to mop up vague categories all dealing with the Trio; it is a large category because it's a List obsession, apart from Shipping. You are free to disagree with me, and I am free to permanently Transfigure you into a nice specimen of Bufo Marinus: you won't be lonely and you'll have the gleeful attention of small Australian children. I expect F&L and its sub-cats to be a bit more useful post-GoF discussion; but the current quality of the discussion particularly re Snape and Ron leads to a surfeit of cynicism. The big surprise was how little Hagrid figured. THE canonical case of friendship & loyalty outside the Trio (TD is for *within* the Trio or Maurauder comparison), and few remark on it. God knows what I'm going to find in Hagrid, which is my next task. Sean (penguin of doooom) -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Fri Mar 11 18:46:03 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:46:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Friendship, Loyalty and Toads In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050311184603.81790.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com> Sean: The basic rule of thumb deriving from the above conclusion is, unless a post REALLY REALLY REALLY concerns F & L, don't even think about it, and ESPECIALLY (clears throat to attract the attention of colourfully-singing Ginger bashing around in the back-posts), NOT as an alternative to Trio Dynamics. Ginger: Who me? Sean: TD exists precisely to mop up vague categories all dealing with the Trio; it is a large category because it's a List obsession, apart from Shipping. Ginger: Unless I am gravely mistaken, TD is a new category. As I recall, I voiced approval at it's creation for that very reason, and since I haven't been in the office for long, that means it's really new. I have uncoded the ship part of many a shipping post that didn't really ship, but fit better in the TD category. Many of these were also coded to F&L. Feel free to move them to TD. Sean: You are free to disagree with me, and I am free to permanently Transfigure you into a nice specimen of Bufo Marinus: you won't be lonely and you'll have the gleeful attention of small Australian children. Ginger: And I am free to make you listen to me sing. "We're just ships that pass in the night, and we smile when we say 'it's allright'.........." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Fri Mar 11 19:15:51 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 06:15:51 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Friendship, Loyalty and Toads In-Reply-To: <20050311184603.81790.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050311184603.81790.qmail@web60506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050311191551.GA27906@aardvark.net.au> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 10:46:03AM -0800, Ginger wrote: > Ginger: Unless I am gravely mistaken, TD is a new category. As I recall, I > voiced approval at it's creation for that very reason, and since I haven't > been in the office for long, that means it's really new. > > I have uncoded the ship part of many a shipping post that didn't really > ship, but fit better in the TD category. Many of these were also coded to > F&L. Feel free to move them to TD. So moved. Not to curb your enthusiasm, it's just that your previous post showed signs of...whacking-fever. > Sean: You are free to > disagree with me, and I am free to permanently Transfigure you into a nice > specimen of Bufo Marinus: you won't be lonely and you'll have the gleeful > attention of small Australian children. > > > Ginger: And I am free to make you listen to me sing. "We're just ships that pass in the night, and we smile when we say 'it's allright'.........." Aaagh!! Not if my Dorothy the Dinosaur doesn't get you first! I shall wield my Wiggles Sing With Me Microphone of Doom and press the Jeff Wiggle!! -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Fri Mar 11 19:26:07 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:26:07 +0000 Subject: *SPAM?* [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: 1.2.3 Literary Sources & Influences/ the drive-by back up In-Reply-To: <20050311165733.GA23305@aardvark.net.au> References: <20050311165733.GA23305@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: <4e40a7fd27901608d866141e6f7f9eac@btconnect.com> First, an admission - I'm not a fan of Neil Gaiman, so ' in a class of his own' probably wouldn't mean the same thing on my list as on yours. Ah well. Takes all sorts. Gibson, Stephenson - you mean early Stephenson as in 'Snowcrash' - techno-cyber-hard science whatever-it-is? Or maybe the softer Gibson as in 'All Tomorrow's Parties'? It's a bugger when they change styles on you. A couple I enjoy are Neil Asher and Richard Morgan - they fall somewhere near the middle of Gibsons spectrum so far as hardware is concerned, though Asher has his fun in alien environments. I do like a writer that builds a believable background and maintains it over a series. C. Cherryh with 'Foreigner' or Shogun in Space as it's detractors refer to it; Michael Flynn with his 'Star' - 'Rogue Star', 'Fire Star' etc. series (pretty much todays world with todays problems - and a driven woman with a real-world fear as lead character - nicely constructed). Since you're a Gaiman fan you'll have been introduced to China Mieville, weird but compulsive. To be honest, I find it more and more difficult to classify some of these writers into neat sub-genres - it's only the military weapons-wonks (Tom Clancy clones like John Ringo) that seem to stand still long enough. Anyway, I thought you were doing OK down there with the likes of Sean McMullen doing the business? Barry On 11 Mar 2005, at 16:57, Sean Dwyer wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 04:25:26PM +0000, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > > On my shelves I've approx 1,200 SF titles (about 12 fantasy - and > that > > includes the HP series) and I'd estimate 60% were first published in > > the last 7 years. Let me know what your tastes are and I'll > recommend > > some titles for you to try. There's even (God help us) a series that > > has SHIPping as it's main theme. True love in the Spaceways. Ugh. > > I'm curious, Barry: have the styles of Gibson and Stephenson spawned > noteworthy genres/writers? This is the sort of thing most difficult > for an > antipodean to gauge. And is Gaiman truly in a class of his own still? > > Sean, desperate for some SF/Fantasy freedom. > > -- > When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > ADVERTISEMENT > <22305_0205_016_b_300250_a.gif> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > ? To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/ > ? > ? To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > ? > ? Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service. > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 3253 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Fri Mar 11 20:06:57 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 07:06:57 +1100 Subject: the drive-by back up or Adventures in SF/Fantasy Ignorance. In-Reply-To: <4e40a7fd27901608d866141e6f7f9eac@btconnect.com> References: <20050311165733.GA23305@aardvark.net.au> <4e40a7fd27901608d866141e6f7f9eac@btconnect.com> Message-ID: <20050311200657.GA29848@aardvark.net.au> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:26:07PM +0000, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > First, an admission - I'm not a fan of Neil Gaiman, so ' in a class > of his own' probably wouldn't mean the same thing on my list as on > yours. Ah well. Takes all sorts. As in 'never read anything like him' class-of-his-own. But how can you not like Neverwhere? > Gibson, Stephenson - you mean early Stephenson as in 'Snowcrash' - > techno-cyber-hard science whatever-it-is? Or maybe the softer Gibson as > in 'All Tomorrow's Parties'? It's a bugger when they change styles on > you. Yeah sorry, ok, the harder Gibson and the funny Stephenson then. I don't _think_ anyone's attacking Cryptonomicon-type material yet?! I guess I fall into the category of Near-Fi SF fandom; I don't think I ever recovered from the Phillip K. Dick vision. There's something I like about dirty technology and global warming :) > A couple I enjoy are Neil Asher and Richard Morgan - they fall > somewhere near the middle of Gibsons spectrum so far as hardware is > concerned, though Asher has his fun in alien environments. Scribble, scribble. > I do like a writer that builds a believable background and maintains it > over a series. C. Cherryh with 'Foreigner' or Shogun in Space as it's > detractors refer to it; Michael Flynn with his 'Star' - 'Rogue Star', > 'Fire Star' etc. series (pretty much todays world with todays problems > - and a driven woman with a real-world fear as lead character - > nicely constructed). Since you're a Gaiman fan you'll have been > introduced to China Mieville, weird but compulsive. Actually my Gaiman fandom is limited to two books. The other is American Gods. It takes a lot to get me to go for a series now. Robert Jordan will tend to do that to one, and even Terry Pratchett became ho-hum after the 20th hilarious episode. > To be honest, I find it more and more difficult to classify some of > these writers into neat sub-genres - it's only the military > weapons-wonks (Tom Clancy clones like John Ringo) that seem to stand > still long enough. I think it's hard enough to find someone with an authentic voice. If the voice is right, the genre will follow. I admit to being very biased about Gibson, however. To maintain the pretence of any kind of on-topicness, what Gibson suffered after he went 'soft' is nothing to what's likely in store for JKR. > Anyway, I thought you were doing OK down there with the likes of Sean > McMullen doing the business? Witness my complete ignorance. So he's written a million books. And I've never *seen* them in Dymocks (my local) but they list them all on their website. Grrr. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Mar 11 23:38:03 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:38:03 -0000 Subject: Lots of replies... Message-ID: Carolyn observed to Eva about the tattered remnants of GL: > Eva: *Dear* Carolyn, if I am slow, it is not purely because I am so very inept - it's because I'm *thorough*, too. - Er - I think that makes me *thoroughly inept*, yes? Carolyn: I hasten to add that I was referring to your slash and burn tendencies, which appear frighteningly competent... ******************** Carolyn: On to General Shipping (shouldn't it be Admiral? j/k) There were 264 posts. There are now 78. Before you think I got the weedwhacker too far into gear, let me reassure you I have only rejected 32 that were ship-only, and 60 that were ship+other categories. >I will be moving on to Trio ships, which has 742 posts at this time. I fully intend to chop a lot there. Let's face it, there are only so many things you can say about HRH, and most of it has been said...and said...and said. Carolyn: Ginger, you are doing an amazing job with this stuff. It brings tears to my eyes just thinking about it..I really could *not* read it through. Alas, there is not the slightest need to reassure anyone here of the absolute necessity of reducing it to the barest minimum.. *********** Barry: As a Sci Fi purist I'd hate to see it disappear - however there are very, very few worthwhile influences/parallels between HP and the pure stuff. Carolyn: Can we take this as an interim decision about this category, and we can take a look at what we have got later in the year? *********** Jen: I do think chapters are a good place to locate these threads with no other obvious home, cross-coded to characters like Eva is doing with a few of the Valentine posts. Carolyn: Jen, just to reiterate my earlier point - I was suggesting you kept a list of these type of threads as you worked through the chapters and posted it so we knew where to put things in future. ********** Sean (penguin of doooom with less teeth than last week) said about friendship & loyalty: 1. It's generally useless except in terms of its two sub-categories. 2. It's all too frequently mistaken for Trio Dynamics. 3. It's easily the most overcoded category I've reviewed. I have uncoded the ship part of many a shipping post that didn't really ship, but fit better in the TD category. Many of these were also coded to F&L. Feel free to move them to TD.< Sean, you are seeing a lot of posts that looked liked Ginger's, but only appear so because she was the last one to deal with them, by taking off the shipping code. In reality, the blame can be spread far and wide. Would you define what sort of 'post REALLY REALLY REALLY concerns F & L,' ?? It's this squidgy stuff we have to pin down to stop all the over-coding happening in future. And I give due and awful warning that I might tackle the morality section if no one stops me. It's not going to be pretty, I tell you. Meanwhile, I am finishing Pettigrew.. ************* From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sat Mar 12 03:19:06 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:19:06 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Lots of replies... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050312031906.GA28460@aardvark.net.au> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 11:38:03PM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > Sean (penguin of doooom with less teeth than last week) said about > friendship & loyalty: Mmmm mmmphh ma eeooh mmpph. Sorry, forgot my Junior ESE!Penguin Training Teeth(tm). > ...and then gratuitously threatened to turn Ginger into a toad, > despite all the Bourbon she's been sending him. Tut tut. what shall we do with the drunken penguin what shall we do with the drunken penguin what shall we do with the drunken penguin earl-yy in the morning? lock him in the brig with the vampire!Snape freak make him read a cat with a half-giant flavour tell him Hermy's off to do the deed with Lupin earl-yy in the morning. singing hooray up his jacksie, etc. > And I thought these heart-warming themes are what really interested > people. Where's your sense of adventure? > Sean, you are seeing a lot of posts that looked liked Ginger's, but > only appear so because she was the last one to deal with them, by > taking off the shipping code. In reality, the blame can be spread far > and wide. I'm trying to PROTECT it, woman. Mind you, I haven't seen the shipping code substantially diminished...yet. > Would you define what sort of 'post REALLY REALLY REALLY concerns F & > L,' ?? It's this squidgy stuff we have to pin down to stop all the > over-coding happening in future. One that actually talks about F & L not half-a-dozen other things. Or is REALLY talking about Trio Dynamics. Not shipping. Or why Ron is still really going to betray Harry despite getting two out of three eriseds which is incredibly unfair. > And I give due and awful warning that I might tackle the morality > section if no one stops me. It's not going to be pretty, I tell you. Would you believe that the Hagrid category appears so far to be about Hagrid?? I mean, blow me down and everything. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Mar 12 03:59:08 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:59:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Lots of replies... In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050312035908.1049.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com> Sean: Mind you, I haven't seen the shipping code substantially diminished...yet. Ginger: Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Just you wait, (and I hope your teeth feel better in the meantime) young man, for by Sunday that category will be ravished beyond your wildest dreams! The "trio" part of the shipping category is by far the bulk of it. I have read through 280 messages, keeping track in my evil notebook of annihilation of those which are obviously rejects and which should be dropped from ship. I have about 140 reject posts and 40 drop ship posts so far. These are just the really obvious rejects. Then I have further sorted the keepers by subject, but they are on probation, and will be subject to a further pruning on Sunday (unless Carolyn gives me an extention). Whole threads on how polite the shippers from opposite sides should be to each other, tons of mere (dis)agreement, oodles of repeated opinion with no canon or backup of any sort, bulging piles of fanfic, mountains of "my DH and I" and "how we met": kiss them goodbye, for soon they shall be gone! Not sure who Jeff Wiggle is, but I'll see your Wiggle, and raise you my 4 CD collecters edition set of the complete works of Barry Manilow (which I won at one of his concerts) in a karoke-off. And now that I've seen your Wiggle (embarrasing for a spinster like me, but perhaps the other ladies of the list will enjoy it), I'm off to work. The paying kind, that is. Ginger, who could really use a 2-day extention. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sat Mar 12 04:22:03 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:22:03 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Lots of replies... In-Reply-To: <20050312035908.1049.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050312035908.1049.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050312042203.GB28460@aardvark.net.au> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:59:08PM -0800, Ginger wrote: > Ginger: > Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Just you wait, (and I hope your teeth feel better in the > meantime) young man, for by Sunday that category will be ravished beyond > your wildest dreams! Thank you. I wish it were only teeth, but my jaw and sinuses took a knock when the biggest root I've ever seen got removed. So I've changed flavours of earache for a while... > Whole threads on how polite the shippers from opposite sides should be to > each other, tons of mere (dis)agreement, oodles of repeated opinion with no > canon or backup of any sort, bulging piles of fanfic, mountains of "my DH > and I" and "how we met": kiss them goodbye, for soon they shall be gone! That's the spirit. All those "Ron is as bad as my BF" posts should die screaming. > Not sure who Jeff Wiggle is, but I'll see your Wiggle, and raise you my 4 CD > collecters edition set of the complete works of Barry Manilow (which I won > at one of his concerts) in a karoke-off. With a little bit of ingenious electrical engineering I'm confident I can see your Manilow completely humiliated by the entire Hot August Night album by Neil Diamond. Neil could see off *eight* CD's by lesser mortals. > And now that I've seen your Wiggle (embarrasing for a spinster like me, but > perhaps the other ladies of the list will enjoy it), I'm off to work. The > paying kind, that is. Fear not, for my Wiggle is a friendly Wiggle and sings happy songs for all the children. And is booked out solid on the East Coast for the next three years if I can believe the entertainment press. OTOH my Penguin is completely unsuitable for children. > Ginger, who could really use a 2-day extention. I think Sunday is more a hopeful line in the sand rather than an edict. Certainly Hagrid will be done when he is done and I'll be the one to do it ,yarrr... -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Mar 12 10:16:29 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:16:29 -0000 Subject: Hermione & morality Message-ID: Picked up this link from the main list last night. Interesting insight into which of the trio might die, though I can't say I agree with the writer's moral squirming. http://www.livejournal.com/users/no_remorse/41723.html From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Mar 12 10:52:45 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:52:45 +0000 Subject: *SPAM?* [HPFGU-Catalogue] Hermione & morality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8acad3849432cce90a1ee6078278e4db@btconnect.com> Bunch o' wimps. And demonstrates a lack of imagination to boot. Where can Hermione go? Simple. Madam Whiplash. (see TBAYs passim.) Hermione as dominatrix is an elegant career move and suits her character perfectly. On 12 Mar 2005, at 10:16, carolynwhite2 wrote: > > Picked up this link from the main list last night. Interesting > insight into which of the trio might die, though I can't say I agree > with the writer's moral squirming. > > http://www.livejournal.com/users/no_remorse/41723.html > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > ADVERTISEMENT > <22305_0205_016_b_300250_a.gif> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > ? To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/ > ? > ? To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > HPFGU-Catalogue-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > ? > ? Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service. > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1491 bytes Desc: not available URL: From arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com Sat Mar 12 11:39:46 2005 From: arrowsmithbt at btconnect.com (Barry Arrowsmith) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:39:46 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: the drive-by back up or Adventures in SF/Fantasy Ignorance. In-Reply-To: <20050311200657.GA29848@aardvark.net.au> References: <20050311165733.GA23305@aardvark.net.au> <4e40a7fd27901608d866141e6f7f9eac@btconnect.com> <20050311200657.GA29848@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: > > Yeah sorry, ok, the harder Gibson and the funny Stephenson then. I > don't > _think_ anyone's attacking Cryptonomicon-type material yet?! I guess > I fall > into the category of Near-Fi SF fandom; I don't think I ever > recovered from > the Phillip K. Dick vision. There's something I like about dirty > technology > and global warming :) > Neal Asher Jon Courtenay Grimwood Richard Morgan Iain M. Banks Bruce Sterling Ken Macleod might be worth considering. No utopias among that lot and Banks can have a vicious sense of humour. (Note: the 'M.' is important - Iain Banks is the same writer but *not* with his SF hat on.) Cryptonomican and the Baroque Cycle are rarities, but Mary Gentle has a couple of fantasy/SF cross-overs - 'Ash' an interleaving of a modern historian trying to determine why the Dukedom of Burgundy went from major player to zilch in no time at all and 'actual' characters and action - or '1610 - A Sundial on a Grave' another that's difficult to classify. Getting decent info on what's available - my advice is get 'Locus' - printed monthly with about 10 major reviews of SF releases and about the same number of minor reviews every issue. It's American but covers all countries and there's an Aussie distributor/subscription agent who you can contact for info or perhaps copies: Justin Ackroyd Slow Glass Books P.O. Box 1208 Carlton Victoria 3053 or save money and visit their website https://secure.locusmag.com for a pretty good overview. Hope that helps. Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1622 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sat Mar 12 11:51:47 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:51:47 -0000 Subject: Dorothy the Dinosaur In-Reply-To: <20050311191551.GA27906@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: The chap with the penguin problems wrote: > Aaagh!! Not if my Dorothy the Dinosaur doesn't get you first! Who on earth is Dorothy the Dinosaur, and what species is she? I must know. Dot (Who had a dinosaur-fixation in her youth, and wonders if she can get an easy birthday present for her similarly-fixated nephew.) From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sat Mar 12 11:55:12 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 22:55:12 +1100 Subject: *SPAM?* [HPFGU-Catalogue] Hermione & morality In-Reply-To: <8acad3849432cce90a1ee6078278e4db@btconnect.com> References: <8acad3849432cce90a1ee6078278e4db@btconnect.com> Message-ID: <20050312115511.GA31774@aardvark.net.au> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 10:52:45AM +0000, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > > Bunch o' wimps. > And demonstrates a lack of imagination to boot. After reading more than enough of predictions that Ron Will Betray Harry And Snuff It, this eagerness to see Hermione Snuff It Because She's Done It All, I feel, symptomatic of the Soapy Generation. This is the person who posits Hermione!Umbrage for pity's sake, obviously Hermoine doesn't have requisite oomph for some people's taste. And as one astute collegue pointed out, Hagrid is far better cannon-fodder than BookGirl. > Where can Hermione go? > Simple. > Madam Whiplash. > (see TBAYs passim.) > > Hermione as dominatrix is an elegant career move and suits her > character perfectly. And far more attractive than aping a toadlike control freak with a centaur phobia. If we post DD as Christ, does that make Harry or Snape his Peter who will deny him? Ron can be Thomas, Hermy can be Magdalene, and Draco can be Paul after a decent interval. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sat Mar 12 12:06:08 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 23:06:08 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: the drive-by back up or Adventures in SF/Fantasy Ignorance. In-Reply-To: References: <20050311165733.GA23305@aardvark.net.au> <4e40a7fd27901608d866141e6f7f9eac@btconnect.com> <20050311200657.GA29848@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: <20050312120608.GB31774@aardvark.net.au> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 11:39:46AM +0000, Barry Arrowsmith wrote: > Neal Asher > Jon Courtenay Grimwood > Richard Morgan > Iain M. Banks > Bruce Sterling > Ken Macleod > > might be worth considering. > No utopias among that lot and Banks can have a vicious sense of > humour. (Note: the 'M.' is important - Iain Banks is the same writer > but *not* with his SF hat on.) Well utopias aren't all they're cracked up to be: some intellectual food I consume weekly is an mp3 podcast available from the BBC each week with Melvyn Bragg chatting to a few know-it-alls, and this week was all about the various utopias constructed since the 19th century and interesting stuff it is, telling you much about underlying social attitudes, some quite surprising. Dystopias are the in thing now though. Scribble, scribble, good list > or save money and visit their website > > https://secure.locusmag.com > > for a pretty good overview. > > > Hope that helps. They have a nice 2004 reading list I can scavenge from, ta :) -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sat Mar 12 12:15:53 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 23:15:53 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Dorothy the Dinosaur In-Reply-To: References: <20050311191551.GA27906@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: <20050312121553.GC31774@aardvark.net.au> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 11:51:47AM -0000, dungrollin wrote: > > > The chap with the penguin problems wrote: > > Aaagh!! Not if my Dorothy the Dinosaur doesn't get you first! > > Who on earth is Dorothy the Dinosaur, and what species is she? > I must know. > > Dot > (Who had a dinosaur-fixation in her youth, and wonders if she can > get an easy birthday present for her similarly-fixated nephew.) Dorothy the Dinosaur is a large friendly green saurus who isn't very true to any real species. She's for younger dancier fans, so I don't know how appropriate she is for your nephew. A plush Dorothy can be seen at: http://shop.thewiggles.com.au/store/products/item253.inetstore I can't believe I just spruiked for Wiggles merchandise on a HP mailing-list [looks up fearfully for the Great Penguin's lightning-bolt] !! Does your nephew like penguins? Lots of plush Linux penguins about :) -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Mar 12 12:32:45 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 07:32:45 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: the drive-by back up or Adventures in SF/Fantasy Ignorance. References: <20050311165733.GA23305@aardvark.net.au> <4e40a7fd27901608d866141e6f7f9eac@btconnect.com> <20050311200657.GA29848@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: Barry: Yeah sorry, ok, the harder Gibson and the funny Stephenson then. I don't _think_ anyone's attacking Cryptonomicon-type material yet?! I guess I fall into the category of Near-Fi SF fandom; I don't think I ever recovered from the Phillip K. Dick vision. There's something I like about dirty technology and global warming :) Kathy W. It "has" been a long time since I read Science Fiction! Out of all these e-mails, Phillip K. Dick is the first name I recognize. Most of the authors I remember are from Asimov's time. And it's a little creepy sometimes to see many of those plots in the the real headlines today! Barry mentioned Science fiction with ships. That would be Star Ships, of course? As to the Wiggles...uh, give me Barney the Dinosaur any day. As for dinosaurs, there are some very cool books out there now. Neal Asher Jon Courtenay Grimwood Richard Morgan Iain M. Banks Bruce Sterling Ken Macleod might be worth considering. No utopias among that lot and Banks can have a vicious sense of humour. (Note: the 'M.' is important - Iain Banks is the same writer but *not* with his SF hat on.) Cryptonomican and the Baroque Cycle are rarities, but Mary Gentle has a couple of fantasy/SF cross-overs - 'Ash' an interleaving of a modern historian trying to determine why the Dukedom of Burgundy went from major player to zilch in no time at all and 'actual' characters and action - or '1610 - A Sundial on a Grave' another that's difficult to classify. Getting decent info on what's available - my advice is get 'Locus' - printed monthly with about 10 major reviews of SF releases and about the same number of minor reviews every issue. It's American but covers all countries and there's an Aussie distributor/subscription agent who you can contact for info or perhaps copies: Justin Ackroyd Slow Glass Books P.O. Box 1208 Carlton Victoria 3053 or save money and visit their website https://secure.locusmag.com for a pretty good overview. Hope that helps. Barry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Sat Mar 12 13:14:32 2005 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:14:32 -0000 Subject: Gilderoy dealt with Message-ID: Well, that's Gilderoy dealt with - I hope I don't get to meet him again for a looooong time. Because I was asked to be a bit more lenient than I originally intended to be, and I happen to be in a magnanimous mood today, I spared 56 out of 152 posts. That means I'm moving on to Professor "Janus" Quirrell now... Eva From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Mar 12 14:27:02 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:27:02 -0000 Subject: Lots of replies... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > And I give due and awful warning that I might tackle the morality > section if no one stops me. It's not going to be pretty, I tell you. Anne: *guilts again* I did see your little hint before about me doing that with you...and I'd love to, really, but I'm just getting back to Harry now. So, it's up to you. Speaking of morality, I have absolutely no reservations whatever about whether Hermione ought to have led Umbridge into the Forest -- and that's by cold light of reason, not because I like Harry. Anne From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sat Mar 12 14:29:48 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:29:48 -0000 Subject: 3.8 Magic (and Dorothy the Dinosaur) In-Reply-To: <20050312121553.GC31774@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: Carolyn wrote: Postscript/decision: I talked to Tim about this, and we think from the search POV it would be best to continue with this policy for now (ie cross-coding). If necessary, we can clear them out of etymology later. Dot: So what should I do with squibs? Should all the mentions of Petunia possibly being a squib be coded to Petunia *and* squibs, even though they don't discuss squibs at all? I don't really want them in squibs, but if you say they should stay, they shall. Sorry that the following is so long (and has taken so long), but it all got a bit confusing, and I was off sick the day the time-turners were handed out. 3.8 Magic (19 posts which have now disappeared, but I've still got a list of them) where nowt should be coded. Most of these can be removed to other categories, however, a few discuss Magic vs Muggle technology and include limitations on magic, how magic affects muggle technology and magic as technology in the WW. Limits on Magic will go to general properties and types of magic, magic vs/as/interfering with technology into Wireless and other wizarding technologies. Ok? There were three posts on how magic is viewed in the Bible and the Talmud ? with *absolutely no* reference to HP whatsoever (17962, 17993 and 18036), which I don't quite know what to do with. Presumably 3.8.2 Gen. Prop. & types of magic cross-coded to religious influences ? though it's a bit of an abuse of 3.8.2 (but see below). 3.8.1 Magical ability (395) "Post about what magical ability is, how it manifests itself, how wizards use it to make things happen" There are precious few posts that really discuss this definition directly. They are mostly: - comparisons or mentions of magical proficiency of characters, or questioning the ability of a character to perform xyz. (all except the mentions, can stay.) - development of magical ability ? `instinctive' magic (which should be under `wandless') performed before going to Hogwarts, improvement at spells with practice, mentions of whether a character is gifted or whether they just work hard. (Grudgingly keep most.) - The End of Magic. The idea (which resurfaces from time to time) that Harry can only defeat Voldy by causing magic to disappear from the world completely. (There must be a better place to put them than here.) - Is Voldy "Great"? (Not really talking about magical ability, best to leave just coded to Voldy.) - Often used as a code for the powers that were transferred from Voldy to Harry at GH. (Yeah, all right, they can stay.) I'd like to uncheck all those which make references to magical ability/development of a character with no discussion or back-up from canon (of which there are some). Those which discuss it in depth ? was Pettigrew really capable of pulling off the stunt with the finger? Is Neville a Great wizard labouring under the handicap of an OTT memory charm? etc ? would stay. 3.8.1.1 Squibs (80) "This topic could overlap with 3.5.2 (Purebloods & half bloods); remember to code also to individual characters discussed" Many mentions of squibs but little discussion. If I'm nice, I could prune it to 55 or so; if I'm *really* ruthless I could get it down to 30 (see above about cross-coding). 3.8.2 General properties & types of magic (262) " Posts about the underlying principles of magic behind the spells and potions etc that we have been shown in the books" Nightmare category, very easily abused. Dumping ground for all sorts. Will become clearer when I've done all the others, so I'm coming back to it later. 3.8.2.1 Ancient Magic (69) "What is it, examples of" Almost all posts in this category are also coded to one of the following: 1.3.5.1 Godric's Hollow/Death of Lily & James 3.5.4 Blood protection 3.8.2 General properties & types of magic Seems to be quite tempting to add Ancient Magic to discussions of the first two, so stuff discussing Lily's sacrifice or Harry's protection at the Dursleys' I'd like to take out of this category (leaving in 1.3.5.1 and 3.5.4). I think it should really be a subset of 3.8.2 (Gen. Properties and types of magic) ? so general discussions about magic go into 3.8.2, and only those which significantly discuss ancient magic in itself (rather than just mention it) get coded under 3.8.2.1. 3.8.2.2 Life Debts (83) "What obligations these impose, how they come about" Well there's a lot of "What if x owes y a life debt!" I'd like to cut it down to discussion of them (i.e. the James/Snape one and the Harry/Pettigrew one) rather than speculation about others. There may be one or two well-argued theories which hinge on non-canonical life- debts or how they work, which can stay. If I wanted to find out about life-debts (according to the definition above) I wouldn't want to find speculation that Voldy owed Lily because of blah blah blah. Sound reasonable? 3.8.3 Wands (303, down to 215) done. "What they do, what they are made of, how they choose the wizard/witch etc. Include discussions of specific character's wands" Some posts coded here that should be under 3.8.3.1 Wandless magic or priori incantatem (presumably from before those categories existed). Otherwise, pretty straightforward. However, new rules: *Mentioning* wands or wand-cores or the fact that Ron had a broken wand or that Voldy and Harry have Fawkes-feather wands, or that Hagrid has his wand pieces hidden in his umbrella as evidence for an argument does *not* count as substantive discussion about wands. So canonical wand facts used in support of a theory/argument which has nothing to do with wands *don't* go here. And there's already plenty of stuff about Ron and Cedric's wands having unicorn tail hair, and a centaur saying that the innocent are always the first to die and Cedric's dead so what if Ron's for it next?! Unless it's really good, don't bother. 3.8.3.1 Wandless magic (46, down to 32) Again quite straightforward, removed references to it and left only proper discussion. Once I've finished General Properties and Types of Magic, I'll come up with new definitions for each of the categories. > > Dot wrote: > > (Who had a dinosaur-fixation in her youth, and wonders if she > > can get an easy birthday present for her similarly-fixated > > nephew.) > > Sean "Pingu" Dwyer wrote: Dorothy the Dinosaur... > http://shop.thewiggles.com.au/store/products/item253.inetstore > ... > Does your nephew like penguins? Lots of plush Linux penguins about :) > No, I'm afraid it's dinosaurs or nothing. Thanks for the link, he's 3, so technically probably the right age to discover that there's a spotty dinosaur with the same name as his aunt. Unfortunately he's also a bit of a purist, he wants to know what they're all called, and I think "Dorothy" might not entirely satisfy him. He can often be overheard saying things like "That's not Pachycephalosaurus Mummy, that's Hypsilophodon..." I'm looking forward to being a thoroughly bad influence on him when he's old enough for a sweep net and killing jar. His mother's *very* squeamish about creepy crawlies. Dot From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Sat Mar 12 14:58:12 2005 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 14:58:12 -0000 Subject: Afterthought on DD's appointment of teachers Message-ID: Something I forgot to address in my 'report': I coded several posts about how on earth Lockhart managed to obtain the DADA position to, well, DADA as suggested; but I have been wondering if 1) there should be a sub-code for these specific posts under DADA (which was initially, I suppose, meant to collect posts that address the *subject* rather than who ends up teaching it); and 2) whether it would be a good idea to have a category (under Teachers?) specifically for old Dumbly's criteria for hiring teachers - because many of these posts discuss Trelawney and Snape and as such don't belong under DADA. I suppose many Snape posts would go under 'teaching methods'... Hm. It was just a thought. Eva From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sat Mar 12 18:07:52 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 05:07:52 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: 3.8 Magic (and Dorothy the Dinosaur) In-Reply-To: References: <20050312121553.GC31774@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: <20050312180752.GE31774@aardvark.net.au> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 02:29:48PM -0000, dungrollin wrote: > > Sean "Pingu" Dwyer wrote: Appreciate the penguinistic drollery :) > No, I'm afraid it's dinosaurs or nothing. Thanks for the link, he's > 3, so technically probably the right age to discover that there's a > spotty dinosaur with the same name as his aunt. Unfortunately he's > also a bit of a purist, he wants to know what they're all called, > and I think "Dorothy" might not entirely satisfy him. He can often > be overheard saying things like "That's not Pachycephalosaurus > Mummy, that's Hypsilophodon..." You're absolutely certain he IS 3?!? Well...alright, I did see this: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0590316818/002-1813325-2819245 It's a book you should be able to find, it has dinosaurs with the right labels and includes a bonus dinosaur in at least one of the links I saw. Perfect for training Mummy. > I'm looking forward to being a thoroughly bad influence on him when > he's old enough for a sweep net and killing jar. His mother's > *very* squeamish about creepy crawlies. Ah, fond memories of bugcatchers "Look Mummy!" "AAAGGH!!" -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sat Mar 12 21:26:10 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 08:26:10 +1100 Subject: Hagrid Report/Bertha Jorkins Report Message-ID: <20050312212610.GF31774@aardvark.net.au> Hagrid Report ************* IP: 544 FP: 501 I like this category. Full of over-and-under-estimation. Nothing points up class attitudes like Hagrid, this one's a sociologists dream. A fair number of posts hopeful that he'll stuff up, just as many dismissing him on the grounds that he's stuffed up enough. As I said about the F&L cat, it was very surprising that Hagrids role in this sense wasn't more analysed, and that still puzzles me, simplistic as it might seem. Some almost tempting LotR parallels, but the List just seems certain JKR will kill him off and there's nothing much more to be said. Oh and he'll probably betray Harry before he is bumped off. For all the hooplah over Snape, it's telling that you could drive a haulpak through some of the assumptions here. Special mention must go to post #28622 for possibly the worst acronym yet: DOOKYHEAD (Don't Ostentatiously or Otherwise Kill Young Hagrid; Except maybe After Dumbledore) Says it all. I'm about finished reviewing now. I've taken on Bertha Jorkins as a special case: Bertha Jorkins ************** IP: 64 FP: 63 Very simple. Most of BJ is in roughly three threads and are sufficiently on-topic. I did like #35329, Tabouli's take on who BJ saw behind the shed: it's tidy enough to deserve being right. So, dat's me done. Time to lay on my back in the shade of my pink umbrella on the beach, sipping pina colada and tossing herring into my eager beak... Sean (lazy penguin of dooom) -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From kking0731 at hotmail.com Sun Mar 13 03:13:57 2005 From: kking0731 at hotmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:13:57 -0000 Subject: Lucius Message-ID: The report for Lucius 2.10.2; this category had 459 posts and now has 379. There were 71 posts that were dropped from this category because Lucius is mentioned but not the scope of the post. Eight posts that were totally rejected because they had nothing new to add and one post that was a Filk with extra categories that was corrected. There isn't too much to say other than I was a bit disappointed at the lack of speculation over Lucius. There were a few tickles of interesting thoughts but no full-blown-off-the-wall-ideas, at least to me; they were just the same old questionings. Just a side note that as I was reviewing, I noticed the new chapter headings and noticed that three of the five had two headings under the same code COS 1.9.0 Reviews (OLD) and COS Reviews of Chambers of Secrets 1.9.0 the same for POA and GOF. Just thought I'd mention it. KathySnow From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sun Mar 13 06:48:36 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:48:36 +1100 Subject: Knock knock who's there? Message-ID: <20050313064836.GA29746@aardvark.net.au> Amos Amos who? Amos Diggory Report ******************* IP: 29 FP: 29 Oh alright, it didn't look too bad and in fact the Amos category is very simple: he's utterly superfluous or he's a helpful hint about Arthur's past (he coulda been a Auror! And maybe was but quit!!). Oh and we are supposed to feel bad about being annoyed by his over-involvement with Cedric when Cedric dies. Or he could go over to the Dark Side because Harry Is To Blame. I notice everyone is avoiding the Sirius and Lupin cats. So am I. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Mar 13 11:53:10 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 11:53:10 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew Message-ID: Report on 2.10.7 Peter Pettigrew Initial posts: 745 ; final posts: 403 This has been an immensely difficult section to deal with and has taken me far longer than it should have because Peter is potentially pivotal to so many theories and themes that decisions when and where to cut are very tricky indeed. On one level there are the ludicrous simplistic readings, that here was someone who went bad when no decent person would do so, and therefore deserves to die, preferably saving Harry but if not, at the hand of the first white hat to get to him. I've kept repeated examples of these from different periods in the list history, mainly the well-argued, but also some of the short and stupid. They provide a nice point counter point, and jumping off point for the more complex discussions about what is going on. And there really is some intelligent analysis. Peter has continually fascinated the best minds on the list, at enormous length. Where I have had to be careful is to keep the posts focused on Peter rather than those about Sirius, Lupin, James, Lily, Voldemort's or Dumbledore's motives. This is very hard to do in some threads; talk about fine scalpel work rather than bludgers as he is fundamental to some major theories like MD. Places where I cut quite a lot were: - the Neville/Peter parallels - I felt most of this was commentary on Neville rather than Peter, though I kept some if they included good analysis of Peter as well. - lightweight speculation about what the life debt might be about; anything worthwhile is better under that heading, not Peter - mentions of Peter in posts which were really about the DEs generally, how Voldy controlled them etc - stupid posts about how rats were inherently nasty, horrible animals - since they are not, but really rather clever and successful creatures; instead I kept posts which compared and contrasted the popular image of rats with the reality (Rita is rather good at those) - nearly all posts which just exclaimed 'how could he! I never would..' I hope what remains creates an intense picture of this enigmatic character, the major plot points which might turn on his actions, and the issues JKR might be addressing with the way she has portrayed him. One or two little tidbits: - Possible explanation of why Scabbers went to Hagrid's hut when he escaped the castle - he went to retrieve Voldemort's wand, which Hagrid had picked up in the ruins at GH; DD knew Hagrid had the wand. Still doesn't explain why the rat stayed so long though - could easily have nipped into Hogsmeade via the Shrieking Shack tunnel and got out of the grounds and away whenever he wanted to. - (!) He cut off his finger *before* he blew up the muggle street, and had it bundled up with his robes, ready to drop on the ground as he transformed. Gets round the problem of all that fumbling doing two things at once behind his back. Another alternative, he cut off his finger *after* he found himself at the bottom of a big hole in the street, left it with the robes, ditto. The first is premeditated, the second a panic reaction (but means he transformed naked). The finger problem has intrigued many; here is a taster of what Eileen and Elkins made of it: Eileen: > Elkins then went into a lot of Freudian stuff. Eileen doesn't > really get Freudian stuff, but she did find it interesting that > Peter cut off his pointer finger. Kind of inconvenient. Elkins: Inconvenient on a number of different levels, really. It's not just that it's his pointer finger. It's that it's also the pointer finger of his *good* hand. Peter is right-handed. His right hand is the one that he instinctively raises against Harry in the graveyard. Now, there are perfectly sound symbolic and magical reasons for a right-handed man to offer his right hand as a sacrifice in the rebirthing ritual of his Dark Lord. But just to frame Sirius? What on earth was he *thinking?* Not only is the pointer finger of ones good hand quite far down on the list of digits that any normal person would ordinarily choose to sacrifice (it's better than a thumb, but that's about it), it also raises some logistical difficulties. It left him forced to use his off-hand to do the actual cutting or wandwork or whatever it was that he did to lop it off in the first place. This is counter-intuitive. So it's really hard for me not to view that decision in a psychological light. Leaving Freud out of it, it does seem to me that on some level he must have *wanted* to be maimed, and not only maimed, but maimed in a way that *would* be inconvenient for him, a way that would serve as a constant reminder to him of what he had done. Otherwise, he just would have gone for a pinky. Eileen burst into tears. "Elkins," Cindy said firmly. "You. Are. A. SYCOPHANT. *Not* an Evil Overlord." "Oh, indeed," agreed Elkins pleasantly. "Indeed. But you know, the two are hardly polar opposites. They're not incompatible in the least. In fact, they're essentially the same position. Inside every sycophant, there's an Evil Overlord just waiting to come out. Have you ever read Fromme, on the totalitarian personality? The type of person who toadies to his superiors, yet bullies his subordinates? Whose abject professions of loyalty and fanatic devotion to charismatic leaders and ideological doctrines are matched only by their equally extreme, yet seemingly-incompatible tendency towards self-serving hypocrisy and back-stabbing betrayal? The sort of person whose fundamental capacity for inhumane behavior is masked by a somewhat sloppy sentimentalism? One which often presents as a self- professed love of animals?" From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sun Mar 13 12:21:33 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 23:21:33 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Pettigrew In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050313122133.GA9514@aardvark.net.au> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 11:53:10AM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > "Oh, indeed," agreed Elkins pleasantly. "Indeed. But you know, the > two are hardly polar opposites. They're not incompatible in the > least. In fact, they're essentially the same position. Inside every > sycophant, there's an Evil Overlord just waiting to come out. Have > you ever read Fromme, on the totalitarian personality? The type of > person who toadies to his superiors, yet bullies his subordinates? > Whose abject professions of loyalty and fanatic devotion to > charismatic leaders and ideological doctrines are matched only by > their equally extreme, yet seemingly-incompatible tendency towards > self-serving hypocrisy and back-stabbing betrayal? The sort of > person whose fundamental capacity for inhumane behavior is masked by > a somewhat sloppy sentimentalism? One which often presents as a self- > professed love of animals?" Which leads one to a *fascinating* reflection on the parallels between Ratty and Toady. Umbrage is a lot like Pettigrew plus sadistic egomania minus the cowardice. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Mar 13 13:15:47 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:15:47 -0000 Subject: 3.8 Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > So what should I do with squibs? Should all the mentions of Petunia possibly being a squib be coded to Petunia *and* squibs, even though they don't discuss squibs at all? I don't really want them in squibs, but if you say they should stay, they shall. Carolyn: This is tricky, and we will have to agree what to do on a category by category basis. On Petunia and squibs. I would not cross code to squibs unless the post was a substantive discussion about this possibility and what it might mean - passing mentions don't count. ******************************* 3.8 Magic (19 posts which have now disappeared, but I've still got a list of them) where nowt should be coded. Most of these can be removed to other categories, however, a few discuss Magic vs Muggle technology and include limitations on magic, how magic affects muggle technology and magic as technology in the WW. Limits on Magic will go to general properties and types of magic, magic vs/as/interfering with technology into Wireless and other wizarding technologies. Ok? There were three posts on how magic is viewed in the Bible and the Talmud ? with *absolutely no* reference to HP whatsoever (17962, 17993 and 18036), which I don't quite know what to do with. Presumably 3.8.2 Gen. Prop. & types of magic cross-coded to religious influences ? though it's a bit of an abuse of 3.8.2 (but see below). Carolyn: This was me the other day, rapidly removing posts from level 2 categories to places of safety. I made some quick, on-the-hoof decisions about where to put them, please feel free to query them and change the coding. The limits on magic ones, I wondered if some of them should belong under 3.3.6 Rules & ethics for using magic ? The religious ones can be safely sent to 1.1.1.1 or 1.1.1.3 I think. Although they are not about HP at all, as I recall, they were very detailed lists of references, and presumably of interest to someone wanting to research banning HP for religious reasons. I just left them cross-coded to a magic category for a second opinion on this - over to you. ********************** 3.8.1 Magical ability (395) "Post about what magical ability is, how it manifests itself, how wizards use it to make things happen" - The End of Magic. The idea (which resurfaces from time to time) that Harry can only defeat Voldy by causing magic to disappear from the world completely. (There must be a better place to put them than here.) I'd like to uncheck all those which make references to magical ability/development of a character with no discussion or back-up from canon (of which there are some). Those which discuss it in depth ? was Pettigrew really capable of pulling off the stunt with the finger? Is Neville a Great wizard labouring under the handicap of an OTT memory charm? etc ? would stay. Carolyn: Have no problem with your decisions here, but agree 'End of Magic' needs it's own code, and not in this section. The only possible option would appear to be Dumbledore, since Harry doesn't have a plan himself, and it's not likely to be one of Voldy's ! Boyd - what do you think about this? On the Pettigrew or Neville magic ability, I think they belong with character rather than here, even if they are in-depth discussions. Having just sorted through the Peter ones myself over the last few days, I know exactly what they contain, and feel sure about it for him anyway. Debbie - what do you think about Neville? ********************************** 3.8.1.1 Squibs (80) "This topic could overlap with 3.5.2 (Purebloods & half bloods); remember to code also to individual characters discussed" Many mentions of squibs but little discussion. If I'm nice, I could prune it to 55 or so; if I'm *really* ruthless I could get it down to 30 (see above about cross-coding). Carolyn: I am unhappily aware of this anomaly. Does anyone think that a good deal of 3.5 Bloodlines and Inheritance should actually be put with 3.8.1 Magical ability? It is quite a sort out, but I would rather do it than fudge the issue. Also, confession to make - I used to use 3.2.5 Medals, awards & titles for discussions about 'what is a warlock' before we created 3.5.2.1. Those posts need transferring to the new, correct heading. My bad. ******************* 3.8.2.1 Ancient Magic (69) "What is it, examples of" Almost all posts in this category are also coded to one of the following: 1.3.5.1 Godric's Hollow/Death of Lily & James 3.5.4 Blood protection 3.8.2 General properties & types of magic Seems to be quite tempting to add Ancient Magic to discussions of the first two, so stuff discussing Lily's sacrifice or Harry's protection at the Dursleys' I'd like to take out of this category (leaving in 1.3.5.1 and 3.5.4). I think it should really be a subset of 3.8.2 (Gen. Properties and types of magic) ? so general discussions about magic go into 3.8.2, and only those which significantly discuss ancient magic in itself (rather than just mention it) get coded under 3.8.2.1. Carolyn: I like the idea of having a cleaner 'ancient magic' category as you suggest - but note that it is already a sub-category of 3.8.2. However, we probably need to amend another category title to stop the confusion happening again in the future. What we could do is change: 3.5.4 to read 'Blood protection at Privet drive/Lily's sacrifice' This would stop this element of the discussion getting lost within 1.3.5.1. - after all, is 3.5.4 really about anything else?? ********************** 3.8.2.2 Life Debts (83) "What obligations these impose, how they come about" Well there's a lot of "What if x owes y a life debt!" I'd like to cut it down to discussion of them (i.e. the James/Snape one and the Harry/Pettigrew one) rather than speculation about others. There may be one or two well-argued theories which hinge on non-canonical life- debts or how they work, which can stay. If I wanted to find out about life-debts (according to the definition above) I wouldn't want to find speculation that Voldy owed Lily because of blah blah blah. Sound reasonable? Carolyn: Yes, I can imagine that this needs a real clear out. I have seen one or two posts directly speculating on the nature of life debts as an independent topic, and hope you find them in there. I would be quite strict with the canonical referenced ones, for the same reason above on magical ability - it is largely a character discussion issue. ****************** 3.8.3 Wands (303, down to 215) done. However, new rules: Carolyn: sounds good to me! From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Mar 13 14:01:43 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:01:43 -0000 Subject: A few more replies to things... Message-ID: RAVISHING POSTS Sean: Mind you, I haven't seen the shipping code substantially diminished...yet. Ginger: Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Just you wait, (and I hope your teeth feel better in the meantime) young man, for by Sunday that category will be ravished beyond your wildest dreams! Carolyn: Just before we get too carried away with all these slash and burn jokes (and I am as guilty as everyone else), maybe we should remember that we are not actually trying to create a Fantastic Post selection with these reviews, but just trying to keep a section on-topic and removing too much overlap and repetition. It's a fine distinction, but worth bearing in mind. The best rule is certainly to imagine what you would like to find in the category, but that obviously doesn't mean expunging points of view you don't agree with, or completely removing threads that come up again and again, unless they genuinely add nothing new to the previous discussion. Ginger: > Whole threads on how polite the shippers from opposite sides should be to > each other, tons of mere (dis)agreement, oodles of repeated opinion with no > canon or backup of any sort, bulging piles of fanfic, mountains of "my DH > and I" and "how we met": kiss them goodbye, for soon they shall be gone! Sean: That's the spirit. All those "Ron is as bad as my BF" posts should die screaming. Carolyn: Just a thought - Kelly - did we not decide at one point to keep a bit of the SHIPPER history, as some kind of memorial to the history of the site? There were some quite funny catfights between the residents of Sugar Quill Island and our esteemed Penny L/Ebony etc, as I recall. ***************************** Barry: Hermione as dominatrix is an elegant career move and suits her character perfectly. Carolyn: You never did explain what you were doing in the wine cellar that day Grawp came a-calling. ******************************* Carolyn: > And I give due and awful warning that I might tackle the morality > section if no one stops me. It's not going to be pretty, I tell you. Anne: *guilts again* Carolyn: Debbie has nervously offered to step in! I still think it would be good for me .... ******************************** Eva: I coded several posts about how on earth Lockhart managed to obtain the DADA position to, well, DADA as suggested; but I have been wondering Carolyn: Kelly - can you come back to us on these points ???? ***************************** KathySnow: Just a side note that as I was reviewing, I noticed the new chapter headings and noticed that three of the five had two headings under the same code COS 1.9.0 Reviews (OLD) and COS Reviews of Chambers of Secrets 1.9.0 the same for POA and GOF. Just thought I'd mention it. Carolyn: These are just some special headings I created for Jen whilst she sorts through the posts there - I did it to take the posts out of the level 2 heads in a hurry. Don't use the 'OLD' designated ones - they are to be deleted in due course. ******************* Sean: Which leads one to a *fascinating* reflection on the parallels between Ratty and Toady. Umbrage is a lot like Pettigrew plus sadistic egomania minus the cowardice. Carolyn: Totally disagree, but it would make a good post for TOC. You should read this essay first (click on 'Peter paper' in the menu bar): www.azriona.net/peterpettigrew then read this post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/115794 ********************** > Ginger, who could really use a 2-day extention. Sean: I think Sunday is more a hopeful line in the sand rather than an edict. I'm about finished reviewing now. So, dat's me done. Time to lay on my back in the shade of my pink umbrella on the beach, sipping pina colada and tossing herring into my eager beak... Carolyn: Sean, you have made a heroic contribution to all this - many, many thanks. Yes, you are right, the deadline is more a hopeful line in the sand. I am going to leave it to later this evening to find out where we have all got to, but then from tomorrow, Monday, I think the only thing we can do is start coding again, and continue to finish the reviews in tandem - say, split our time 50:50. I am very keen to try and end up with working definitions for all the categories so we know what we are doing from now on in. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun Mar 13 14:58:08 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:58:08 -0000 Subject: OT Dorothy the Dinosaur In-Reply-To: <20050312180752.GE31774@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: Sean: > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0590316818/002-1813325- 2819245 > > It's a book you should be able to find, it has dinosaurs with the right labels and includes a bonus dinosaur in at least one of the links I saw. Perfect for training Mummy. > Dot: That's perfect! Have ordered it already. Wonderful. You're a star! > > I'm looking forward to being a thoroughly bad influence on him when he's old enough for a sweep net and killing jar. His mother's *very* squeamish about creepy crawlies. > > Ah, fond memories of bugcatchers "Look Mummy!" "AAAGGH!!" Dot: Oh yes. "I can teach you how to raise blowflies, beetle grubs, even cockroaches..." It truly is a joy to behold the awe on a small child's face, when they see how easily a writhing mass of maggots can be produced from a dead fish in the sunshine. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun Mar 13 16:06:51 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:06:51 -0000 Subject: 3.8 Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carolyn: > On Petunia and squibs. I would not cross code to squibs unless the post was a substantive discussion about this possibility and what it might mean - passing mentions don't count. Dot: Good-oh. That's what I thought. > ******************************* > 3.8 Magic (19 posts which have now disappeared, but I've still got a list of them) where nowt should be coded. > > Carolyn: > The limits on magic ones, I wondered if some of them should belong > under 3.3.6 Rules & ethics for using magic ? Dot: They don't really discuss rules or ethics, it's more about the practical limitations on what is and isn't possible. I'll have a think, but they may just end up in General Properties and Types of Magic, possibly cross-coded to 1.2.4 Parameters set by JKR. Unless, of course, I find some more in Gen. Prop. Types Magic (there are already a handful of posts) in which case I may end up advocating a new category... I'll come back to it. Carolyn: > The religious ones can be safely sent to 1.1.1.1 or 1.1.1.3 I think. Although they are not about HP at all, as I recall, they were very detailed lists of references, and presumably of interest to someone wanting to research banning HP for religious reasons. I just left them cross-coded to a magic category for a second opinion on this - over to you. Dot: Actually, I just checked and they're only coded to Religious banning. Sooo... I'll pretend I didn't notice anything and leave them there. (If I was looking for stuff about JKR's take on Magic, I wouldn't want to find that kind of thing.) > ********************** > 3.8.1 Magical ability (395) > > - The End of Magic. The idea (which resurfaces from time to time) > that Harry can only defeat Voldy by causing magic to disappear from > the world completely. (There must be a better place to put them than here.) > > > Carolyn: > Have no problem with your decisions here, but agree 'End of Magic' > needs it's own code, and not in this section. The only possible > option would appear to be Dumbledore, since Harry doesn't have a plan himself, and it's not likely to be one of Voldy's ! > > Boyd - what do you think about this? > Dot: Actually... I've been wondering for a while whether we need a category for the final showdown between Harry and Voldy. It might mean a lot of rearranging, but it could be useful for nice ideas that have nowhere else to go - would it cut down a lot on the Voldemort and Harry categories? Carolyn: > On the Pettigrew or Neville magic ability, I think they belong with character rather than here, even if they are in-depth discussions. Having just sorted through the Peter ones myself over the last few days, I know exactly what they contain, and feel sure about it for him anyway. > > Debbie - what do you think about Neville? Dot: Some of them do discuss the concept of magical ability and how it differs between wizards in a more abstract sense, but I'll uncode most of those that only talk about a specific character. > ********************************** > 3.8.1.1 Squibs (80) > Carolyn: > I am unhappily aware of this anomaly. Does anyone think that a good deal of 3.5 Bloodlines and Inheritance should actually be put with 3.8.1 Magical ability? It is quite a sort out, but I would rather do it than fudge the issue. Dot: I'm not in favour, though we could shift Squibs to 3.5.2.2 under Bloodlines and Inheritance. That would leave 3.8 Magic really for discussion of all things magical. (It's quite difficult to find a sensible section to put Squibs in - I'm not sure where I'd first look to find them.) > ******************* > 3.8.2.1 Ancient Magic (69) > > Carolyn: > I like the idea of having a cleaner 'ancient magic' category as you suggest - but note that it is already a sub-category of 3.8.2. > However, we probably need to amend another category title to stop the confusion happening again in the future. What we could do is change: > > 3.5.4 to read 'Blood protection at Privet drive/Lily's sacrifice' > > This would stop this element of the discussion getting lost within > 1.3.5.1. - after all, is 3.5.4 really about anything else?? > Dot: That sounds good to me. Carolyn wrote elsewhere: I am going to leave it to later this evening to find out where we have all got to, but then from tomorrow, Monday, I think the only thing we can do is start coding again, and continue to finish the reviews in tandem - say, split our time 50:50. I am very keen to try and end up with working definitions for all the categories so we know what we are doing from now on in. Dot: I'd like to finish the section I'm reviewing before going back to coding - RL getting in the way a bit, so don't know when it'll be finished. Then would be happy to split 50/50 reviewing beasts and doing more coding. It would be better to have a good review of the category definitions *before* we start coding again, though, wouldn't it? By the way - does Sean ever sleep? From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Mar 13 16:19:10 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 11:19:10 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: 3.8 Magic References: Message-ID: Dot: I'd like to finish the section I'm reviewing before going back to coding - RL getting in the way a bit, so don't know when it'll be finished. Then would be happy to split 50/50 reviewing beasts and doing more coding. It would be better to have a good review of the category definitions *before* we start coding again, though, wouldn't it? Kathy W. Me too. I haven't started the real work of Time lines, so nothing to report. But it looks like it could use some sorting and it would be helpful to have it together before coding. So I'd like to get it finished before I start on coding. Just off the cuff, should we keep any issues that can be resolved just by going to the Lexicon, or should I code as if it doesn't exist? I recall someone else was removing posts that contained information easily found elsewhere. To be honest though, I'm not sure if I have time to significantly contribute to both endeavors. So after timelines are done, I'd like to review or to code but not both. So at that point, I'd take whichever job you needed me to take. Kathy W. 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 quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Mar 13 16:49:14 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:49:14 -0000 Subject: Ship update Message-ID: I have a couple of requests for input here, but first, a little (hah!) update. I have read all 738 posts under trio. I have done no rejecting or uncoding, but I have every post noted in my little notebook that is so ugly that I have never used it before. I plan to start on that post haste. The keepers: Harry/Ginny: 14 Harry/Herm:29 Harry/Cho: 11 Harry/other:1 (Fleur) Ron/Herm: 59 Ron/Fleur: 1 Ron/other: 1 (forgot to write down whom) Herm/Viktor: 11 Herm/Draco: 4 Herm/other: 1 (GL) I am also keeping 60 posts that overlap or stand on their own. Total kept: 192 I am moving 6 to other categories (mostly Trio Dynamics as they discuss what any pairings would do to the friendship rather than the ship themselves. I am uncoding ship (or trio ship) on 158. These are usually multiple posts where the ship factor is a "me too", or where they fit better under charactor analysis. There were also some that were purely TBAY, with no real discussion of ship, that were already coded to TBAY. I believe many of these are the ones you wanted kept for posterity. I am moving some to General Shipping that don't discuss the trio, except on the sidelines (ie Ginny/Neville). On many of the kept posts, I made sure to include a few good posts from each thread, rejecting the ones that didn't add much (or anything at all, or me too's) assuming that the best posts could be threaded if the searcher was so inclined. With 100,000 more posts to review, this category could get way too crowded if we included everything in each thread. There is still a lot of repetition as some of the posts are LOOOOONG and are 70% repeated and 30% good stuff worth keeping, so the posts were kept. I also kept a handful from the early club posts before GoF. How cute that they thought GoF would answer all our shipping questions! So this leaves me with 384 rejects. Before you gasp, I'd like to note that quite a few of these are before the advent of OTChatter, and would have been there had it existed. I think there were about 20 in a row about "my DH and I are just like H/R (or H/H)" with no canon. I'd say about 1/4 of what I am rejecting are OT in that sense. There were also a lot of me too's at that time (perhaps there was no rule, or it wasn't enforced?). There were also quite a few that expressed that they liked (or hated) a ship because it reminded them of a situation in their youth. Again, no canon added. Include those in the 1/4 in the previous paragraph. The repetition was so amazing that I actually double checked that I wasn't reading posts that I had already jotted down. So now that you have waded through all that, here are my requests for input: Carolyn: Do you think any of my kept categories should be pared some more, or should they stand until the next review? Along these lines, do you think that once we have coded the rest of our 100,000 or so that there would be a use for H/H and H/R subheadings? Just something to put on the back burner. There's no need now. Also Carolyn: The (in)famous shipping wars. I kept quite a bit of the beginning of that. Towards the middle and end, it got pretty darn repetitive. I only kept what was good there. This was where many OT posts occured. I again assumed people could thread if they so chose. Anyone currently reviewing characters involved: (Eva, was it you reviewing Harry?) I plan to uncode ship today, and do the rejecting tomorrow, so if it would mess you up in any way for me to reject posts including your character, would you let me know and I'll just uncode the ship part? Or maybe we could reach another decision? Be assured that any rejected posts are nothing that is original to the character. If that was the case, I uncoded ship and left the character. I know there is a huge thread that discusses Ron/Herm that is coded to Harry, even though he is barely mentioned. A lot of it was back and forth repetition. There was also a thread coded to Harry and Viktor that went back and forth, with nothing new added after the first few or so posts. Questions? Comments? Advise? Offers for to meet for pizza? Ginger, who read and made notes on all those posts in only 21 hours! Since Friday. From zanelupin at yahoo.com Sun Mar 13 17:06:14 2005 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:06:14 -0000 Subject: A 'Me Too' and Group Dynamics (Re: 3.8 Magic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dot: >> I'd like to finish the section I'm reviewing before going back to coding - RL getting in the way a bit, so don't know when it'll be finished. Then would be happy to split 50/50 reviewing beasts and doing more coding. It would be better to have a good review of the category definitions *before* we start coding again, though, wouldn't it? << Kathy W. >> Me too. I haven't started the real work of Time lines, so nothing to report. But it looks like it could use some sorting and it would be helpful to have it together before coding. So I'd like to get it finished before I start on coding. << KathyK: I would like to continue plowing through Group Dynamics as well. I apologize because I'm very slow and most of my free time falls around Tuesday and Wednesday so I've been pretty useless in trying to work a lot on this category before then. I know early on I took a look at the Dursleys and now I've gone through the general heading 1.2.11. It had 26 posts, I propose axing the main heading from 16 of those. Most just need to be recoded to the proper sub-category, ie Weasleys. Some thinngs to consider with this category. Posts coded to specific families, again like the Weasleys: Do we keep the individual character codes as well? Some posts deal solely with the interaction of Percy and the Twins, for instance. Does this get coded to Weasleys under Group Dynamics *and* to F&G and Percy? I know the ones remaining in the general heading should because they're about characters not covered by the sub-categories, like the Diggorys. There are a couple about Dumbledore & McGonagall and how they treat Harry, and whether or not they're acting as surrogate parents. Also, a couple in the general heading merely discuss the young age at which James and Lily married. They're not really what I have in mind for 'group dynamics'--interaction/relationship within families or the trio. Thoughts? Kathy W: > Just off the cuff, should we keep any issues that can be resolved just by going to the Lexicon, or should I code as if it doesn't exist? I recall someone else was removing posts that contained information easily found elsewhere.< KathyK: Er, that would be me. I was doing this with the Fantastic Beasts and Quidditch Through the Ages categories. Mainly because many of the posts found there ran along the 'what do we know about kneazles?' 'or don't those fuzzy animals in the pet shop in PoA remind you of tribbles?' answered by 'well FB says this:' followed by a quote and little discussion. Since this information is easily at hand by either reading an entry in FB or popping into the Lexicon for a quick definition or brush up, I decided they didn't really need to be coded to FB or QTA. Was I wrong? KathyK, off to work From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Mar 13 19:11:49 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:11:49 -0000 Subject: OT Dorothy the Dinosaur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Sean: > > Ah, fond memories of bugcatchers "Look Mummy!" "AAAGGH!!" > > Dot: > Oh yes. > "I can teach you how to raise blowflies, beetle grubs, even > cockroaches..." > It truly is a joy to behold the awe on a small child's face, when > they see how easily a writhing mass of maggots can be produced from > a dead fish in the sunshine. Anne: Yeah, sure, it's fascinating when you do it on purpose, but I still can recall in horrendous detail the time I cut into a garden tomato and there was a stonking huge caterpillar inside... From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Mar 13 19:38:00 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:38:00 -0000 Subject: Magic/Ship Update/Returning to Coding Message-ID: Dot: Actually... I've been wondering for a while whether we need a category for the final showdown between Harry and Voldy. It might mean a lot of rearranging, but it could be useful for nice ideas that have nowhere else to go - would it cut down a lot on the Voldemort and Harry categories? Anne: Oooo, yes. It could go among the predictions, I suppose, since it's too broad for DD's or Voldemort's agendas an may well include Harry's agenda should he form one in HBP. Once book 7 is finished, we'd probably have to add a (Pre-Book 7) tag to the category to separate it from discussion of what actually *will* happen in the final showdown, but that's no problem. Assuming anyone is actually still coding by then, the actual end of the series will cause a sea change in categories needed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ginger: Anyone currently reviewing characters involved: (Eva, was it you reviewing Harry?) I plan to uncode ship today, and do the rejecting tomorrow, so if it would mess you up in any way for me to reject posts including your character, would you let me know and I'll just uncode the ship part? Or maybe we could reach another decision? Anne: It's me doing Harry; I'm just getting back to him, and I'd consider it a very great favor if you'd reject any rejectable posts! Thank you for the FILK, by the way -- I forwarded to myself. Sorry about the earworm (which I have probably just given back to you...). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dot: It would be better to have a good review of the category definitions *before* we start coding again, though, wouldn't it? Anne: I'm wondering the same thing -- perhaps a few more days of review now might save more time than that later? I'm thinking cleaned-out categories (whose posts thus become good examples of what belongs) as well as new and clearer definitions are bound to make coding much quicker and easier when re resume. In any case, I do intend to finish Harry before coding again. He will be complicated, since I know I'm going to be requesting subcategories for him. I remember someone just mentioned no one's tackled Lupin and (I think) Sirius yet, either, nor is Morality done. And have we set any policy yet for orphan Acronym categories? I recall two under Harry that were the result of some person requesting one for people who like him -- two acronyms were generated in reply, which were never used again. Are we keeping every single acronym for posterity or chopping the dead end ones? Anne who has at least religiously kept up with this group so as to know what's going on From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Mar 13 20:02:34 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:02:34 -0000 Subject: Interspecies hugging Message-ID: How tall are penguins? Can they be hugged by humans? Seriously, Sean, I want to thank you. I just uncoded the ship on all that didn't belong there, and many, many of them were posts that would have been coded to trio dynamics had it been around at the time. Most of them were already coded there, saving me the trouble of adding them. I assume that you did them as you went through FLL. Oh, yeah, and Neil Diamond is awesome! Anne, (sorry for the misidentification)-I'll start rejecting tomorrow, and I'd guess about 30 or more Harry posts will be gone. Glad you liked the Filk. Carolyn, when I'm done with my rejecting, do you want me to go on to the ones you gave me or review something else? Either way is fine with me, although I'll warn you, I haven't been on the main list since Thursday, and I have some serious catching up to do ;o) Ginger, off to give Mommy her Sunday afternoon call. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sun Mar 13 22:52:14 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:52:14 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Interspecies hugging In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050313225214.GB9514@aardvark.net.au> On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:02:34PM -0000, quigonginger wrote: > How tall are penguins? Can they be hugged by humans? Not very tall. Some aren't into that cuddly thing, and can be a bit snappy, so it's wise to ask first. Linus Torvalds forgot this, and upset one so much it chased him and got quite bitey :) Some like to travel: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/16052172/ > Seriously, Sean, I want to thank you. I just uncoded the ship on all > that didn't belong there, and many, many of them were posts that > would have been coded to trio dynamics had it been around at the > time. Most of them were already coded there, saving me the trouble > of adding them. I assume that you did them as you went through FLL. I did half my TD in other categories, particularly Ron and Hermione but F&L had quite a few too. I tried to cut the Harry Potter down too, but that's a thankless task for someone else > Oh, yeah, and Neil Diamond is awesome! This is why kareoke is an alien phenonemon to sensitive souls like myself. There is a horrible CD compliation advertised at the moment. I think I could survive the Billy Joel Greatest Hits though. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Mar 13 23:50:15 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 23:50:15 -0000 Subject: Even more replies Message-ID: > 3.8.1.1 Squibs (80) > Carolyn: Does anyone think that a good deal of 3.5 Bloodlines and Inheritance should actually be put with 3.8.1 Magical ability? Dot: I'm not in favour, though we could shift Squibs to 3.5.2.2 under Bloodlines and Inheritance. That would leave 3.8 Magic really for discussion of all things magical. Carolyn: Happy to do this - anyone disagree? ********************** KathyW: Just off the cuff, should we keep any issues that can be resolved just by going to the Lexicon, or should I code as if it doesn't exist? I recall someone else was removing posts that contained information easily found elsewhere. Carolyn: Code on merit; if the Lexicon has contributed something extra, well and good. Mostly people seem to quote the Lexicon just to confirm a canon point, which doesn't add anything much, IMO. ***************************** Ginger: Harry/Ginny: 14 Harry/Herm:29 Harry/Cho: 11 Harry/other:1 (Fleur) Ron/Herm: 59 Ron/Fleur: 1 Ron/other: 1 (forgot to write down whom) Herm/Viktor: 11 Herm/Draco: 4 Herm/other: 1 (GL) Do you think any of my kept categories should be pared some more, or should they stand until the next review? Along these lines, do you think that once we have coded the rest of our 100,000 or so that there would be a use for H/H and H/R subheadings? Just something to put on the back burner. There's no need now. Carolyn: I think you have done an amazing job Ginger. Really put us all to shame for treating this section in such a cavalier way. We are all very sorry (glares around at people). I actually think it would be helpful to put in the subheadings now, if you like. It would make subsequent coding simpler surely? Perhaps we should compromise on three initial categories, as follows: Harry + Ron + Herm + Would you like me to do this? Ginger: The (in)famous shipping wars. I kept quite a bit of the beginning of that. Towards the middle and end, it got pretty darn repetitive. I only kept what was good there. This was where many OT posts occured. I again assumed people could thread if they so chose. Carolyn: That sounds ok - it's just a question of preserving some of the history of the site, the interaction between various well-known posters, and the position they took on things. I think people will be interested. I go a bit easy on the general TBAY for the same reason. ******************* KathyK: I know early on I took a look at the Dursleys and now I've gone through the general heading 1.2.11. It had 26 posts, I propose axing the main heading from 16 of those. Most just need to be recoded to the proper sub-category, ie Weasleys. Some thinngs to consider with this category. Posts coded to specific families, again like the Weasleys: Do we keep the individual character codes as well? Some posts deal solely with the interaction of Percy and the Twins, for instance. Does this get coded to Weasleys under Group Dynamics *and* to F&G and Percy? Carolyn: The best thing is to leave the character codes well alone, and just concentrate on the Family dynamic group that you are dealing with. This is because lots of other people have been through the characters by now, and decided what they want to keep and what to chuck, so the character code should be mainly there for a reason. [Not all characters have been done yet, so this won't always be the case, but Weasleys have been done, as have muggles]. ******************** Dot: Actually... I've been wondering for a while whether we need a category for the final showdown between Harry and Voldy. It might mean a lot of rearranging, but it could be useful for nice ideas that have nowhere else to go - would it cut down a lot on the Voldemort and Harry categories? Anne: Oooo, yes. It could go among the predictions, I suppose, since it's too broad for DD's or Voldemort's agendas an may well include Harry's agenda should he form one in HBP. Carolyn: Boyd/Barry - what do you reckon about this ? I think predictions would be the best place for it, if anywhere. Personally, I am not wild about the idea, but will go along with it if lots of you are in favour. The reason is that a lot of the ideas about the final showdown really relate to other matters - eg possession theory, or just plain old, vanilla-flavour good vs evil etc. ***************************** Anne: And have we set any policy yet for orphan Acronym categories? I recall two under Harry that were the result of some person requesting one for people who like him -- two acronyms were generated in reply, which were never used again. Are we keeping every single acronym for posterity or chopping the dead end ones? Carolyn: I'd like to keep them all for a while yet, and then finally see what gets coded to what acronym. Some that I thought wouldn't be used at all have gathered a surprising number of posts. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Mar 14 00:01:07 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:01:07 -0000 Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 13th March Message-ID: PROGRESS As of today we have coded 49358 posts and rejected 27122 (54.9%). The reject rate continues to edge upwards as the review proceeds. We have now reviewed 39 of the 105 sections listed in our database. DEFINITIONS I will bring the definitions files up to date asap with our deliberations this week. Also, I am going to try and summarise each of them in a few sentences in terms of what should go in, what should be left out. Need to get into the habit of referring to this, or all our work will have been in vain.. REVIEW OR CODE? As the consensus seems to be that people would prefer to keep reviewing, so be it. Just slightly anxious that it is getting on for nearly a month since we did any coding, though I think the exercise has been really helpful. If anyone does want to get back to coding, here are the current list of post allocations, in case people have forgotten their numbers: Doug 36101 -36200 Dot 38601 -38700 Corinne 39001 - 39100 Anne 39901 - 40000 Kelly 40401 - 40500 KathyK 41301 - 41400 Carolyn 41401 - 41500 Ginger 42001 - 42100 Jen 42101 - 42200 Eva 42201 - 42300 Laurasia 42301 - 42400 Talisman 42601 - 42700 KathyW 42701 - 42800 From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Mar 14 01:07:45 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:07:45 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Even more replies References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: carolynwhite2 To: HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 6:50 PM Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Even more replies ********************** KathyW: Just off the cuff, should we keep any issues that can be resolved just by going to the Lexicon, or should I code as if it doesn't exist? I recall someone else was removing posts that contained information easily found elsewhere. Carolyn: Code on merit; if the Lexicon has contributed something extra, well and good. Mostly people seem to quote the Lexicon just to confirm a canon point, which doesn't add anything much, IMO. Kathy W. I was thinking it more from the "Is this post about information we can find somewhere else?" similar to Kathy K and FB. But wait until I've done some more reading in the categories. It may just work itself out. ***************************** 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 elfundeb at comcast.net Mon Mar 14 01:35:49 2005 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (Debbie) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 01:35:49 -0000 Subject: Interim Report: 1.2.4 Parameters set by JKR/Authorial Intent Message-ID: Interim Report on 1.2.4, Parameters Set by JKR/Authorial Intent, and its two hangers-on, What Is Canon? and FAITH. 1.2.4 PARAMETERS SET BY JKR/AUTHORIAL INTENT (was 480, now 296 and shrinking): This was a bloated, overstuffed category, enough to daunt any would- be searcher. I am deleting 1.2.4 for any post that is appropriately coded to other, more appropriate lit-crit categories, such as: Foreshadowing, clues and misdirection (JKR put in those clues on purpose!) Plot development (where is JKR going with this theme, why doesn't Harry ask questions?) Character development (where is JKR taking this character; is it believable) Effect of POV narration (e.g, JKR is painting a biased view of Character X because story is told from Harry's POV) Adult or children's books Portrayal of males/females/gays (e.g., JKR would/wouldn't write a gay character, is/should JKR create a PC world) Differences between editions (JKR's point lost in translation) Sex in the WW (JKR avoidance of sex) I'm not done with this shifting, as I considered what to do while reading the first 200 posts or so. Then there are the metatheme posts (what did she intend with the House Elf subplot, what is her message re morality/rulebreaking/ambition, etc.). I think we should leave the metatheme ones with the theme and not in Authorial Intent. If searchers wants to know what JKR intended on some issue, they will search the issue, not here. Another collection of posts shade into Reader Response/Subversive Readings (Are our theories outside the scope of JKR's intent; reading subtext, does JKR adequately convey her intent, etc.). My inclination is to put them into a renamed Authorial Intent/Reader Response/Subversive Readings category (most are already coded there, so it would not be a significant increase in number of posts). Thoughts? That leaves the following categories of posts that don't have a clear other home: JKR's writing process (fan influences on her writing) Use of language, sloppiness (including a short but very good thread on her use of distinctive speech patterns for different characters) These include the grammar posts I commented on the other day. I'd like to find a home for these posts, but don't think there is one. There are also some, but not many, posts discussing JKR's rules of magic and whether they work (the Parameters Set by JKR portion of the category). Dot suggested with respect to a similar batch of posts (actually, they're probably the same ones). > Dot: > They don't really discuss rules or ethics, it's more about the > practical limitations on what is and isn't possible. I'll have a > think, but they may just end up in General Properties and Types of > Magic, possibly cross-coded to 1.2.4 Parameters set by JKR. Unless, > of course, I find some more in Gen. Prop. Types Magic (there are > already a handful of posts) in which case I may end up advocating a > new category... I'll come back to it. I'm with you on the new category. The posts discussing the parameters set by JKR on WW magic, i.e., the rules of magic and whether they work, seem very different from the other posts I want to leave here. They are a distinct breed from the rest of the content. 1.2.4.1 WHAT IS CANON? (was 98, now 66) Very easy category. Posts here should be responsive to the question. Posts discussing when an interpretation strays too far from canon, or how fanfic taints (or assists) one's interpretation of canon, belong in Reader Response/Subversive Readings. (I am one of the guilty ones; I coded an entire thread to both categories and have now paid the price.) 1.2.4.2 FAITH (12/12) We're not coding every mention of FAITH, are we? I did not delete anything because FAITH seems to have been cited primarily for Neville theories, and the 2 brief mentions were in Neville posts. I may revisit this; the FAITH reference doesn't exactly jump out of the Memory Charm Symposium posts. Careful mathematicians will have noticed that the numbers add up to about 590 posts, while the database claims there are 1088 posts. Do I assume correctly that the other 498 posts are in 1.2.5 Reader Response/Subversive Readings and its associated acronyms (which I can't find in the database)? They do add up to about this number. I suspect I've read a lot of these posts already. There are 2 distinct types: posts that discuss this as a concept and examples, in which posters acknowledge that their reading is likely subversive. Shall I ax the examples? Or keep them in a subcategory? It would be a handy little reference for some of the more outlandish theories to have graced the list. I have responses to the various questions, but will put them in a different post, given the length of this one Debbie who concurs in the completion of the review process before going back to coding, but needs a new coding assignment nonetheless From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Mon Mar 14 02:24:02 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:24:02 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] UPDATE, Sunday 13th March In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050314022402.GA28539@aardvark.net.au> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:01:07AM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > If anyone does want to get back to coding, here are the current list > of post allocations, in case people have forgotten their numbers: > > Doug 36101 -36200 > Dot 38601 -38700 > Corinne 39001 - 39100 > Anne 39901 - 40000 > Kelly 40401 - 40500 > KathyK 41301 - 41400 > Carolyn 41401 - 41500 > Ginger 42001 - 42100 > Jen 42101 - 42200 > Eva 42201 - 42300 > Laurasia 42301 - 42400 > Talisman 42601 - 42700 > KathyW 42701 - 42800 Ooh oooh ooohhh (raises flipper), a penguin wants to help. Besides, I can't be more useful on the reviewing side. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From elfundeb at comcast.net Mon Mar 14 02:37:32 2005 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (Debbie) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 02:37:32 -0000 Subject: Replies, Replies, Replies Message-ID: Carolyn: > On the Pettigrew or Neville magic ability, I think they belong with > character rather than here, even if they are in-depth discussions. > Having just sorted through the Peter ones myself over the last few > days, I know exactly what they contain, and feel sure about it for > him anyway. > > Debbie - what do you think about Neville? Debbie: I'm only 40 or so posts into Neville, but I agree that those kinds of posts belong first and foremost with the character. If the number of posts gets too unwieldy, as with Harry, we can create subcodes under Neville. Debbie (earlier): > -There are numerous works that could be coded to more than one > category (e.g., fairy tales and children's fantasy lit). The actual > coding was a bit arbitrary, especially between fantasy lit and > children's lit. It might make the decisions easier if we made > Children's Classics disappear altogether. We could move the > children's fantasy to Fantasy Lit, move the children's classics > (Little Women, Anne of Green Gables, etc.) to classic lit and kick > any leftovers to the general category, or to What genre/Are these > kids' books. > Carolyn: I dunno. This is the essence of the NY Times bestseller list > argument, isn't it? That you can't distinguish - the book either > sells or it doesn't, and over time either drops into oblivion, or is > seen as capturing eternal truths. I dither - re your examples below. > I am more comfortable with Lewis Carroll or Pooh as classics, than > Roald Dahl or Oz. I would be very seriously annoyed to find the > dreadful Diana Wynne Jones anywhere near Virginia Woolf under the > W's... What do others think? Do not fear. Diana Wynne Jones can be tucked into fantasy. So can Dahl and Oz, if need be. If fantasy gets too crowded we can give the biggest contributor(s) its own subheading. Lewis Carroll is indeed classic in my book, but is only a handful of posts. The fairy tales could go to myth/legends, where the toad-as-sexual- symbol posts were stashed. Carolyn: Well, now, grammar. If it goes back anywhere near > narrative style, I insist it has it's quarantined under its own sub- > heading. Before we do, could we hear from Jo, who is tackling 4.1.2.1 > Capitalisation, punctuation ? I think there is more of the same there. Debbie: This one could be broadened, I suppose, as I suggested in my other post. Carolyn: > Hm, detracts from the series? How so? Debbie: Perhaps I've just done too much editing, but the grammar glitches got in the way of my enjoyment. I wanted to pick up my red pencil and fix it. It was most noticeable in PS/SS (still my least favorite of the books). I don't object to nonstandard grammar when it's being used for effect, but I think JKR was just sloppy, and wonder whether her editors really earned their pay. Carolyn: > I caught this unbelievably crass comment on the main list the other > day: 'If we want the child reader to have a hero that is a good > example I don't think that we want him to be someone with poor > grammar and low morals.' > Give me strength.... Debbie: Be assured I don't subscribe to this, or I wouldn't be here. Or to the sentiments expressed by Kevin Kimball (post #33582 - "Harry Potter: A Worthwhile Series?"), who claimed to make his kids read literature with a red pencil and mark all the bad grammar. Talk about sucking all the enjoyment out of literature . . . . Barry: > As a Sci Fi purist I'd hate to see it disappear - however there are > very, very few worthwhile influences/parallels between HP and the > pure stuff. Debbie: Very true. If you remove the Star Wars (and most of the posts concern its fantasy/hero's journey aspects, not anything to do with sci-fi), there's not a whole lot left, except some posts asserting that JKR's magical world doesln't meet sci-fi standards, and a couple of stray references to sci-fi authors. But I'll hold off doing anything for the time being. The category is not large, and would be easy to deal with later. Kathy W: > I see it now. Eva takes a name out, Anne puts it back in. I come along and take it out again....Ginger passes by and chops the entire post!! OK that works. Debbie: I shuddered every time I added a new category (outside my own categories), certain that I'd only restored something that had been carefully considered and deleted. Anne: > I do think we should keep a very few off-the-wall posts in the > catalogue, just because they are part of the flavor of HPfGU, but only > ones that are truly amusing. Either that, or make the "just for a > laugh" category available. Debbie: I've been very generous with very early posts because they tend to show evolution of thinking. Like the very first "So do you think Neville could have a Memory Charm?" Boyd wrote: > Tonks is clearly up to something. Consider her introduction: clumsy, > heavily-accented, appearance-changing, at cross purposes with ol' Mad Eye. > Too much detail for a character who has done nothing yet in this story. Also > won over Harry far too quickly. > > Definitely fishy. Debbie: Either too fishy or too PC, as in Look! Young career woman in the Order eschewing traditional feminine roles! Because the other women in the Order are either wives of other order members or they're invisible. Hestia Jones, anyone? Carolyn: The twins are more or less the only > characters in the whole sorry saga that give me pure pleasure. They > are a force of nature, sufficient unto themselves, sharp, savvy, > totally focused, but discerning enough to lend a helping hand to > those that are worth the trouble. Debbie: It's their decisions about who's worth the trouble that bothers me. Harry is worth the trouble, from the moment they see him on the platform. But their brothers are not. Perhaps Molly's worst error was not her career focus, but her lack of focus on their repeated humiliation of Percy. I actually didn't find most of their jokes very funny. This is undoubtedly, however, a subversive reading of the text. I am sure your reading is what JKR intends. Carolyn: Unfortunately, they are boys and > will be eternally hobbled by vague guilt about upsetting their mother > (she'll make sure of that), but hopefully it won't stop them. Debbie: I doubt they have any guilt toward Molly. ;-) Carolyn: > I think Talisman is extremely accurate as to what is wrong with > Molly - she is a wrecker and a destroyer of ambition and dreams. > She's been stupid enough to define herself and her life only as a > mother and wife, and forgotten her own identity. It is a 1950s > caricature that it would be nice to see demolished, although Kneasy > is probably right that JKR has no such plans. Debbie: Nah, I don't think she does, either. I think JKR is portraying her sympathetically, while not glossing over her flaws. (All mothers have flaws. We make bad choices and sometimes our kids suffer from them. Molly does her best, as she sees it.) Carolyn: > The drive-by back up, simply boggling at the thought of Talisman as > either a ballerina or air-hostess. Heh. It works both ways, you know. My parents gave me no career guidance whatsoever, and I still ended up in law school. Debbie who was a Girl Scout and took ballet, remembers excellent, real camping adventures and nothing else about Girl Scouts, but danced like an elephant From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Mar 14 02:56:14 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 02:56:14 -0000 Subject: Ship/Character coding clarification please Message-ID: What's our policy for SHIP posts? Do we want them coded to the characters involved or do they belong *only* in SHIPping? I've started the main Harry category and realise I don't know whether to uncode 2.5.1 Harry Potter from pure shipping discussions of him or not. I'm sure that was discussed at some point here, but with our flood of posts lately I must be missing it somewhere... Anne waving to Ginger, and enjoying the cute little "why doesn't Harry give presents" thread in the old club From kakearney at comcast.net Mon Mar 14 05:36:20 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 05:36:20 -0000 Subject: 3.16.7 General curriculum and subcodes Message-ID: ************************************************************** 3.16.7 (Hogwarts General Curriculum and class subcodes) Review ************************************************************** Finally! Okay, this section turned out to be much less straightforward than I originally expected. Many more posts than expected (about 720 total) and much much more ambiguity than expected. I was actually extremely lenient in keeping repetitive posts (especially regarding DADA-Snape). Although you'll notice a large decrease in posts in several codes, in reality only a handful were thrown out (as Adds Nothing New). Some lost the class code for normal review reasons (peripheral mention). Many more were relocated to a new home; I marked these for review if they intruded on someone else's section. Basically, for each class subcode, the only posts that belong are those discussing either the class itself (details of who, where, when, how often, etc) or the subject matter studied in the class. What doesn't belong varied with the subject. The problem was that the class subject matter often related closely to other categories in the catalogue. Since certain classes presented more problems than others, I'm going to go through each individually (please don't go, it's painless, really). I'm including the before and after post numbers, examples of topics that DO belong in the category (obviously, the category isn't limited to these, but each category's discussions centered on two to four main ideas), and examples of topics that DON'T belong (and where they should be relocated). Also, before I start, I'll note that three of the classes listed under 3.16.7 aren't actual Hogwarts classes: astrology, geomancy, and numerology. And, as you'll see below, the existance of these categories is unnecessary and only leads to confusion. I've emptied all three, and I suggest they be scrapped. Okay, here goes... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.16.7.1 Arithmancy -------------------- Originally: 50 posts Now: 44 posts GOOD: - What the frick is it? (as one poster so eloquently wrote) - Arithmancy versus Divination, and Hermione's contradictory opinions of the two BAD: - No big problems here 3.16.7.2 Astrology --------------------- Originally: 22 posts Now: 0 posts GOOD: - well, nothing. Astrology isn't a class, and therefore all discussion of it was in reality discussing one of the following... BAD: - Use of star charts, etc. for either Astronomy or Divination class Code to either 3.16.7.3 Astronomy or 3.16.7.7 Divination as appropriate - Centaurs' use of astrology. Code to 2.14.2 Centaurs and, if appropriate, 1.2.13.10 Astrology - astrological symbolism. This was the bulk of the problem...people trying to determine the meaning of various omens using real-life astrology. Posts discussing astrological symbolism, e.g. the possible meaning of the "Mars is bright tonight" quote, predictions and characterizations based on planets and stars, etc. went to the Symbolism subcategory 1.2.13.10 Astrology. 3.16.7.3 Astronomy --------------------- Originally: 23 posts Now: 23 posts GOOD: - What is its relationship to magic? What exactly do they study, and why? - Astronomy's use in various forms of divination BAD: - nice little category, no problems 3.16.7.4 Charms --------------------- Originally: 16 posts Now: 14 posts GOOD: - What defines a charm? - When should they be used as opposed to potions, transfiguration, etc.? BAD: - Just a note, I saw some overlap between this category and 3.8.4 Spells, potions, and incantations when discussions turned to differences between charms, spells, jinxes, curses, etc. I didn't look too closely though, since I deemed this a suitable topic for the Charms category. 3.16.7.5 Care of Magical Creatures ---------------------------------- Originally: 27 posts Now: 23 posts GOOD: - Hagrid's teaching, curriculum, and qualifications - DADA creatures vs CoMC creatures - Elective or requirement? - General knowledge of creatures in the WW BAD: - no problems, another well-behaved category 3.16.7.6 DADA ---------------------------------- Originally: 140 posts Now: 115 posts GOOD: - Snape's desire for the job, or lack thereof - Why hasn't Dumbledore hired Snape, given the atrocious record with DADA professors? - Who's next? - Quality and content of lessons under various professors BAD: - If I have to read another post asking whether Snape really wants the DADA post, I'll scream. So unless it really presents some original ideas, send it to Adds Nothing New. 3.16.7.7 Divination ---------------------------------- Originally: 144 posts Now: 71 posts GOOD: - How common is this gift? Can it be taught? Should the students study it? - A lot of Trelawney discussion was here, and I left it (cross-coded to her, of course) since the basis of these discussions were often the first point (i.e. is Divination real and learnable). - Arithmancy versus Divination, and Hermione's contradictory opinions of the two BAD: - specific, [Insert name here] as Seer arguments. Note that the new category, 1.1.3.2 Seers now has 63 posts, all previously located here. However, discussions of whether one can learn to be a Seer or must be born one stayed here (sometimes cross-coded to Seers). - prophecy discussions; these belong in 1.1.3.1 Prophecy discussions - specific discussions of Harry's dreams; use 2.5.1.2 Harry's dreams for this. - discussions of Arithmancy. Yes, it's often defined as a type of divination, but in the Potterverse, it is a separate subject and has its own category (3.16.7.1). Only include comparisons here. 3.16.7. Geomancy ---------------------------------- Originally: 2 posts Now: 0 posts GOOD: - nothing. Not a class, not even mentioned in canon as far as I know. BAD: - The two posts here discussed geomantic symbolism in the names Albus and Rubeus. I moved them both to 1.2.13 Symbolism. 3.16.7.9 Herbology ---------------------------------- Originally: ~5 posts* Now: 3 posts GOOD: - Neville as future professor (sort of a stretch, but I felt bad for this poor neglected category) - Use of herbology in other forms of magic BAD: - just peripheral mentions, nothing big 3.16.7.10 History of Magic ---------------------------------- Originally: ~8 posts* Now: 6 posts GOOD: - Why don't they study Voldemort War I? - "A History of Magic" textbook author discrepancy in PoA BAD: - no problems 3.16.7.11 Muggle Studies ---------------------------------- Originally: ~8 posts* Now: 5 posts GOOD: - Do they study non-magical (Muggle) subjects here? - other odds and ends BAD: - no problems 3.16.7.12 Transfiguration ---------------------------------- Originally: 64 posts Now: 56 posts GOOD: - Logistics and ethics of tranfiguring living creatures into inanimate objects, and vice versa - Animal transfiguration vs. animagus transformation - Details of tranfiguration process (follow/violate physics, permanent or not, etc.) BAD: - no problems 3.16.7.13 Numerology ---------------------------------- Originally: 5 posts Now: 0 posts GOOD: - nada, again not an actual Hogwarts class BAD: - The posts here are all related to figuring out the exact topic of study in Arithmancy class, based on Hermione's textbook, "Numerology & Gramatica". Therefore, I moved these posts to 3.16.7.1 Arithmancy. 3.16.7.14 Potions ---------------------------------- Originally: 45 posts Now: 30 posts GOOD: - Does Potion-brewing require magical talent, or even magic? - Potions class as plot device - Utility of potions vs spells BAD: - Snape's teaching methods; put these in 3.16.6.1 Teaching methods 3.16.7.15 Ancient Runes ---------------------------------- Originally: 7 posts Now: 5 posts GOOD: - What do they study? The symbols themselves? Norse, Celtic, insert -your-favorite-runic-system? Divination? - None yet, but when the Harry's-scar-is-a-rune thread starts, I think this should be cross-coded to Harry's scar and this category. BAD: - no problems 3.16.7.16 Riding broomsticks ---------------------------------- Originally: 10 posts Now: 7 posts Side comment... Can this category be renamed to Flying class, or something similar? It's how most people refer to the class, and a little clearer in my mind. GOOD: - First year only, or is it continued but unmentioned in later years? - Flying techniques BAD: - Magical properties of broomsticks, or discussions of whether one needs magic to fly a broomstick. Put these under 3.10.3 broomsticks. Possibly also 3.8.1 Magical ability? - Quidditch. There are plenty of Quidditch codes; use them. 3.16.7.17 Non-magical classes ---------------------------------- Originally: 32 posts Now: 23 posts GOOD: - Where do they learn the basic writing, math, etc. skills needed for their magical classes? Pure non-magic, unseen courses? Integrated into the magic classes? School before Hogwarts (Cross-coded to 3.17.1 Other wizarding schools)? Or do they not need these skills? - The arts in wizarding education - Magic/real world subject parallels BAD: - school before Hogwarts discussions, code to 3.17.1 Other wizarding schools - sex ed discussions, code to 3.4.2 Family planning and sex education - library etiquette (I feel like I shouldn't have to specify this one, but, well, they were there...) 3.16.7 General curriculum & timetables -------------------------------------- Originally: 109 posts Now: 96 posts GOOD: - Who has classes with whom (House-wise)? - Schedule discussions (How many classes are there? Which are electives? How many does each student take? When? How about teachers? How long is the school year?) - Hypothetical classes - Discussion of many classes at once (how they compare, difficulty, curriculum, etc) BAD: - exam discussion (either year-end/final exams or OWLS and NEWTS) unless it's being used to support or refute a number-of-classes argument. code to 3.16.6.3 Exams - Non-magical class discussion. Use 3.16.7.17 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, that's it. Unless there's another category you'd like reviewed, I'll go back to cataloguing. -Kelly From zanelupin at yahoo.com Mon Mar 14 08:10:15 2005 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:10:15 -0000 Subject: Even more replies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn: >> The best thing is to leave the character codes well alone, and just concentrate on the Family dynamic group that you are dealing with. This is because lots of other people have been through the characters by now, and decided what they want to keep and what to chuck, so the character code should be mainly there for a reason. [Not all characters have been done yet, so this won't always be the case, but Weasleys have been done, as have muggles].<< KathyK: I managed to make myself wholly unclear. ::pats herself on the back:: Good Job, Kath. No problem with keeping to the family dynamics side of things. I asked about the character codes in conjunction really more with an eye on future coding for my own edification. My tendency has been to code just to a particular Group Dynamic, again like the Weasleys, and leave it at that. From looking over this category I can clearly see not everyone has been coding posts this way. What I meant to say: When we get back to coding and have a post that I code to Such and Such a Group Dynamic, would you also like me to code the characters as I have not done so in the past? KathyK From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Mar 14 09:47:21 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:47:21 -0000 Subject: Posts for Sean & Debbie In-Reply-To: <20050314022402.GA28539@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > Ooh oooh ooohhh (raises flipper), a penguin wants to help. Besides, I can't be > more useful on the reviewing side. > Sean, here are some posts for you: 42801 -42900 Debbie, I think you said you wanted some too: 42901 - 43000 Carolyn Answering easy questions first; will get back on the other points later today...sorry I have a lot of RL committments this week. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Mon Mar 14 11:01:23 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:01:23 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Posts for Sean & Debbie In-Reply-To: References: <20050314022402.GA28539@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: <20050314110123.GA15911@aardvark.net.au> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:47:21AM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > Answering easy questions first; will get back on the other points > later today...sorry I have a lot of RL committments this week. Just one quick easy question: what happened to post #42809? -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Mar 14 13:16:07 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:16:07 -0000 Subject: timelines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn wrote: > You choose - plenty left. How about the Timelines section (1.2.9)? > It's a bit of a mess and probably can be reduced to one or two > headings. > > Note that the Weasley ages argument has its own section now (1.3.3), > but you could do both and reduce them a great deal I expect. This > section might need to be part of the Weasley family dynamics perhaps. > KathyW Just to clarify: I'll do 1.2.9 through 1.2.9.4 timelines But the Weasley number (1.3.3) has changed. Is it now 1.2.12.1? and do you want me to take on 1.2.12 as well or does that one have a different owner? From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Mar 14 14:33:01 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 06:33:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Ship/Character coding clarification please In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050314143302.50350.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com> Anne asked: What's our policy for SHIP posts? Do we want them coded to the characters involved or do they belong *only* in SHIPping? I've started the main Harry category and realise I don't know whether to uncode 2.5.1 Harry Potter from pure shipping discussions of him or not. I'm sure that was discussed at some point here, but with our flood of posts lately I must be missing it somewhere... Ginger says: Give me about 3 or 4 hours and some of your troubles will cease. I am about to fire up the weekwhacker and get rid of some of your posts. (I had awaited your input on that, and then I had to go to work.) As to the general question, to code or not to code and where; here is the guideline I have been using in the Ship world. Code the minimum to cover the basics. How's that for vague? In other words, if a post starts out saying "I like H/H" and then goes on to a character analysis of Harry, I dropped the ship. If the post was only about H/H, and didn't add anything about the characters except why they belonged together (or didn't) then I kept the ship, but I noticed that any posts of this nature that involved Ron or Herm had already had the character dropped. I assume Sean was thinking along the same lines as I was and had dropped them already. I didn't drop anything that didn't belong to me unless I was rejecting the whole post. I figured that was up to that reviewer. There are many posts that are still coded to ship categories that are only coded to Harry, but not to the others in the trio, and you will probably see fit to drop Harry as well. (not that you have to, just prognosticating) There are many posts in a variety of places where I dropped the ship even though it was in the subject line as it had veered off into another direction. Go ahead and drop Harry on any you want that are trio ship, OBHWF or FITD. He's already there by association, unless I have axed the ship code. Did that make sense? I'm trying to eat spaghetti and type at once. Ginger, who needs 3 more hands and another set of eyeballs. __________________________________________________ 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 quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Mar 14 15:08:40 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:08:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Even more replies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050314150840.43539.qmail@web60509.mail.yahoo.com> Ginger previously: Along these lines, do you think that once we have coded the rest of our 100,000 or so that there would be a use for H/H and H/R subheadings? Just something to put on the back burner. There's no need now. Carolyn: I actually think it would be helpful to put in the subheadings now, if you like. It would make subsequent coding simpler surely? Perhaps we should compromise on three initial categories, as follows: Harry + Ron + Herm + Would you like me to do this? Ginger now: Erm, actually, that creates a kettle of worms (which, if I understand correctly, will sprout dead fish if left in the sun). Since the vast majority of posts in the Trio section are H/H or R/H, and many cover both, all that means is that they will be in 2 if not all 3 subheads. To be honest, I suggested the back burner because I don't really know the best way to go about it. There are so many posts that cover the whole trio and an outsider or 2. R/H, H/H, plus the 3 you mentioned (meaning trio member and other) may do it, but there will be a lot of overlap. Quite a few posts defend, say, R/H by attacking H/H, so which is it under? In my initial breakdown, I put it under whatever struck me as the gist of the post, pro or con, and didn't waste too much time thinking it out. I was more concerned about pass/fail/uncode ship at the time. Perhaps, when I am done with the rejects I should look at what's left and get back to you? Pencil me in for a 7:00 am US Central Time appointment on Tuesday for that. Thanks for the compliments. I am actually enjoying this more than the coding. Not that I don't enjoy the coding. Oh, and in response to what you wrote about keeping enough posts from the Great Shipping Debate that people will know the key players: trust me on this, they'll know them, their families, their careers, their pets, their allergies, and how they ship; looking at the dates of the posts, they will know when PMS strikes, and will probably want to tell them to shut the heck up! I know I did. Ginger --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Mon Mar 14 15:25:49 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:25:49 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Ship/Character coding clarification please In-Reply-To: <20050314143302.50350.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050314143302.50350.qmail@web60510.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050314152549.GB15911@aardvark.net.au> > Anne asked: > What's our policy for SHIP posts? Do we want them coded to the characters > involved or do they belong *only* in SHIPping? > Ginger replied: > As to the general question, to code or not to code and where; here is the > guideline I have been using in the Ship world. Code the minimum to cover > the basics. > > How's that for vague? Vague this is not. Sanity this is. Hmmm. You feel the power of the List. > Ginger continued: > In other words, if a post starts out saying "I like H/H" and then goes on to > a character analysis of Harry, I dropped the ship. > > If the post was only about H/H, and didn't add anything about the characters > except why they belonged together (or didn't) then I kept the ship, but I > noticed that any posts of this nature that involved Ron or Herm had already > had the character dropped. I assume Sean was thinking along the same lines > as I was and had dropped them already. Yes. We are trying to determine the point of a post, not how applicable it is. The Trio is overcoded enough as it is. There is enough character analysis of the Trio to satisfy anyone already. There are enough acronyms for each SHIP to suit most conceivable positions. What is unique about the post? Will it be useful to a researcher? Does it add to our understanding? I strongly disagree with suggestions that we begin defining specific SHIP couples. Madness that way lies. And it would take another three months with all of us working on it. I'm afraid I would have to shoot everyone after the first two days, and I am a penguin of peace. > Did that make sense? I'm trying to eat spaghetti and type at once. > > Ginger, who needs 3 more hands and another set of eyeballs. As much sense as I just made after watching a Star Wars trailer. Small green and grumpy I feel. Hmmm. Not a proper penguin at all. May the List be with you. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com Mon Mar 14 15:32:53 2005 From: boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com (Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:32:53 -0600 Subject: Thoughts on Final Showdown Category Message-ID: >Dot wrote: Actually... I've been wondering for a while whether we need a category for the final showdown between Harry and Voldy.< >Then Anne wrote: Oooo, yes. It could go among the predictions....< Carolyn, you suggested it go under DD, but that assumes he *knows* what he's doing. Wow, even saying that makes me feel subversive! What if he's just stumbling along matching up reality with Trelawney's 1st prediction without really knowing *how* all this destroys LV or saves the WW? Imagine his shock when he sees that he has destroyed the WW! We always assume DD knows all, but it's quite possible that he doesn't know exactly what's going to happen. So I'd vote for placing such posts under Predictions for now--some of the coded Book 7 predictions are, in fact, right in line with this. Good job, everyone! Of course, after the series is over , we could easily go back and find the closest theories and give them a special place of honor in the Catalogue. >Debbie wrote on Tonks: Either too fishy or too PC, as in Look! Young career woman in the Order eschewing traditional feminine roles! Because the other women in the Order are either wives of other order members or they're invisible. Hestia Jones, anyone?< I like that! But then why make her so clumsy that she seems inept? Should have just made Shacklebolt a woman in that case. Hey, come to think of it: bald head, deep voice, one gold hooped earring? Either Mr. Clean (http://www.homemadesimple.com/mrclean/) has been moonlighting at the MoM or dear Kingsley is a female trying a bit too hard to look the part of the macho male Auror! While we're on the subject of cross-dressing, perhaps Snape has been hiding a very different secret under those dingy underpants.... Prank or bad blind date? You decide! Back to Tonks: maybe she is just the next Forge--a comic diversion. Problem is I don't find her that much fun. So I still vote for ESE!Tonks (using clumsiness as a cover), or at least EasilyDuped!Tonks. Her persona just seems much more in tune with individualism (and perhaps individual acts of subversion against society?) than her role as a junior Auror would allow. --Boyd From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Mar 14 15:41:39 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:41:39 -0000 Subject: Short replies... Message-ID: Debbie (about the twins): It's their decisions about who's worth the trouble that bothers me. Harry is worth the trouble, from the moment they see him on the platform. But their brothers are not. Perhaps Molly's worst error was not her career focus, but her lack of focus on their repeated humiliation of Percy. I actually didn't find most of their jokes very funny. This is undoubtedly, however, a subversive reading of the text. I am sure your reading is what JKR intends. Carolyn; Hah..the true meaning of subversive, eh? (ie not going along with the author's intended meaning). But, how do you square this with her reply to the question 'Was Percy acting entirely of his own accord in Order of the Phoenix?' JK Rowling replies -> I'm afraid so. Gred & Forge are ok with all their other brothers and sisters, and their relationship with Perce only breaks down badly in OOP - and no one else has much time for him either. However, I won't be surprised to find he is acting undercover for Dumbledore - her reply was a classic of misdirection. Somewhere on the site there is a brilliant deconstruction of that awful letter he wrote Ron, to show it meant the opposite, and only Hermione guessed that. But she didn't do anything with that knowledge as far as we know..so another clue or more lazy writing? *************** KathyK: What I meant to say: When we get back to coding and have a post that I code to Such and Such a Group Dynamic, would you also like me to code the characters as I have not done so in the past? Carolyn: I think the rule should be only code to the main character if it is a substantive discussion about that character. It's a question of what is the main point of the post. If it is to discuss the interaction of eg Weasley family members generally, then no, don't cross-code, but if it wanders off into a lengthy analysis of one of them, then yes, code to just that one. ********* Sean: Just one quick easy question: what happened to post #42809? Carolyn: Paul tells me this techno garbage appears when the poster deleted their own post, ie it doesn't exist anymore. ********** KathyW Just to clarify: I'll do 1.2.9 through 1.2.9.4 timelines But the Weasley number (1.3.3) has changed. Is it now 1.2.12.1? and do you want me to take on 1.2.12 as well or does that one have a different owner? Carolyn: Yes, if you could do 1.2.9 through 1.2.9.4, plus 1.2.12/1.2.12.1, that would make sense. They were all originally part of the same category. ********** Ginger: As to the general question, to code or not to code and where; here is the guideline I have been using in the Ship world. Code the minimum to cover the basics. Carolyn: I think this kind of elegant minimilism has to be what we aim for in future. Maybe we should really question whether a post ever deserves more than, say three codes ? *********** Ginger Did that make sense? I'm trying to eat spaghetti and type at once. Carolyn: Now that could get messy - what happens if someone makes you laugh?! Much worse than mopping up tea or coffee from your keyboard... From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Mar 14 16:13:27 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:13:27 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Final Showdown Category In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > >Dot wrote: Actually... I've been wondering for a while whether we need a category for the final showdown between Harry and Voldy.< > > >Then Anne wrote: Oooo, yes. It could go among the predictions....< > > Boyd: > Carolyn, you suggested it go under DD, but that assumes he *knows* what he's doing. Wow, even saying that makes me feel subversive! What if he's just stumbling along matching up reality with Trelawney's 1st prediction without really knowing *how* all this destroys LV or saves the WW? Imagine his shock when he sees that he has destroyed the WW! We always assume DD knows all, but it's quite possible that he doesn't know exactly what's going to happen. > > So I'd vote for placing such posts under Predictions for now--some of the coded Book 7 predictions are, in fact, right in line with this. Good job, Dot again: I don't know... would it actually be useful? I was thinking primarily of the "What if, in the end, Harry has to ... to defeat Voldy" posts. (Which would mean no need for an End of Magic category, as they could all go in there.) Are there lots of these kinds of posts scattered around in different categories where they don't quite fit? If we really need it, I'd agree it should go in predictions, but do we really need it? From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Mar 14 16:15:18 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:15:18 -0000 Subject: ships Message-ID: Hmm, Sean may be right. Cancel that 7:00 appt. My computer is running slowly today, and I have to be to work in 6 hours so I am shutting down for some rest and will continue my rejecting tomorrow. I'll give it some thought in the mean time about how/whether to subcode trio. To all eating spaghetti: May the forks be with you. Ginger From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Mar 14 17:32:27 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:32:27 -0000 Subject: Chapters vs back history & question for CW In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carolyn: > I agree. Will add the categories. > Jen - on the list, I only meant for you to give us a list of the > decisions you had taken in each chapter as to what was to be included > or not, in terms of incidents. We can then add and work on that as we go along. Jen: Gotcha. I'm starting to compile the list from this point forward and will scroll quickly back through the other chapters for a complete list. You know, there are quite a few interesting debates captured in the chapter categories. Like for example in Heir of Slytherin, you can find the following: *Any of Riddles power get transferred to Ginny? *How did Fawkes poke out the basilisk's eyes without petrification? *How much power did Diary!Tom actually have, could he actually *use* Harry's wand or was he posturing? *Why didn't HP just talk to the basilisk? My point is that some of the minor plot debates can definitely be housed in the chapters without having a bunch of cross-codings to other categories. Maybe what I'll do is try to scan though the chapters of all books and get that list together *first* before actually finishing my review? That way when people start re-coding, we'll all be on the same page for what to include, and it won't matter if I'm still cleaning out the chapters at the same time others are coding. ***Carolyn*** Do you think it would be useful for several of us interested in reviewing to stay back and finish all the categories while others forge ahead with coding? It could be messy if you open up a category one day to find a bunch of new posts added, but if we're basically on the same page for how to code stuff, that might not be a huge deal. Just wondering. I'm a bit of a L.O.O.N and like the idea of cleaning out all the categories, especially the posts coded before the Category list was finalized. ***Loony!Jen*** Jen, who can't believe how much activity she missed going away for one teeny-tiny weekend, and who is headed out again tomorrow for a few days but this time *with* a computer. From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 15 13:26:55 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:26:55 -0000 Subject: From the Hinterlands... Message-ID: Talisman, offering a brief index to this troubling post, which includes items of varying interest to/about: Kneasy, Carolyn, Boyd, Jen, Narrative Style, Dark Arts, definitions, a picture, and Snow, in that order. Kneasy burbled: >Dear, oh dear. >Unable to respond for a day or so and what happens? >Talisman goes bananas. Talisman, arches a brow and inquires: Would those be overly aggressive feminist "thrusting" bananas, or just the kind going brown by the sink? Kneasy hisses: Snarl..snuffle..ack..ack >"mid-western harbinger of doom"< snort snurkle..pffft. Talisman, adopting a repressed peasant look: Ohhh, now we see it. The Marcher Lord with his pride of place. Well then, just hit a poor defenseless girl in the mid-west when she's not looking, why don`t you. What happened to chivalry? What happened to Noblesse Oblige? Yea, forsooth, inasmuch as I am deathly tired of the Buckeye State (which is really rather to the east, technically, I mean, if you look at the map maybe?) and am plotting how best to escape, I suppose I shall just have to endure the knavish blow. (Yes, Kneasy. I'm jealous of where you live. Jealous jealous jealous jealous. I don't even care if you live in a chicken coop. I'm jealous.) Kneasy switches his tail, irritably, and meows: >[Re: Molly] Come-uppance no, suffer yes. Talisman, gently prying a dog-eared book and a plastic alien out of his fuzzy paw: There, there. An excess of Kipling, combined with distillates of mash and juniper berry, has befuddled many a fellow. Please don't allow yourself to become agitated, but Molly has already been served her come-uppance. It has ceased to be a matter of prediction; it is a matter of record. Kneasy, warming into his rant: >Additionally, if JKR was >highlighting her own 'struggles' with parental pressure I'd expect >that Molly would be all over Ginny like a rash - and she ain't. Talisman, shaking the little alien at him, sternly: Now, see here. I took great pains to avoid this clunky line of thought. Please reread the parts (in original post and reiterated later) about no direct characterization of parents. Kneasy, saluting bravely in the direction of The Burrow: >She could kill her off but if she does I expect Molly to go >down fighting, protecting her brood. Talisman: Well, now you're just being provocative. It's not in the bag, of course, which is why C and I have a plan B. In any event, Molly's hoped for death isn't in the nature of a (can you say "already achieved") come-uppance (unless Percy whacks her with a stack of hefty M.O.M. memos). Sure, some characters might benefit by a final release from the smothering tentacles, but, for a few readers, at least,it will merely be a bit of entertaining carnage. P.S. It IS charming to see you defending what you obviously take for "motherhood." Lucky for Molly she's not some Midwestern yokel. Kneasy, orating in his best, mellifluous tones: >"When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws, >They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws, >'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale. Etc, etc .. Talisman, sighs and looks down at the soiled book of misogynic meter, pondering the longevity of the Whore/Madonna complex, and notices that Rudyard isn't always unhelpful : "His sire was leaky of tongue and pen, "His dam was a clucking Khuttuck hen; "And the colt bred close to the vice of each, "For he carried the curse of an unstanched speech. Well, what's sauce for the goose . . . Kneasy, fed up and moving in for the kill: >Oh, and don't worry about ole Sevvy - he's for the chop - and it'll >be the fault of that insufferable snot Potter. Talisman, breathing deeply and feeling a need to lie on the couch and talk to someone: Cruel man. Where will that leave me? Lusting. Not only for a fictional character (which usually turns out to be the case, n'est- ce pas?), but for a dead fictional character. I'm not sure whether that qualifies for necrophilia. Then too, Snape's actually a product of JKR's imagination...so I guess that would make me a lesbian necrophiliac with a taste for bad boys. And a Midwesterner, to boot. The gods laugh. Lovely, Perceptive Carolyn offers: >The twins are more or less the only characters in the whole sorry >saga that give me pure pleasure. They are a force of nature, >sufficient unto themselves, sharp, savvy,totally focused, but >discerning enough to lend a helping hand to >those that are worth the trouble. Talisman, agrees 99.9%. I, of course, find pure-- alright, not-so- pure, but abundant-- pleasure, in other pastures. Boyd, SO asking for it, blibbers: >Carolyn, you suggested it go under >DD, but that assumes he *knows* >what he's doing. Wow, even saying >that makes me feel subversive! > perhaps Snape has been hiding a very different secret under those >dingy underpants.... Prank or bad blind date? You decide! Talisman, snaps back into focus and requests: Whatever you do, Boyd, please don't use your marionette-string clippers to trim your hair. I want it good and long by Book 7. I'll be needing a nice hank of it when I tie your head to my belt. >Jen, flashes her most winning smile, backs up to the door . Talisman, calls out after the rapidly disappearing figure: Hey, keep those fiddle-de-des handy, I may start putting some of my more dangerous ideas out there. Debbie: reported : The Very Long Thread comparing HP to LotR and Narnia contained many thoughtful comments on the loose grammar in the series. IIRC, these were axed from Narrative Style, which makes sense, but is there no longer a place for discussions of JKR's use of language? (I confess, I enjoyed reading what people think of JKR's grammar, since it irks me enough to think it detracts from the quality of the series.) Carolyn replied: Well, now, grammar. If it goes back anywhere near narrative style, I insist it has it's quarantined under its own sub- heading. Before we do, could we hear from Jo, who is tackling 4.1.2.1 Capitalisation, punctuation ? I think there is more of the same there. Talisman, who has officially changed her profession (on the profile) to Troublemaker, just has to churn the waters regarding Narrative Style. As I mentioned a while back, I did write a rather long, almost finished, post regarding Narrative Style. I didn't post it because whatever was being said at the time, regarding cleaning up the category, seemed to be going along well. But, I now feel that some clarifying discussion may be in order. In fine: Grammar, capitalization and punctuation are PURE aspects of Narrative Style. They belong under that heading as no other, without qualification. Word choice is an essential part of an individual author's style. Do they have a jingoistic fervor for the stolid Anglo-Saxon, as Orwell did? Or, do they embrace the affectations of the upstart Norman tongue? How about the systematically sultry southern sibilance of William Faulkner? You sneeze at Capitalization? Can You Say Emily Dickinson? How about e.e.cummings? And punctuation? Compare Rowling's complex sentences, rife with subordinate clauses, with Hemingway's staccato punctuation. This is the very core of narrative style. Imagery, meter, pattern, sound, use of trope, etc. are in there too, but grammar, capitalization, and punctuation are ground zero. Please, let us put all those good things right back where they belong. (acknowledging that I haven't read the posts, and maybe they are just so bad that they aren't recognizable as being pertinent to the topic.?) Regarding my review of 3.9.1. What is Dark Magic? There were some posts that actually fit the category. Some don't belong at all (usually Snape was just standing too close) and some belong somewhere under 3.9. Dark Arts, but don't at this time have appropriate sub-headers. I would like to propose the following additions to the levels: 3.9.1.1. How is Dark Magic Taught/Learned? 3.9.1.2. Legality of the Use of Dark Magic 3.9.2.4. Voldemort's Rebodification Spell/Use of Human Ingredients 3.9.5. Dark Magical Objects 3.9.8. Relationship to Dark Creatures Also, are we keeping track of the updated definitions for categories? Was I supposed to be taking notes? Oops. May I suggest that we set up a database wherein the people (each of us) who have reviewed a given category, received feedback, and arrived at a clarified definition can post this information in one comprehensive document? Then, if we continue to fill in definitions as we finish categories, the master list will be updated and we won't have to search back through posts (or say eff it). Finally, for those who routinely feel the urge to throttle me, I have uploaded a photo to my profile--hot from the memory card--which can be printed off as a useful dart board. I recommend that you get everything in order before I recommence posting on TOC. The ambush interrupted my hunting down of elusive HP citations, which explains my swotty look, and made me think it an appropriate-- if not particularly flattering--image for my HP activities. I do think Snape and I would make a cute couple, though, don't you? Talisman, saying, my collar isn't frayed--yokel though I may be-- there is a long beaded earring draping down and the mix of dark and light beads explains the effect. P.S. Snow, darling. My fellow poet. Thank you for your willingness to risk exposure to my dark and roiling soul. Nonetheless, I really must insist that people be slightly lit, whether by foreign stimulants or quietly bubbling manias, before reciting my poetry. Dim lighting helps, too. Trust me. Hallmark will not be offering any contracts. Indeed, many an honest householder, with child protection filters in place, would be barred from accessing the list, were I to start posting it here. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Tue Mar 15 14:09:09 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:09:09 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] From the Hinterlands... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050315140909.GC15911@aardvark.net.au> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:26:55PM -0000, Talisman wrote: > Word choice is an essential part of an individual author's style. > Do they have a jingoistic fervor for the stolid Anglo-Saxon, as > Orwell did? Or, do they embrace the affectations of the upstart > Norman tongue? How about the systematically sultry southern > sibilance of William Faulkner? JKR insists on the word "bracingly". It's consistent enough to be worth a drinking-game. Any other words that jump out for anyone? > P.S. Snow, darling. My fellow poet. Thank you for your willingness > to risk exposure to my dark and roiling soul. Nonetheless, I really > must insist that people be slightly lit, whether by foreign > stimulants or quietly bubbling manias, before reciting my poetry. > Dim lighting helps, too. Trust me. Hallmark will not be offering > any contracts. Indeed, many an honest householder, with child > protection filters in place, would be barred from accessing the > list, were I to start posting it here. by a contributor (after the style of don marquis) : oh oh oh oh Snape i yearn for you tragically though you're fictional and possibly morbid it is no impediment noone will notice if we keep the lights off that's better -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From kakearney at comcast.net Tue Mar 15 14:31:23 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:31:23 -0000 Subject: From the Hinterlands... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Talisman: > As I mentioned a while back, I did write a rather long, almost > finished, post regarding Narrative Style. I didn't post it because > whatever was being said at the time, regarding cleaning up the > category, seemed to be going along well. > > But, I now feel that some clarifying discussion may be in order. In > fine: Grammar, capitalization and punctuation are PURE aspects of > Narrative Style. They belong under that heading as no other, without > qualification. > Imagery, meter, pattern, sound, use of trope, etc. are in there too, > but grammar, capitalization, and punctuation are ground zero. > > Please, let us put all those good things right back where they > belong. (acknowledging that I haven't read the posts, and maybe they > are just so bad that they aren't recognizable as being pertinent to > the topic.?) If I remember correctly, there was some decent discussion in that thread regarding whether some of JKR's more liberal grammar uses detracted from the story. I agree, there should be a category for this debate. Talisman again: > Also, are we keeping track of the updated definitions for > categories? Was I supposed to be taking notes? Oops. May I suggest > that we set up a database wherein the people (each of us) who have > reviewed a given category, received feedback, and arrived at a > clarified definition can post this information in one comprehensive > document? Then, if we continue to fill in definitions as we finish > categories, the master list will be updated and we won't have to > search back through posts (or say eff it). Along the same lines, I reference the little descriptions in the catalogue itself ([d]) much more often than the lists in the Files section. Could these be updated as each category gets reviewed? -Kelly, whose trips got rescheduled last week, and who will now be tragically far from Engish-speaking-and-publishing shore when HBP is published. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Tue Mar 15 16:26:50 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:26:50 -0000 Subject: ships and stuff Message-ID: Ginger wanders in dressed in civilian clothes. Could it mean? Yes! Shipping is finished. There are now 202 posts in trio ships, compared to the 738 from before. Many have been uncoded; far more have been rejected. Amzaingly, the number of rejects/posts plummets after the advent of OTC. Carolyn, about the subheadings we were contemplating: When we have the final product, will people clicking on Trio ships (or any other category for that matter) get them in chronological order? I was thinking that if this was the case, that any avid shipper would have to wade through many pre-OoP posts to get to the current shipping scene. Much of shipping is so outdated after each book. Trust me on this. I'll spare you the examples. Could our sub-headings be along the lines of "pre-OoP" "OoP" and "HBP" with the possibility of adding book 7? It would be easy to code as we would just code it to when the post was posted. It just may be a way of seperating what promises to be a hefty category. Just a thought for the back burner. Jen, I rejected several posts that were categorized to chapters. The Yule Ball is one of the more notorious. I rejected these posts as they restated what had been said elsewhere, but was said better in the kept posts. Many kept ones were not coded to chapter. Would you like me to go back and code some of the kept ones to the chapters? I took notes, so it wouldn't take me long. I'm afraid I may have cut you short by rejecting them. Let me know. That's all for now. Ginger, shipping off into the sunset. Ok, it's morning here, but there's a sunset somewhere. From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Mar 15 17:16:27 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:16:27 -0000 Subject: From the Hinterlands... In-Reply-To: <20050315140909.GC15911@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > JKR insists on the word "bracingly". It's consistent enough to be worth a > drinking-game. Any other words that jump out for anyone? It's mostly phrases for me -- "More ____ than ever (before)." Also related: "It was pain such as Harry never felt before." "His head was (surely) splitting along his scar." Snarled (originally most often to be seen with Snape; now everyone's getting into the act) ~Anne From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Mar 16 13:02:37 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:02:37 -0000 Subject: timelines Message-ID: I'm working through the timelines and I wanted to get some feedback on section 1.2.9.1.1 significant dates. There are a number of posts about Halloween and the many things that happen on different Halloweens (inclucing the conception of the Boy Wonder) I was thinking of moving those to Festivals and Religion 3.7.6. There are a few posts about frequent use of specific days of the week and why JKR does that, which I think should be moved to narrative style 1.2.6. Ideas? This heading may go away, but I won't take any action until I've reviewed the others under timelines. Kathy W. who thinks it interesting that both Harry and Neville were conceived on Halloween according to several posts. It must have been one heck of a party that year! From kakearney at comcast.net Wed Mar 16 14:24:12 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:24:12 -0000 Subject: 3.16.7 General curriculum and subcodes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I wrote: > Also, before I start, I'll note that three of the classes listed > under 3.16.7 aren't actual Hogwarts classes: astrology, geomancy, and > numerology. And, as you'll see below, the existance of these > categories is unnecessary and only leads to confusion. I've emptied > all three, and I suggest they be scrapped. Sorry to be repetitive, but I haven't seen any responses to this suggested change to the catalogue (i.e. getting rid of categories 3.16.7.2, 3.16.7.8 , and 3.16.7.13). Since we're beginning to catalogue again, I think they should be removed before anyone is tempted to put something in them again. -Kelly From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Mar 16 14:35:08 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:35:08 -0000 Subject: ships and stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ginger: > Jen, I rejected several posts that were categorized to chapters. The > Yule Ball is one of the more notorious. I rejected these posts as > they restated what had been said elsewhere, but was said better in > the kept posts. Many kept ones were not coded to chapter. Would you > like me to go back and code some of the kept ones to the chapters? I > took notes, so it wouldn't take me long. > > I'm afraid I may have cut you short by rejecting them. Let me know. Jen: Oh no, I'm sure you did the right thing! There's probably another batch waiting for me in the chapter category anyway. For that matter, if anyone has a post coded only to his/her section and a chapter heading and you think it's rejectable, chop away! If I don't see it, I won't fret over it. Jen, lounging around in Midland, Texas at the moment and remembering why she moved away. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Mar 16 22:02:54 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:02:54 -0000 Subject: Revised definitions files Message-ID: Hi Back after a day or two's absence - apologies. The first thing I have done is update the definitions files with all of our discussions to date - see files section. This was fairly exhausting, so I am giving up for tonight, but will respond to all the outstanding queries tomorrow. Carolyn From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 16 22:38:51 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:38:51 -0000 Subject: Olio Message-ID: Sean, in the throes of Erato: >by a contributor (after the style of don marquis) : >oh oh oh oh Snape >i yearn for you tragically >though you're fictional >and possibly morbid >it is no impediment >no one will notice >if we keep the lights off >that's better Talisman, in the throes of something, offers: In Response Clever penguin, vessel of a muse, Marquis cannot touch you. Jest as you like: "it is no impediment." Love conquers, or better yet, Desire transcends all Farce by being (as it happens) its own reward. I'll duct tape this to my heart. >--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > JKR insists on the word "bracingly". It's consistent enough to be >worth a drinking-game. Any other words that jump out for anyone? Anne hears "drinking game" and leaps to the fore: >It's mostly phrases for me -- "More ____ than ever (before)." Also related: >"It was pain such as Harry never felt before." "His head was (surely) splitting along his >scar." Snarled (originally most often to be seen with Snape; now everyone's >getting into the act) ~Anne Talisman sidles up to the table, and seeing as there's plenty left in the bottle: Shots for everyone. Though irksome, I've taken all those "______than evers," as a means of expressing Harry's adolescent perception. Hopefully they'll slow down as he grows up. And soon. How about grim/grimly? That'll get you snookered pretty quick. She'll also go in for spells where everything is muttered. Probably grimly. As an aside, I like it when Snape snaps. Cheap, but there you are. Potioncat, re: Timelines/Significant Dates section 1.2.9.1.1: >There are a number of posts about Halloween and the many things that >happen on different Halloweens (inclucing the conception of the Boy >Wonder) I was thinking of moving those to Festivals and Religion >3.7.6. Talisman: I think recurrent Halloween events stand out sufficiently to warrant a titular category, somewhere, probably under your Timelines heading. I'm wondering if other Festivals (Feast of Walpurga, etc.?) wouldn't fair better by being excised from Religion, per se, and moved here, either to their own level 2 headings, or to a "Other Festivals and Holidays" catchall, depending on importance. Potioncat: >There are a few posts about frequent use of specific days of the >week and why JKR does that, which I think should be moved to >narrative style 1.2.6. Talisman: I don't agree that this should go to Narrative Style. To the extent that Rowling is exploiting any connotations/superstitions/ mythological links, etc. with specific days of the week, this should be treated as symbolism, preferably with it's own section: Days of the Week, but I see it aptly cross- referenced with timeline considerations. (If we were discussing how Rowling's use of symbolism impacts the works/the experience of reading them, that would go to narrative style.) Ginger, whacking back the Chapter shrubbery: >Many kept ones [Yule Ball posts] were not coded to chapter. Would >you like me to go >back and code some of the kept ones to the >chapters? I took notes, so it wouldn't take >me long. Talisman: This sounds like a fair exchange to me. Carolyn explained, in post #1401 RE: New definitions files >I was rather hoping that Yahoo had a file format that everyone could >edit, so you could add your own contributions, but it seems not so >I suppose I will have to keep them up to date each week. Eventually I could >transfer a shortened version into the DB itself . Talisman, later: >May I suggest that we set up a database wherein the people (each of >us) who have reviewed a given category, received feedback, and >arrived at a > clarified definition can post this information in one comprehensive > document? Then, if we continue to fill in definitions as we finish > categories, the master list will be updated and we won't have to > search back through posts (or say eff it). Kelly, in response: >Along the same lines, I reference the little descriptions in the >catalogue itself ([d]) much more often than the lists in the Files >section. Could these be updated as each category gets reviewed? Talisman, now: Heaven knows I defer completely to Paul and others Carolyn, Sean?) regarding what is possible with Yahoo. But my hope was to have something _concise_, handy, and not labor intensive for one or two people (e.g. Carolyn & Paul). Carolyn, I think your new files TO DATE (collecting the discussions) could help people prepare their current consolidated definitions (which could also receive further feed back) but that 1) re-reading the discussions while in the process of coding would be very difficult; 2)It's, hopefully, an unneccesay job for you to keep gathering these. Just from the example of the Database wherein we all "edited" to claim a review section and then to note completion thereof, I thought we could have one, organized by category/number that each of us could "edit" to supply the new consensus definition. This isn't possible? I agree, Kelly, these definitions should ultimately go into the happy little "d" into the actual catalogue. (But, because this requires accessing at a sensitive level, it's not something I think all of us should be doing). So, because we are "in process;" there may be some definitions that haven't gelled; and, Carolyn and Paul have plenty on their plates, I thought that an interim--member edited-- database might be helpful. Still no? Talisman From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Thu Mar 17 00:21:44 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:21:44 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Olio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050317002144.GA6405@aardvark.net.au> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:38:51PM -0000, Talisman wrote: > Talisman, in the throes of something, offers: > > In Response > > Clever penguin, vessel of a muse, > Marquis cannot touch you. > > Jest as you like: "it is no impediment." > Love conquers, or better yet, Desire > transcends all Farce by being (as it happens) > its own reward. > > I'll duct tape this to my heart. > Touch :) I forgot the dangers of waxing poetic where people might see it :) > Anne hears "drinking game" and leaps to the fore: > > >It's mostly phrases for me -- "More ____ than ever (before)." Also > related: > >"It was pain such as Harry never felt before." "His head was > (surely) splitting along his >scar." Snarled (originally most often > to be seen with Snape; now everyone's > >getting into the act) ~Anne > > Talisman sidles up to the table, and seeing as there's plenty left > in the bottle: > > Shots for everyone. Though irksome, I've taken all > those "______than evers," as a means of expressing Harry's > adolescent perception. Hopefully they'll slow down as he grows up. > And soon. > > How about grim/grimly? That'll get you snookered pretty quick. > She'll also go in for spells where everything is muttered. Probably > grimly. As an aside, I like it when Snape snaps. Cheap, but there > you are. His beak was on fire. More than ever, ewe2 was grimly certain something had to snap. "It's all Rowling's fault!" he muttered darkly. "Never mind," said Talisman bracingly "There's only another few thousand posts to code. Plenty of time to put your beak out." "Last time I touch that Firewhisky then," ewe2 retorted in an injured tone. "And as for that blinding drinking-game--" he broke off abruptly. There, framed in the doorway, resplendent in leather jacket, fluorescent-green top, jeans and shiny boots was Nymphadora Tonks, in her trademark bubblegum pink spiky hair. ewe2 swallowed his Firewhiskey in one gulp. "'Nother one, barkeep?" he croaked. "And what will the lady have?" he enquired of Tonks hopefully. "You - are - a - CATALOGUER!" snarled Talisman. "Then I'll have the Subcommittee look over your 'correspondence' with Severus, shall I?" asked ewe2 sweetly. "I'm watching you, penguin," Talisman punctuated her words with well-placed jabs in ewe2's feathery paunch. "No honky-tonks with Tonks or the beak gets to strain krill with a straw!" To Be Continued... (I've got to stop watching Bogart movies) > Just from the example of the Database wherein we all "edited" to > claim a review section and then to note completion thereof, I > thought we could have one, organized by category/number that each of > us could "edit" to supply the new consensus definition. This isn't > possible? Entirely possible and desireable. All it needs is a framework, ie category number and name, space for contributor and possibly date, and a big space for suggested definitions. Nothing simpler. > So, because we are "in process;" there may be some definitions that > haven't gelled; and, Carolyn and Paul have plenty on their plates, I > thought that an interim--member edited-- database might be helpful. > Still no? As long as we keep everyone up to speed when we suggest things, it's a great way of keeping the information together in one place instead of hunting through posts. I agree C & P need a break from organizing everything. ewe2 "call me Raymond" penguin -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Mar 17 15:09:53 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:09:53 -0000 Subject: Dark Arts/Final showdown predictions/Timelines Message-ID: Talisman: Regarding my review of 3.9.1. What is Dark Magic? There were some posts that actually fit the category. Some don't belong at all (usually Snape was just standing too close) and some belong somewhere under 3.9. Dark Arts, but don't at this time have appropriate sub-headers. I would like to propose the following additions to the levels: 3.9.1.1. How is Dark Magic Taught/Learned? 3.9.1.2. Legality of the Use of Dark Magic 3.9.2.4. Voldemort's Rebodification Spell/Use of Human Ingredients 3.9.5. Dark Magical Objects 3.9.8. Relationship to Dark Creatures Carolyn: No problem with the first three. We already have a 3.9.5 Cursed items - do you want to rename it? ********************* New predictions category Dot: Actually... I've been wondering for a while whether we need a category for the final showdown between Harry and Voldy.< Anne: Oooo, yes. It could go among the predictions....< Boyd: I'd vote for placing such posts under Predictions for now--some of the coded Book 7 predictions are, in fact, right in line with this. Good job, everyone! Of course, after the series is over , we could easily go back and find the closest theories and give them a special place of honor in the Catalogue. Carolyn: So, this is a third category under Book 7: 1.17.4.3 Final showdown Harry vs Voldy Will you be moving some predictions into this, Boyd? NB, please note the predictions section has just been re-numbered to be 1.12 ****************************** SIGNIFICANT DATES/DAYS OF THE WEEK Kathy W: I'm working through the timelines and I wanted to get some feedback on section 1.2.9.1.1 significant dates. There are a number of posts about Halloween and the many things that happen on different Halloweens (inclucing the conception of the Boy Wonder) I was thinking of moving those to Festivals and Religion 3.7.6. Talisman: I think recurrent Halloween events stand out sufficiently to warrant a titular category, somewhere, probably under your Timelines heading. I'm wondering if other Festivals (Feast of Walpurga, etc.?) wouldn't fair better by being excised from Religion, per se, and moved here, either to their own level 2 headings, or to a "Other Festivals and Holidays" catchall, depending on importance. Carolyn: I would agree that the things that happen on Halloween should stay under significant dates, possibly gathered together as a sub- category. The Festivals & religion category in section 3 is more for discussing cultural aspects of the WW. Those other festivals that Talisman mentioned should equally be sent to the section 3 heading, rather than be put under 'religious influences' in meta-themes. That heading is for discussing the influence of muggle religions on the underlying themes of HP. KathyW: There are a few posts about frequent use of specific days of the week and why JKR does that, which I think should be moved to narrative style 1.2.6. Talisman: I don't agree that this should go to Narrative Style. To the extent that Rowling is exploiting any connotations/superstitions/ mythological links, etc. with specific days of the week, this should be treated as symbolism, preferably with it's own section: Days of the Week, but I see it aptly cross- referenced with timeline considerations. (If we were discussing how Rowling's use of symbolism impacts the works/the experience of reading them, that would go to narrative style.) Carolyn: Weeell....we should look at the posts. Kathy is right if the analysis is just about possibly lazy writing style - ie, she simply doesn't care if the 1st of September isn't always on a Monday etc. That does belong under narrative style. OTOH, yes, if the posts are about some symbolic association with days of the week, then we could put it somewhere under 1.2.13.11 Numbers, perhaps? From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Mar 17 15:11:25 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:11:25 -0000 Subject: 3.16.7 (Hogwarts General Curriculum and class Message-ID: Kelly, in a really thorough review, wrote: 3.16.7 (Hogwarts General Curriculum and class subcodes) Also, before I start, I'll note that three of the classes listed under 3.16.7 aren't actual Hogwarts classes: astrology, geomancy, and numerology. And, as you'll see below, the existance of these categories is unnecessary and only leads to confusion. I've emptied all three, and I suggest they be scrapped. Okay, here goes... 3.16.7.2 Astrology --------------------- Carolyn: Ok! I will delete this astrology code and in future we will only use the one in symbolism. 3.16.7.6 DADA ---------------------------------- BAD: - If I have to read another post asking whether Snape really wants the DADA post, I'll scream. So unless it really presents some original ideas, send it to Adds Nothing New. Carolyn: Bear in mind that Talisman might want the Snape post for, er, other purposes.. 3.16.7. Geomancy ---------------------------------- Originally: 2 posts Now: 0 posts GOOD: - nothing. Not a class, not even mentioned in canon as far as I know. BAD: - The two posts here discussed geomantic symbolism in the names Albus and Rubeus. I moved them both to 1.2.13 Symbolism. Carolyn: Should these two in fact be in alchemy??? I will delete Geomancy from the class list. 3.16.7.13 Numerology ---------------------------------- Originally: 5 posts Now: 0 posts GOOD: - nada, again not an actual Hogwarts class BAD: - The posts here are all related to figuring out the exact topic of study in Arithmancy class, based on Hermione's textbook, "Numerology & Gramatica". Therefore, I moved these posts to 3.16.7.1 Arithmancy. Carolyn: I will delete Numerology from the class list, but should it be added as a heading within symbolism? I think it is a RL divination- type subject isn't it?? 3.16.7.15 Ancient Runes ---------------------------------- Originally: 7 posts Now: 5 posts GOOD: - What do they study? The symbols themselves? Norse, Celtic, insert -your-favorite-runic-system? Divination? - None yet, but when the Harry's-scar-is-a-rune thread starts, I think this should be cross-coded to Harry's scar and this category. BAD: - no problems Carolyn: What happens vis-a-vis our Runes category in symbolism?? 3.16.7.16 Riding broomsticks ---------------------------------- Originally: 10 posts Now: 7 posts Side comment... Can this category be renamed to Flying class, or something similar? It's how most people refer to the class, and a little clearer in my mind. Carolyn: will re-name as asked. I did ask for suggestions originally... 3.16.7.17 Non-magical classes ---------------------------------- - library etiquette (I feel like I shouldn't have to specify this one, but, well, they were there...) Carolyn: My fault I think. It was before we added the library sub-code in under Hogwart's layout - did you move them to there? Kelly: Well, that's it. Unless there's another category you'd like reviewed, I'll go back to cataloguing. Carolyn: Any chance of arm-twisting you to sort out more of the Hogwarts section, now you've made this start?? From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Mar 17 15:10:34 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:10:34 -0000 Subject: 1.2.4 Parameters set by JKR/Authorial Intent Message-ID: Debbie: 1.2.4 PARAMETERS SET BY JKR/AUTHORIAL INTENT (was 480, now 296 and shrinking): This was a bloated, overstuffed category, enough to daunt any would- be searcher. I am deleting 1.2.4 for any post that is appropriately coded to other, more appropriate lit-crit categories, such as: Another collection of posts shade into Reader Response/Subversive Readings (Are our theories outside the scope of JKR's intent; reading subtext, does JKR adequately convey her intent, etc.). My inclination is to put them into a renamed Authorial Intent/Reader Response/Subversive Readings category (most are already coded there, so it would not be a significant increase in number of posts). Thoughts? Carolyn: It seems a reasonable decision to merge these two categories. As I said in earlier posts, they are part of a continuum anyway, so I would support this. Debbie: That leaves the following categories of posts that don't have a clear other home: JKR's writing process (fan influences on her writing) Use of language, sloppiness (including a short but very good thread on her use of distinctive speech patterns for different characters) These include the grammar posts I commented on the other day. I'd like to find a home for these posts, but don't think there is one. Talisman, waxing lyrical as usual, declaims: Grammar, capitalization and punctuation are PURE aspects of Narrative Style. They belong under that heading as no other, without qualification. Word choice is an essential part of an individual author's style. Do they have a jingoistic fervor for the stolid Anglo-Saxon, as Orwell did? Or, do they embrace the affectations of the upstart Norman tongue? How about the systematically sultry southern sibilance of William Faulkner? You sneeze at Capitalization? Can You Say Emily Dickinson? How about e.e.cummings? And punctuation? Compare Rowling's complex sentences, rife with subordinate clauses, with Hemingway's staccato punctuation. This is the very core of narrative style. Imagery, meter, pattern, sound, use of trope, etc. are in there too, but grammar, capitalization, and punctuation are ground zero. Please, let us put all those good things right back where they belong. (acknowledging that I haven't read the posts, and maybe they are just so bad that they aren't recognizable as being pertinent to the topic.?) Carolyn: OK OK, I agree! (Ahem - see my original definition to Barry as what Narrative style is really all about). It's just that a lot of these posts are not about anything so exciting, but instead whinging about how she doesn't adhere to whatever the writer thinks is 'good' English. Suggest a new sub-category under Narrative Style, called 1.2.6.8 Grammar, capitalisation & punctuation to capture them. The speech patterns thread is, IMO, not the same thing at all, and as I said, we already have three categories for handling this type of analysis (4.1.1/4.1.1.1/4.1.1.2) which Jo is reviewing. If you like, those sections could also be moved up into narrative style from section 4. As for fan influences on her writing - suggest we fudge this slightly and include it in the merged authorial intent/subversive readings category. Debbie: There are also some, but not many, posts discussing JKR's rules of magic and whether they work (the Parameters Set by JKR portion of the category). Dot suggested with respect to a similar batch of posts (actually, they're probably the same ones). > Dot: > They don't really discuss rules or ethics, it's more about the > practical limitations on what is and isn't possible. I'll have a > think, but they may just end up in General Properties and Types of > Magic, possibly cross-coded to 1.2.4 Parameters set by JKR. Unless, > of course, I find some more in Gen. Prop. Types Magic (there are > already a handful of posts) in which case I may end up advocating a > new category... I'll come back to it. I'm with you on the new category. The posts discussing the parameters set by JKR on WW magic, i.e., the rules of magic and whether they work, seem very different from the other posts I want to leave here. They are a distinct breed from the rest of the content. Carolyn: I don't mind a new category, but feel it belongs in the WW section, under 3.8 Magic. Shall we just call it 'JKR's rules for magic' ?? 1.2.4.2 FAITH (12/12) We're not coding every mention of FAITH, are we? I did not delete anything because FAITH seems to have been cited primarily for Neville theories, and the 2 brief mentions were in Neville posts. I may revisit this; the FAITH reference doesn't exactly jump out of the Memory Charm Symposium posts. Carolyn: No, we shouldn't code every mention. The purpose of this section is just so people can see the development of the Faith concept, and how she evolves through the TBays. Debbie: Careful mathematicians will have noticed that the numbers add up to about 590 posts, while the database claims there are 1088 posts. Do I assume correctly that the other 498 posts are in 1.2.5 Reader Response/Subversive Readings and its associated acronyms (which I can't find in the database)? They do add up to about this number. I suspect I've read a lot of these posts already. There are 2 distinct types: posts that discuss this as a concept and examples, in which posters acknowledge that their reading is likely subversive. Shall I ax the examples? Or keep them in a subcategory? It would be a handy little reference for some of the more outlandish theories to have graced the list. Carolyn: You are right Debbie, the section got split in two at the last sort out. Sorry, I thought I had tidied up the dbase, but obviously missed this one. The subversive section as it currently exists runs from 1.2.5 through 1.2.5.7, however, it contains one or two acronyms which Laurasia dealt with because at that point they were part of an anagrams & acronyms section within symbolism (for some reason which now escapes me). There are currently 534 posts within this whole section as it is currently structured. As I understand what you are saying, most of the posts currently under 1.2.4 Authorial intent are also cross-coded to 1.2.5 Reader response? If we go along with the merge plan, I can do that automatically for you, saving you a lot of fiddly work. Merging one category into another only affects the two categories concerned, and does not affect the other coding on the posts. I dither over the examples..not so sure they are so distinct from discussion of subversion as a concept. But, OTOH, we don't want great chunks of theories or character discussions to sit here, cluttering up the section. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Mar 17 15:12:01 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:12:01 -0000 Subject: Definitions Message-ID: Jen: Do you think it would be useful for several of us interested in reviewing to stay back and finish all the categories while others forge ahead with coding? It could be messy if you open up a category one day to find a bunch of new posts added, but if we're basically on the same page for how to code stuff, that might not be a huge deal. Just wondering. I'm a bit of a L.O.O.N and like the idea of cleaning out all the categories, especially the posts coded before the Category list was finalized. Carolyn: I don't mind either way. The only thing I'd say is that those who start to code are under a huge obligation to keep up with all the definitions and category changes as we move forwards. Although it is fine choosing categories we like to review, unfortunately it is also essential to get your minds around the definitions for the categories you don't like so much, or the whole problem will begin all over again. SO, with that in mind: Talisman (previously): Also, are we keeping track of the updated definitions for categories? Was I supposed to be taking notes? Oops. May I suggest that we set up a database wherein the people (each of us) who have reviewed a given category, received feedback, and arrived at a clarified definition can post this information in one comprehensive document? Then, if we continue to fill in definitions as we finish categories, the master list will be updated and we won't have to search back through posts (or say eff it). Talisman, now: Heaven knows I defer completely to Paul and others Carolyn, Sean?) regarding what is possible with Yahoo. But my hope was to have something _concise_, handy, and not labor intensive for one or two people (e.g. Carolyn & Paul). Carolyn, I think your new files TO DATE (collecting the discussions) could help people prepare their current consolidated definitions (which could also receive further feed back) but that 1) re-reading the discussions while in the process of coding would be very difficult; 2)It's, hopefully, an unneccesay job for you to keep gathering these. Just from the example of the Database wherein we all "edited" to claim a review section and then to note completion thereof, I thought we could have one, organized by category/number that each of us could "edit" to supply the new consensus definition. This isn't possible? I agree, Kelly, these definitions should ultimately go into the happy little "d" into the actual catalogue. (But, because this requires accessing at a sensitive level, it's not something I think all of us should be doing). So, because we are "in process;" there may be some definitions that haven't gelled; and, Carolyn and Paul have plenty on their plates, I thought that an interim--member edited-- database might be helpful. Still no? Talisman Carolyn: I have been thinking of all this for some time. Unfortunately, the Yahoo database function behaves badly with numbers and with a lot of text in it. However, this morning I have gone through and set up two tables covering most of section 1, text analysis. I will plod on over the next few days and put the rest of the sections up as well - anyone who wants to help me is welcome! Can everyone have a look at this, and note that I have provided space to write a new definition in each case. When you do this, please remove the old definition. I will then paste all the new definitions into the live database for ready reference as we are cataloguing. I suggest you refer to the long discussions which I have pasted together in the file section, to refresh your memory of what people have thought about each section as we have dealt with it. I will continue to keep these up to date, as they are an invaluable record for us, and near impossible to reconstruct after the event. Some health warnings: - the bloody, EFFING Yah dbase will not number sequentially once you get beyond the number ten, so I am really sorry, you will have to scroll through the sections bit by bit to find the category you want. The search function on the database is quite efficient though, if you put in a bit of distinctive text or a number it will get your section quite quickly. - we are continually making changes to the number order of the sections (eg merging authorial intent & subversion today). This will need manually updating on the dbase all the time. No way of shortcutting that I can think of. - the old short definitions file in the file section is very out of date now. I am putting up a roughcut cleaned up version today, but don't rely on it overmuch. I will take it down altogether once we have these new database sections up and running. Talisman: Finally, for those who routinely feel the urge to throttle me, I have uploaded a photo to my profile--hot from the memory card--which can be printed off as a useful dart board. I recommend that you get everything in order before I recommence posting on TOC. The ambush interrupted my hunting down of elusive HP citations, which explains my swotty look, and made me think it an appropriate-- if not particularly flattering--image for my HP activities. I do think Snape and I would make a cute couple, though, don't you? Carolyn: Throttle you? Throw darts? Never! Definitely getting a front-row seat for the promised fireworks..it's been a long time... But possibly just as well Snape doesn't seem to have much experience with women. There is just a teensy little look in your eye which should warn him, if he had any sense... ...Wanders off to peer doubtfully at the one of me where I'd had one too many at a launch party..or maybe the one dozing in the garden..dammit, I can't really look like this, can I? Dismisses possibility as too frightful to contemplate.. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Mar 17 17:12:51 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:12:51 -0000 Subject: 1.2.4 Parameters set by JKR/Authorial Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Debbie: > There are also some, but not many, posts discussing JKR's rules of > magic and whether they work (the Parameters Set by JKR portion of > the category). Dot suggested with respect to a similar batch of > posts (actually, they're probably the same ones). > > > Dot: > > They don't really discuss rules or ethics, it's more about the > > practical limitations on what is and isn't possible. I'll have a > > think, but they may just end up in General Properties and Types > > of Magic, possibly cross-coded to 1.2.4 Parameters set by JKR. > > Unless, of course, I find some more in Gen. Prop. Types Magic > > (there are already a handful of posts) in which case I may end > > up advocating a new category... I'll come back to it. > > I'm with you on the new category. The posts discussing the > parameters set by JKR on WW magic, i.e., the rules of magic and > whether they work, seem very different from the other posts I want > to leave here. They are a distinct breed from the rest of the > content. > > Carolyn: > I don't mind a new category, but feel it belongs in the WW > section, under 3.8 Magic. Shall we just call it 'JKR's rules for > magic' ?? Yeah, that'll do for the moment. I might ask to revise some category titles once I've finished Magical Ability and General Properties and Types of Magic, though, as they seem to overlap a bit. Dot From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Mar 17 18:16:44 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:16:44 -0000 Subject: Timelines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks to Talisman and Carolyn for ideas. There is a lot of stuff under timelines, it will be an interesting sort. I'm going to complete the timeline section before going into the characters' ages part. I see that 3.7.6 is supposed to be why the WW celebrates Christian holidays. But we may need a WW holiday section code. I'll let you know more when I toss all these in the air and see how they land. There were two threads about days of the week. One was that the days of the week didn't fit any year's calendar or remain consistent (First day of school is always a Monday.) And one that compared JKR's use of days to JA's use of days. Also, so far, I have timelines for the books (determining dates) and timelines for events Shrieking Shack/PoA, Quidditch cup/House cup. The latter is part of the "how old are the Weasleys?" discussion. But I know we'll also see a timeline of the trip to the DoM, and for the battle there. Don't take action yet, but do you think we'll want one code for any discussion of a timeline, cross-coded to the event, or will we want subcodes? Having said all this, Spring Break starts tomorrow after school and my productivity will fall even more. Kathy W. From kakearney at comcast.net Thu Mar 17 21:14:56 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:14:56 -0000 Subject: 3.16.7 (Hogwarts General Curriculum and class In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn: > I will delete Numerology from the class list, but should it > be added as a heading within symbolism? I think it is a RL divination- > type subject isn't it?? Kelly: Yes, numerology is a form of divination with numbers, but I didn't come across any posts discussing numerology symbolism, only its definition (how does it differ from pure divination, is it a subcategory of arithmancy or a synonym, etc.). I suppose if we come across posts in the former category, we could think about adding a Numerology subcategory to Symbolism, but I don't think it's necessary right now. Kelly previously: > - None yet, but when the Harry's-scar-is-a-rune thread starts, I > think this should be cross-coded to Harry's scar and [3.16.7. Ancient Runes] Carolyn: > What happens vis-a-vis our Runes category in symbolism?? Kelly: Didn't even notice that one. Your right, these posts would fit much better under the Symbolism Runes category. Carolyn: > My fault I think. It was before we added the library sub-code in > under Hogwart's layout - did you move them to there? Kelly: Um, don't think so, I just removed the non-magic class code. The post still exist (under Hermione and some other codes), but I didn't note the numbers. Sorry. Carolyn: > Any chance of arm-twisting you to sort out more of the Hogwarts > section, now you've made this start?? Kelly: Sure, I can do that. I'll look into it tonight and let you know what I'll tackle next. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Mar 17 22:18:27 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:18:27 -0000 Subject: Definitions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > I have been thinking of all this for some time. Unfortunately, the > Yahoo database function behaves badly with numbers and with a lot of > text in it. However, this morning I have gone through and set up two > tables covering most of section 1, text analysis. I will plod on over > the next few days and put the rest of the sections up as well - > anyone who wants to help me is welcome! > Carolyn, later: Having thought about this some more, and wrestled with the tiresome Yah formatting, I have decided to delete some of the extra categories I created this morning. There is now just one field to change 'Current categories' - which is the current old definition in most cases. Just click on 'Edit' to the right of the entry you want to change. When you update an entry to reflect the type of posts you think should go in a category, could you be sure to also note what *should not* go in, especially when easy mistakes could be made. So far, I have only created two DBs, one for section 1.1 Meta themes and another for section 1.2 Literary analysis. We need to add further DBs for each chunk of the category list - breaking it up to keep the DBs manageable. The list might be: 1.3-1.12 (Books & predictions) 2.1 & 2.2 MoM Employees/OOP members 2.3/2.4 Hogwarts staff 2.5 - 2.9 Hogwarts, Durmstrang & Beauxbatons pupils 2.10 - 2.13 DEs, Other Wizards, Historical characters, Muggles 2.14 - 2.17 Beasts, Beings, Ghosts, SHIPping 3.1- 3.7 WW History, Econ/Pol, Law, Health, Bloodlines, Quidditch, Culture 3.8 - 3.10 Magic, Dark Arts, Magic Travel 3.11 - 3.15 Personal Poss, Magic plants, Food, Toys, Geography 3.16 - 3.17 Hogwarts school, WW education 4.1.1 - 4.1.4 Other topics It is quite a big job to do this, so anyone who wants to help out, please have a go. It is very easy to create tables - just follow the format for the two I have already done. Carolyn From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Thu Mar 17 22:28:16 2005 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:28:16 -0000 Subject: Quirrell Report Message-ID: This was more or less straightforward. Of the 164 posts I found in category 2.3.6. "Professor Quirrell", I propose to reject 88. The main body of those are posts dealing with the question, 'Is Snape's cover blown after his hunt for Quirrell in PS?'. When they actually said something about Quirrell himself or his motivations, I kept them, naturally; but the majority really only just make mention of him and add nothing to an analysis of his character. (The nice thing about this was that, despite having voluntarily deprived myself of coding Snape, I got to read quite a lot of Snape posts anyway... ) The second group of rejected posts are repetitive ones. They address 1) the question of why Quirrell could not take the PS from the Mirror of Erised, seeing he was not planning to use it himself - he was going to give it to Voldy; and 2) the turban business (when did he actually begin to wear the thing) and the confusion over the start of Voldy's possession business that was caused by the Medium That Must Not Be Named. A few stray posts that deal with spells Quirrell performs (e.g. wandless magic) have also been rejected when they added nothing about dear Q's character. Just something I wondered about: shouldn't the Quirrell category have its own SUCCESS code? I know it's been filed under Snape so far - but since it's Quirrell who does the drugging, I personally feel the acronym belongs to him, not Snape. However, that's really a minor point - I can just cross-code to Snape's SUCCESS, of course (or rather, that's how these posts *have been* coded, rightly so). Finally, a general question for the moment I start coding again (that won't be tomorrow - I have to carry out this Quirrell-pruning and then I still have a few Slytherins waiting for me): if you check an acronym, are you supposed to cross-code to the theory's main character it involves, too? I mean, if you encounter, say, GEORGE, it's quite obvious that the post should be about Snape, so does Snape's category need separate checking? Eva/Sigune ~who is glad to say she liked Quirrelling FAR better than Lockharting :-). From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Thu Mar 17 22:37:12 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:37:12 +1100 Subject: Goodies vs Baddies Message-ID: <20050317223712.GA32313@aardvark.net.au> As I code, I'm coming across posts that cry out for a general category of goodies vs. baddies. Now we can't code for OotP/DEs (but that is the essential split), but something more general would save a lot of unnecessary coding for individual names. For example, take a thread titled Nott & the DEs starting at #42806. That first post is the worst, and I left it at Nott, but it's about the DEs generally. There's no good use coding every individual. Or take the exciting DE Spawn thread, beginning at #42867. This is a bizarre theory claiming that since many of the DE's children are roughly the same age, it might have been an Voldy edict to 'go forth and procreate a DE generation'. But you can see that whatever this is, it's definitely general DE business. Naturally I have to argue for the OotP side, although I've seen much less of that generalization. But the DEs as a group need coding for, the List is looking at them that way. Opinions? -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From elfundeb at comcast.net Thu Mar 17 22:50:17 2005 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb at comcast.net) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:50:17 +0000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] 1.2.4 Parameters set by JKR/Authorial Intent Message-ID: <031720052250.14430.423A09A900092AD70000385E22058861720D0A0B029A00040A@comcast.net> Carolyn: OK OK, I agree! (Ahem - see my original definition to Barry as what Narrative style is really all about). It's just that a lot of these posts are not about anything so exciting, but instead whinging about how she doesn't adhere to whatever the writer thinks is 'good' English. Suggest a new sub-category under Narrative Style, called 1.2.6.8 Grammar, capitalisation & punctuation to capture them. The speech patterns thread is, IMO, not the same thing at all, and as I said, we already have three categories for handling this type of analysis (4.1.1/4.1.1.1/4.1.1.2) which Jo is reviewing. If you like, those sections could also be moved up into narrative style from section 4. Debbie: Do you mean Pronunciation? Or Differences between Editions? I had conceived those as capturing something entirely different, and more narrow. I see that 4.1.1.2 references speech patterns; I guess the problem is that it's misplaced in pronunciation and it would be better moved to Narrative Style. I think we could move Differences Between Editions up, too (though speech patterns should move up separately, not as a subset) since the translation posts are largely about how badly translators have obscured her narrative style). However, neither "speech patterns" nor a new "grammar, capitalization and punctuation" section will capture word choice or sentence structure in the narrative outside of characters' direct speech. How about if I just keep track of those posts until we find them a home? Carolyn: I don't mind a new category, but feel it belongs in the WW section, under 3.8 Magic. Shall we just call it 'JKR's rules for magic' ?? Debbie: That's exactly where I would have put it. Carolyn: As I understand what you are saying, most of the posts currently under 1.2.4 Authorial intent are also cross-coded to 1.2.5 Reader response? If we go along with the merge plan, I can do that automatically for you, saving you a lot of fiddly work. Merging one category into another only affects the two categories concerned, and does not affect the other coding on the posts. Debbie: I would be ever so grateful if you would merge the two categories before I attack them again. Just name your price . . . Carolyn: I dither over the examples..not so sure they are so distinct from discussion of subversion as a concept. But, OTOH, we don't want great chunks of theories or character discussions to sit here, cluttering up the section. Debbie: I will chop judiciously, and keep track of the examples I keep. I'll also generally keep an eye out for subcategory possibilities if this category becomes too large of a hodgepodge. And I'll try to write some clear definitions for all of these categories, now that I'm totally immersed. Debbie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 18 17:24:41 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:24:41 -0000 Subject: Definition Database Message-ID: I've been doing some work on the definition database, and have noticed (as Carolyn said) how the numeration goes out of kilter, i.e. the database will put higher numbers with fewer decimal points before lower numbers with a greater number of decimal points. Because this can be irritating when you are looking for a particular number, I recommend using the search box in the upper right hand corner to find the section that you want to read or edit. It's faster than using the Next/Previous buttons, anyway--even if the numbers were sequential. Talisman From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Mar 18 18:38:20 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:38:20 -0000 Subject: Quirrell Report In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: > > Just something I wondered about: shouldn't the Quirrell category have > its own SUCCESS code? I know it's been filed under Snape so far - but > since it's Quirrell who does the drugging, I personally feel the > acronym belongs to him, not Snape. However, that's really a minor > point - I can just cross-code to Snape's SUCCESS, of course (or > rather, that's how these posts *have been* coded, rightly so). Carolyn: Can you cross-code for now? When Talisman gets to this one, we can decide whether SUCCESS goes under Quirrel or Snape. It can only go under one character or another. > > Finally, a general question for the moment I start coding again (that > won't be tomorrow - I have to carry out this Quirrell-pruning and > then I still have a few Slytherins waiting for me): if you check an > acronym, are you supposed to cross-code to the theory's main > character it involves, too? I mean, if you encounter, say, GEORGE, > it's quite obvious that the post should be about Snape, so does > Snape's category need separate checking? > Carolyn: After discussion with Paul, in principle, no. Ie, no need to check the main character code as well as an acronym. *However*, on the new minimilist coding policy, only check George and/or Snape if they really are the main subject of the post, rather than mentioned in passing. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Mar 18 18:46:07 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:46:07 -0000 Subject: Goodies vs Baddies In-Reply-To: <20050317223712.GA32313@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > As I code, I'm coming across posts that cry out for a general category of > goodies vs. baddies. Now we can't code for OotP/DEs (but that is the essential > split), but something more general would save a lot of unnecessary coding for > individual names. > > Opinions? > Carolyn: I think I would have coded all these to the 1.2.8.6 Death Eaters, History & Background section, and not to the individual DE's unless they included a substantial discussion of a particular character. The generalised goodies vs baddies question will probably end up under good vs evil heading. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Mar 18 21:50:03 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:50:03 -0000 Subject: 1.2.4 Parameters set by JKR/Authorial Intent In-Reply-To: <031720052250.14430.423A09A900092AD70000385E22058861720D0A0B029A00040A@comcast.net> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, elfundeb at c... wrote: > Carolyn: Suggest a new sub-category under Narrative Style, called > 1.2.6.8 Grammar, capitalisation & punctuation to capture them. > Debbie: > Do you mean Pronunciation? Or Differences between Editions? I had conceived those as capturing something entirely different, and more narrow. Carolyn: Looking at these headings more closely, I think that only 4.1.2.1 (Capitalisation, Punctuation) has anything to do with my proposed new category. Debbie: I see that 4.1.1.2 references speech patterns; I guess the problem is that it's misplaced in pronunciation and it would be better moved to Narrative Style. I think we could move Differences Between Editions up, too (though speech patterns should move up separately, not as a subset) since the translation posts are largely about how badly translators have obscured her narrative style). > However, neither "speech patterns" nor a new "grammar, capitalization and punctuation" section will capture word choice or sentence structure in the narrative outside of characters' direct speech. How about if I just keep track of those posts until we find them a home? Carolyn: 4.1.1 Pronunciation tends to be about how to say Hermione, or whether or not Voldemort has a silent 't', etc. I don't know that this has anything to do with narrative style - surely it is more fandom than anything, with a bit of origin of names thrown in? 4.1.1.1/4.1.1.2 Character accents & dialogue/speech patterns, are a bit more interesting, and throw light on what kind of characters JKR might be envisaging. Lots of useful questions from non-Brits being answered by Brits. I could see these going into the 1.2.10 Characterisation section perhaps (?) 4.1.2 Differences between editions is all about the changes between the UK and other editions/translations. I don't know that it is really about JKR's narrative style, more about publishing decisions, surely? 4.1.2.2 Illustrations is even more specifically about the different covers and internal illustrations. > Carolyn: > As I understand what you are saying, most of the posts currently > under 1.2.4 Authorial intent are also cross-coded to 1.2.5 Reader > response? > > Debbie: > I would be ever so grateful if you would merge the two categories before I attack them again. Just name your price . . . Carolyn: Now merged - you have 589 posts in the new combined category, which is now called 'Authorial intent, reader response & subversive readings'. Please note this means we have now lost a section (1.2.5). I won't renumber yet because I want to see what happens to timelines, and also these other changes we are discussing from section 4. Also, when I do, we have to manually change all the dbases :( From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Mar 18 21:53:49 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:53:49 -0000 Subject: Definition Database In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" wrote: > > I've been doing some work on the definition database, and have > noticed (as Carolyn said) how the numeration goes out of kilter, > i.e. the database will put higher numbers with fewer decimal points > before lower numbers with a greater number of decimal points. > > Because this can be irritating when you are looking for a particular > number, I recommend using the search box in the upper right hand > corner to find the section that you want to read or edit. It's > faster than using the Next/Previous buttons, anyway--even if the > numbers were sequential. > > Talisman Carolyn: Thanks very much for doing a couple more of them...I will add more over the weekend. Alas there are more snags if we change any of the numbering - we have to go back in and change the numbering bit by bit. Worse, whenever you make one change, it jumps back to item 1 in the database, so you can't even work steadily through. What rubbish Yah is whenever you try to use it for anything. From kakearney at comcast.net Fri Mar 18 22:21:00 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:21:00 -0000 Subject: Definitions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn: > - the bloody, EFFING Yah dbase will not number sequentially once you > get beyond the number ten, so I am really sorry, you will have to > scroll through the sections bit by bit to find the category you want. > The search function on the database is quite efficient though, if you > put in a bit of distinctive text or a number it will get your section > quite quickly. The sort problem happens because Yahoo is sorting alphabetically, not numerically. If you change all the level 2, 3, and 4 numbers to two- digit strings, it will sort correctly. I tested this on categories 1.2 (--> 1.02) and 1.2.1 (--> 1.02.01), and they now appear as they should, before the 1.10 categories. It might be a bit tedious to change them all, but I can go ahead and do that if you'd like. -Kelly From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Mar 18 22:34:47 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:34:47 -0000 Subject: Hm...DB problem Message-ID: Well, I was adding tables, then Yah informed me there is a limit of 10 tables...I don't know how many records we are allowed to have in each table. Guess we'll find out. Carolyn From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Mar 18 22:40:48 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:40:48 -0000 Subject: Definitions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "corinthum" wrote: > > The sort problem happens because Yahoo is sorting alphabetically, not > numerically. If you change all the level 2, 3, and 4 numbers to two- > digit strings, it will sort correctly. I tested this on categories > 1.2 (--> 1.02) and 1.2.1 (--> 1.02.01), and they now appear as they > should, before the 1.10 categories. It might be a bit tedious to > change them all, but I can go ahead and do that if you'd like. > > -Kelly Carolyn: Hm, looks a bit odd, but it works! Thanks... if you have the time, it would help. But as you will see from my previous post, we now have another problem, limited number of DB. I really don't know how many entries we can have in a DB, but if we are allowed only 10 DB, they are going to get very big. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Mar 18 22:53:21 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:53:21 -0000 Subject: Info on DBases... Message-ID: OK, I went to Yah help, and found the following instructions. It sounds as though we could do some automation working from a text or excel file. I will try and do this tomorrow, too tired tonight. If anyone wants to have a go before this, I am going to check that an up to date version of the categories list is in the files section in excel & word. Looks like the data in it will have to be reconfigured into new columns. Also should put all those zeroes in, as Kelly has just pointed out, to make things run in the correct order. Also should merge in the existing definitions text before uploading, so the thing happens in one go. I will delete the DB just created with no data in them - looks like we should work with just one big table. Carolyn 1. Go to your group's Database area. 2. Create a table, or click on the name of the table where you'd like to import data. 3. Click on the Edit link. 4. Click on the Import Data button. 5. At this point, you're ready to input your data into the empty data box presented, row by row. You'll need to select a delimiter (a way of separating one piece of information from the next) to separate information within each row. 6.Enter your data, row by row, depending upon how you set up your table. For example, if you set up a table with the following columns: Name, Gender, Grade, Telephone Number and then selected a semi-colon to be your delimiter, you would enter each row of data into the box like this: James; male; 12; 555-1234 Kate; female; 10; 555-9876 Make sure to put a return after each row of information. 7.To finish, click on Import Data. Note: Each group can only have up to 10 tables. Each table can't exceed 1000 rows, or 10 columns. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sat Mar 19 03:36:19 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:36:19 +1100 Subject: cody stuffs Message-ID: <20050319033618.GA19234@aardvark.net.au> Finished my first 100 codes (waves flippers madly)! Sorry it took so long, but the learning curve was justly steep and there's been mayhem in chez Penguin this week. With any luck, within the next week or so I will be on broadband sporting a new domain, and my workrate should accordingly improve. I've altered 1.2.7.6 (Foreshadowing, clues and misdirection) in the DefDB to read: "Suggestive plot elements; also apparent contradictions and mysteries." Hope that's ok with everyone; I found it necessary in the course of coding. Also War & Military Strategy was somehow given the same code, so I fixed that. But back to the codes: The funniest thread was the suggestion I've already mentioned, the DE Spawn strategy (Make me an army! cried Voldy). Found some THE FIRST-MEMORY FRIEND posts (#42845, #42847, #42849). Only 4 rejects. A rather insulting thread about Arabella and cabbages (#42884 et. al.), and a mythically-interesting thread about Harry's Christmas wand, including learned work by our very own Talisman (#42864). One other notable post, because I've not yet seen the subject - #42820, the possible reasons for Pettigrew getting a silver hand (dead!Lupin, anyone?). Penguin sits up and begs Carolyn for more posts: eeek! -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Mar 19 09:42:48 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 09:42:48 -0000 Subject: cody stuffs/who does definitions? In-Reply-To: <20050319033618.GA19234@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > > I've altered 1.2.7.6 (Foreshadowing, clues and misdirection) in the DefDB to > read: "Suggestive plot elements; also apparent contradictions and mysteries." > Hope that's ok with everyone; I found it necessary in the course of coding. > Also War & Military Strategy was somehow given the same code, so I fixed > that. Carolyn: The way I had envisaged this working was that the person who reviewed the section should fix the definition, because they had just read all the posts in it and had decided what to do with them. That's why I put the reviewer's name on each one (I notice you changed Barry to Sean on these ones that you changed). I dunno, but I am a bit concerned for someone else to come along and change a definition subsequently on a section that they hadn't reviewed. As it happens, I don't think that Barry had looked at either of these definitions yet, and it was still the old version sitting there, but I have changed the reviewer name back to him on these two so we don't lose track of who is supposed to be looking at what. There are some additional problems with the DB definitions tables, as outlined last night, so maybe we should leave this task for a day or two. I need to look at how to upload all the definitions in one big table this weekend, without losing any of the work we have already done. > > But back to the codes: Only 4 rejects. A rather insulting thread > about Arabella and cabbages (#42884 et. al.), and a mythically- interesting > thread about Harry's Christmas wand, including learned work by our very own > Talisman (#42864). One other notable post, because I've not yet seen the > subject - #42820, the possible reasons for Pettigrew getting a silver hand > (dead!Lupin, anyone?). Carolyn: I just checked, and I wondered what you meant by 4 rejects, as you seem to have kept the ones mentioned here (fortunately, as they are on topic!). Perhaps you meant 4 rejects out of 100 posts? The silver hand thing came up way back; I kept quite a lot in Pettigrew, but the Lupin section hasn't yet been reviewed, or werewolves, remedies for disposal of. > > Penguin sits up and begs Carolyn for more posts: eeek! > > Sure thing: 43101-43200. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sat Mar 19 10:37:05 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:37:05 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: cody stuffs/who does definitions? In-Reply-To: References: <20050319033618.GA19234@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: <20050319103705.GB19234@aardvark.net.au> On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:42:48AM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > Carolyn: > The way I had envisaged this working was that the person who reviewed > the section should fix the definition, because they had just read all > the posts in it and had decided what to do with them. That's why I > put the reviewer's name on each one (I notice you changed Barry to > Sean on these ones that you changed). > I dunno, but I am a bit concerned for someone else to come along and > change a definition subsequently on a section that they hadn't > reviewed. > As it happens, I don't think that Barry had looked at either of these > definitions yet, and it was still the old version sitting there, but > I have changed the reviewer name back to him on these two so we don't > lose track of who is supposed to be looking at what. Fair enough. But one was incorrect and the other needed changing. I've no problem if Barry disagrees with my definition, but what was there was pretty useless. I changed the names so people knew who had edited those records, there wasn't any other way of marking them besides mentioning it here. I know I'm a naughty penguin, but that's penguins for you :) > Carolyn: > I just checked, and I wondered what you meant by 4 rejects, as you > seem to have kept the ones mentioned here (fortunately, as they are > on topic!). Perhaps you meant 4 rejects out of 100 posts? Yes, that is indeed what I meant, I was being most incomprehensibly penguinistic, something to do with recent listening to Goon Shows, I suspect :) And just to be OT but on the off-chance, does anyone have a recording of the Last Goon Show Of All? I just got the DVD and it's cut for TV, missing out some of the funny bits... > The silver hand thing came up way back; I kept quite a lot in > Pettigrew, but the Lupin section hasn't yet been reviewed, or > werewolves, remedies for disposal of. Yes, just a stray thought there, coding/reviewing really does set the old HP4GU subconscious ticking...it really hadn't occurred to me until that post came up. > Sure thing: 43101-43200. For whoever's doing 42900's, I have kept notes on the threads you will encounter if you want the quick version :) Round the back for the old brandy there... -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Mar 19 13:41:04 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:41:04 -0000 Subject: Timelines one more time Message-ID: I am making progress on timelines. I think we will end up merging several headings and possibly doing away with some completely. At any rate, we've probably had all the "dating the books" posts we're going to get. Timelines of events is another matter. My current guess is that we'll do away with it as a heading because the only real place it would fit is under that event anyway. After I determine which events are discussed, I'll decide how they should be coded. I haven't reviewed the Characters' ages section yet, but I suspect it's going to be another question of how many codes to use. I've already seen evidence that reviewers have taken characters out of these posts. To my way of thinking, unless the number of posts is huge, we could probably just code to that one heading and let readers wade through the whole thing. Kathy W. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sun Mar 20 02:14:17 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:14:17 +1100 Subject: Gred & Forge cat Message-ID: <20050320021417.GA23865@aardvark.net.au> I think we need a subheading of 1.2.11.1 Weasleys to cover the Twins. My current code batch is approximately half full of a thread about them and coding to them separately is a waste of time. From the ongoing threads there's good mileage in the Twins yet, and I volunteer to go back and review the Fred & George cats myself to fix the codes also. For now I'll code to Weasleys. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From kakearney at comcast.net Sun Mar 20 04:56:04 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 04:56:04 -0000 Subject: Room of Requirement predictions Message-ID: I've started reviewing the 3.16.1 Layout of Hogwarts category and subcategories. Having just started the Bathrooms & loos subcategory, I've already encountered quite a few posts suggesting that either the prefect's bathroom or the chamber pot room might be the favorite room JKR mentions in her interview. They're coded in all sorts of ways, usually with some combination or permutation of 3.16.1.1 Bathrooms & loos, 1.12.2.2 Predictions/no canon, and 3.16.1.2 Room of Requirement. I assume I'll start finding these all over this category, so I thought I should get some opinions on how to handle them. Certainly they need either one of the OOP predictions categories (1.12.2.1 or 1.12.2.2). I was surprised the no-canon option seems to have been favored here, since the prefects' bathroom guess is based on canon (JKR's Harry-saw-it-in-GOF comment in conjunction with rooms seen only in GOF). I vote to get rid of the Bathrooms & loos category, or whatever location category the prediction falls into, since these posts don't really add to the location-and-presence discussion. I'm undecided on the Room of Requirement code. Since we are of course pre-OOP in our coding, this code only holds guesses right now, both correct and incorrect. Many posts predicting the chamber-pot room simply throw it out there as a suggestion, without any discussion of why it may be important. But I know other people did correctly predict the room's abilities. On the other hand, posts predicting other rooms, like the prefects' bathroom, kitchens, etc., really aren't discussing the Room of Requirement at all, except in retrospect. Any thoughts? -Kelly From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Mar 20 06:04:15 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 06:04:15 -0000 Subject: Done with OLD review chapter categories Message-ID: Carolyn, you can delete those extra chapter review categories designated as OLD. Got all the posts moved. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sun Mar 20 06:30:32 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:30:32 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Room of Requirement predictions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050320063032.GB23865@aardvark.net.au> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 04:56:04AM -0000, corinthum wrote: > I'm undecided on the Room of Requirement code. Since we are of course > pre-OOP in our coding, this code only holds guesses right now, both > correct and incorrect. Many posts predicting the chamber-pot room > simply throw it out there as a suggestion, without any discussion of > why it may be important. But I know other people did correctly > predict the room's abilities. On the other hand, posts predicting > other rooms, like the prefects' bathroom, kitchens, etc., really > aren't discussing the Room of Requirement at all, except in retrospect. I had the same thoughts when I coded a few of these, but then how else to describe them, if not to discard the posts as redundant? I suggest using Predictions/no canon and Room of Requirement for pre-OOP to at least indicate that status. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sun Mar 20 06:46:32 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:46:32 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Gred & Forge cat In-Reply-To: <20050320021417.GA23865@aardvark.net.au> References: <20050320021417.GA23865@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: <20050320064632.GC23865@aardvark.net.au> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 01:14:17PM +1100, Sean Dwyer wrote: > > I think we need a subheading of 1.2.11.1 Weasleys to cover the Twins. My > current code batch is approximately half full of a thread about them and > coding to them separately is a waste of time. From the ongoing threads > there's good mileage in the Twins yet, and I volunteer to go back and > review the Fred & George cats myself to fix the codes also. For now I'll code > to Weasleys. Ignore this. I've got a bad case of Lurgy and it prevented me from noticing 2.5.6. *sigh* -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Mar 20 22:36:58 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:36:58 -0000 Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 20th March Message-ID: PROGRESS We've now coded 49506 posts, and rejected 27560 of these (55.6%). This week, with only Sean coding (I think!), we did 148 posts. On the review front, we have now done 43 out of 105 sections, just 4 more than last week. I am not quite clear whether the following have actually been done or not: 1.1.1.2 (Wicca) - Sean, did you do this one when you did religious banning? (I think not, but not sure). 1.1.3 et al (Freewill, prophecy, seers)- is this done now, Boyd? 1.2.4 Authorial intent/subversive readings - still in progress I think, Debbie (?) NB, Laurasia did some of the acronyms now in this section when she reviewed Anagrams & acronyms (which has now been split across two sections). 2.17. etc (SHIPPING) - is it now finished Ginger? DATABASES If you look in the DB section you will see that I have now managed to create three new DBs with all of the existing definitions in them. This was, to put it mildly, a nightmare, and has taken me most of the weekend. The main problem was cleaning up the data sufficiently to flow into the Yah DB format as I didn't want to fiddle around re- entering it all. (Talisman your work was not wasted, it forms part of two of the new tables, I just had to create a new table to flow it all into..don't ask..). Anyway, now they are all there. Can I suggest that as we finish reviewing a section, that we go in and update the definition for that section. When you have done that, indicate the change by putting 'EDITED' next to your reviewer name. Eg Carolyn/EDITED. When they are all updated, it is likely that Paul can flow them all into the main dbase, but to do that, I will have to create another column in each DB to add in the category ID number (different from the section number). Finally, as part of all this sorting out, I added in all the zeroes (as Kelly suggested on Friday), so forcing all the tables to rank properly. However, this makes all the numbers look extremely peculiar. Hope you can follow which section is which. Carolyn Who needed quite a bit of chocolate to get through the last two days. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Mar 20 22:42:23 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:42:23 -0000 Subject: Room of Requirement predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "corinthum" wrote: > > I've started reviewing the 3.16.1 Layout of Hogwarts category and > subcategories. > > Having just started the Bathrooms & loos subcategory, I've already > encountered quite a few posts suggesting that either the prefect's > bathroom or the chamber pot room might be the favorite room JKR > mentions in her interview. They're coded in all sorts of ways, > usually with some combination or permutation of 3.16.1.1 Bathrooms & > loos, 1.12.2.2 Predictions/no canon, and 3.16.1.2 Room of Requirement. > I assume I'll start finding these all over this category, so I > thought I should get some opinions on how to handle them. > > Any thoughts? > > -Kelly Carolyn: I'll leave Boyd to respond about the predictions aspect, but the original reason for this category is that there are lots of posts wondering about where the bathrooms and loos are, and whether the kids actually wash - outside the Room of Requirement speculation. It's hardly a gripping topic, but I suppose we need somewhere to put a selection of them. From kakearney at comcast.net Mon Mar 21 00:32:58 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:32:58 -0000 Subject: Room of Requirement predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kelly: > > Having just started the Bathrooms & loos subcategory, I've already > > encountered quite a few posts suggesting that either the prefect's > > bathroom or the chamber pot room might be the favorite room JKR > > mentions in her interview. They're coded in all sorts of ways, > > usually with some combination or permutation of 3.16.1.1 Bathrooms & > > loos, 1.12.2.2 Predictions/no canon, and 3.16.1.2 Room of > Requirement. > > I assume I'll start finding these all over this category, so I > > thought I should get some opinions on how to handle them. > > > Carolyn: > I'll leave Boyd to respond about the predictions aspect, but the > original reason for this category is that there are lots of posts > wondering about where the bathrooms and loos are, and whether the > kids actually wash - outside the Room of Requirement speculation. > > It's hardly a gripping topic, but I suppose we need somewhere to put > a selection of them. Yes, I understand the purpose of the category (although I was thinking of moving the "Do they bathe" posts to 3.4.6 Cosmetics % personal grooming unless they specifically talk about existance of bathrooms at Hogwarts). I've decided that for now I'll move all these predictions to 3.16.1.2 Room of Requirement (if not already there) and 1.12.2.2 Predictions/no canon (awaiting Boyd's input of the canon/no canon problem), and remove individual location codes such as bathrooms & loos. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Mon Mar 21 01:47:47 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:47:47 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] UPDATE, Sunday 20th March In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050321014747.GA10625@aardvark.net.au> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:36:58PM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > > > PROGRESS > We've now coded 49506 posts, and rejected 27560 of these (55.6%). > This week, with only Sean coding (I think!), we did 148 posts. I told you that Fred & George thread was a big one :) > 1.1.1.2 (Wicca) - Sean, did you do this one when you did religious > banning? (I think not, but not sure). No, I only did the banning cat. > Carolyn > Who needed quite a bit of chocolate to get through the last two days. Here's some complimentary choccy bunnies. The ears are nice, and the base is thick. Chew slowly repeating the following mantra: "databases are the revenge of machines". -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Mar 21 03:42:05 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 03:42:05 -0000 Subject: Timeline report Message-ID: Timeline Review The numbers look like I performed major carnage, but I didn't. Most of these posts had 2 or more time related codes. Now only one or two posts can be found in more than one time heading. A few were rejected as adds nothing new, and a few were dropped from a time code, but exist happily elsewhere. I'll wait for feedback before I make any changes in the database. I'll also work on the wording for the new definitions, but this will give you an idea of where it's going. Timelines 1.2.9 was 14 now 9 This code is for posts that discuss the chronology of events within the books. Right now there are three groups under here: House Cup/Quidditch Cup issues, Shrieking Shack as it happened in PoA (and would cover three chapters) and time issues only. For the first two, the posts are coded to those areas as well. There is some carry over to characters' ages and are so coded. In the future we'll get timelines for the graveyard, timelines for the battle at the DoM and getting to the battle. Can you think of others? What do you think? Do we need a code for timelines that fit within another heading? The only problem I can see for future coding would be if the event itself didn't have a good solid code. For example, it's much easier now that we have a code for the events in PoA in the Shrieking Shack. I could leave things as they are, move these posts out but leave the heading for future coding, or cancel this code. Thoughts? Dating Books 1.2.9.1 was 51 now 16 This one is straightforward. Quite a few have worked out completely incorrect timelines, but that isn't the point. All have to do with "When does this story take place?" I'm almost certain we won't get many more of these. Significant Dates 1.2.9.1.1 was 29 now 11 This one has a change of definition. Most of the posts were comparable, but almost none fit the original definition. Now it will be something like: discussions about the significance of dates/holidays/days of week within the story. Almost all of these are about Halloween. One has to do with Hermione's birthday falling at the autumnal equinox. Comparing WW to Muggle 1.2.9.3 was 33 now 0 I suggest we delete this heading. Only one post really fit in here, and I managed to make it fit under another code. Timing Controversies 1.2.9.4 was 75 now 94 (review not complete) This is another one that hadn't followed the original definition. I'd like to suggest we change the name to Timing Controversies and Inconsistencies and then change the definition. Now it will be something like: discussions of inconsistencies concerning time and dates. It would be everything from "the moon wasn't full on that date, to the sun would have already set by that time, to Playstation hadn't been invented then. As you can see, I've added quite a few posts to this code and I haven't fully reviewed it yet. I may change my mind on what really fits here. The days of the week questions sorted themselves out. The one I thought belonged under narrative, did in fact have a follow-up post that was already so coded. I rejected the one I had as a FAQ. The other days of the week went into Significant Dates. I will complete the review of 1.2.9.4 then move on to characters' ages. Once I hear from a few of the group, I'll edit the database. Carolyn, do you want to re-assign the posts I had for coding? It will be a while before I'll get to them. Kathy W. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Mar 21 04:54:01 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 04:54:01 -0000 Subject: UPDATE, Sunday 20th March In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > DATABASES > If you look in the DB section you will see that I have now managed to > create three new DBs with all of the existing definitions in them. > This was, to put it mildly, a nightmare, and has taken me most of the > weekend. The main problem was cleaning up the data sufficiently to > flow into the Yah DB format as I didn't want to fiddle around re- > entering it all. Jen: You deserve a nice, shiny "Services to the School" plaque for this one. What, you wanted more? Drat. Seriously though, Thank You. CW: > Anyway, now they are all there. Can I suggest that as we finish > reviewing a section, that we go in and update the definition for that > section. When you have done that, indicate the change by > putting 'EDITED' next to your reviewer name. Eg Carolyn/EDITED. > > When they are all updated, it is likely that Paul can flow them all > into the main dbase, but to do that, I will have to create another > column in each DB to add in the category ID number (different from > the section number). Jen: So I take this to mean if we signed up for a section we need to get it reviewed at some point, even if we start coding again. And come up with a definition. Just trying to make sure I know exactly what the job description is ;). "I am *not* whinging" "Are too" "Am not..." > Carolyn > Who needed quite a bit of chocolate to get through the last two days. Jen, who forsees needing an advance on her Easter chocolate to get through POA and GOF reviews which she really, really intends to complete by next week. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Mar 21 14:11:36 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:11:36 -0000 Subject: done (sorry) Message-ID: Yes, shipping is done. I have the empty bottles of Ogden's to prove it. (Afterwards celebration, not consumed during) I went in and edited the database. Sorry I didn't do that when I was actually done. I'll go back to coding unless you want me to do a review of 3.08.7 (time travel). I noticed that it was only 200+ posts, and no one was signed up for it. I'm one of those annoying people who "got it" on the first reading, and wonders why others didn't. Maybe it's because I have a hard time thinking within the normal time/space continuum to begin with. Let me know. I'm catching up with RL at the moment, but will be back here in full force on, say, Thursday. (Birthdays, anniversaries- all in March in my family) And a big bar of Honeyduke's finest negative calorie chocolate to Carolyn and Paul. Heck, take a couple. Ginger From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Mon Mar 21 14:50:18 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 01:50:18 +1100 Subject: cody the 2 Message-ID: <20050321145018.GA1053@aardvark.net.au> 43101 - 43200 2nd batch done. Apart from the humungous thread about the evil Fred & George (32 posts!), there was a lot of MAGIC DISHWASHER to and fro. Much discussion of wands also, and a healthy smattering of TBAY throughout, to say nothing of phoenix calls, phoenix tears, and phoenix feathers. Someone brought up the symbolism of Harry's eyes vs. Voldys, and an intriguing suggestion was made (#43177 and thread) that Harry's eyes are a particular Heir of Gryffindor power, and his tears heal. I'm beginning to wonder what Hufflepuff and Ravensclaw are in the books for, they're not counting for much...and how DID Hagrid get about if he didnt Apparate (quite a few of these). And Ginger would like #43172, a FILK based on a Neil Diamond song, Longbottom Serenade :) Tomorrow I hope to achieve broadband, and at some point will be switching email addresses (my own domain hopefully). In cheerful optimism, I'll take some more posts and pray Paul's IP checker can pick me up. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com Mon Mar 21 15:06:59 2005 From: boyd.t.smythe at fritolay.com (Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:06:59 -0600 Subject: Loos & Predictions Message-ID: Kelly wrote: > Having just started the Bathrooms & loos subcategory, I've already > encountered quite a few posts suggesting that either the prefect's > bathroom or the chamber pot room might be the favorite room JKR > mentions in her interview. They're coded in all sorts of ways, > usually with some combination or permutation of 3.16.1.1 Bathrooms & > loos, 1.12.2.2 Predictions/no canon, and 3.16.1.2 Room of Requirement. > I assume I'll start finding these all over this category, so I > thought I should get some opinions on how to handle them. > > Any thoughts? Those are classic predictions--still amazes me how many folks caught on to that minute hint. As to whether you'd like to keep them in Bathrooms & Loos, I simply ask whether they provide any analysis of Bathrooms & Loos, or whether they are mere predictions. I encourage you to chop many of the latter--I'm keeping the first ones in Predictions for posterity. As for the whole canon vs. no canon distinction, I've gone through a few rounds on this. At first it sounded great, but after reading the hundredth post like "I'll bet that chamber-pot room will be something special," I began to wonder whether we're splitting hairs. So much grey area, since most of the predictions are based on some scrap of canon. So now I think of it as a future Catalogue-user. I'd want to be able to look for either entertaining predictions or predictions with explicitly stated logic. If the former, I'd want to see only the *most* entertaining ones (meaning I still have to cut some more); if the latter, I'd want to see only the well-supported ones (whether accurate or not). Back to Bathrooms & Loos, that'd mean I'd keep only the first few (coded to both Predictions no canon and Bathrooms) and the few that supported themselves the best with canon/logic (coded to Prediction with canon and Bathrooms). Since we reject me-toos, kill the rest. :) --boyd and I just *had* to ask for predictions From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Mar 21 19:32:31 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:32:31 -0000 Subject: Timeline report In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Timelines 1.2.9 was 14 now 9 This code is for posts that discuss the chronology of events within the books. Right now there are three groups under here: House Cup/Quidditch Cup issues, Shrieking Shack as it happened in PoA (and would cover three chapters) and time issues only. I could leave things as they are, move these posts out but leave the heading for future coding, or cancel this code. Thoughts? Carolyn: I would remove the timelines code from the first two that you mention here, as they already have adequate other codes elsewhere. I don't know why people would look here first to think about timelines relating to those events. What kind of subject is covered by the posts that would be left if you did that? KathyW: Significant Dates 1.2.9.1.1 was 29 now 11 This one has a change of definition. Most of the posts were comparable, but almost none fit the original definition. Now it will be something like: discussions about the significance of dates/holidays/days of week within the story. Almost all of these are about Halloween. One has to do with Hermione's birthday falling at the autumnal equinox. Carolyn: Ok, but be sure to amend the definition in the new DB. KathyW: Comparing WW to Muggle 1.2.9.3 was 33 now 0 I suggest we delete this heading. Only one post really fit in here, and I managed to make it fit under another code. Carolyn: Where did the rest get put? I was interpreting this code as difficulties in making JKR's and RL timelines agree. Are these now in section 1.2.9.4? KathyW: Timing Controversies 1.2.9.4 was 75 now 94 (review not complete) This is another one that hadn't followed the original definition. I'd like to suggest we change the name to Timing Controversies and Inconsistencies and then change the definition. Now it will be something like: discussions of inconsistencies concerning time and dates. It would be everything from "the moon wasn't full on that date, to the sun would have already set by that time, to Playstation hadn't been invented then. As you can see, I've added quite a few posts to this code and I haven't fully reviewed it yet. I may change my mind on what really fits here. Carolyn, do you want to re-assign the posts I had for coding? It will be a while before I'll get to them. Carolyn: I'm happy to amend the name as suggested, and will do so now. As for your post allocation, don't worry. I don't think anyone has picked up on the ones they had left over when they started this review - I certainly have not. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Mar 21 19:50:08 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:50:08 -0000 Subject: Choc.. and more choc, wow... Message-ID: Sean: Here's some complimentary choccy bunnies. The ears are nice, and the base is thick. Chew slowly repeating the following mantra: "databases are the revenge of machines". Jen: You deserve a nice, shiny "Services to the School" plaque for this one. What, you wanted more? Drat. Seriously though, Thank You. Ginger: And a big bar of Honeyduke's finest negative calorie chocolate to Carolyn and Paul. Heck, take a couple. Carolyn: Hey, didn't I do well? Almost (not quite) made the effort worthwhile...I'll give you the bad news now. Paul wrote me a routine overnight on Sunday which would have enabled me to create the files in about 5mins. Yep, 5mins.... However, there are still some glitches, so I am glad I learned the hard way. Sort of. Jen: So I take this to mean if we signed up for a section we need to get it reviewed at some point, even if we start coding again. And come up with a definition. Just trying to make sure I know exactly what the job description is ;). Carolyn: It's ok, you can un-sign up you know...I have not signed up for more myself until I finish Voldemort, which is a giant section with nearly 2000 posts. Or I might pick off little sections to do in between sorting it out, for light relief. And I will probably start doing some coding too in between. I think they call it multi-tasking. Ginger: I'll go back to coding unless you want me to do a review of 3.08.7 (time travel). I noticed that it was only 200+ posts, and no one was signed up for it. I'm one of those annoying people who "got it" on the first reading, and wonders why others didn't. Maybe it's because I have a hard time thinking within the normal time/space continuum to begin with. Carolyn: Why not do time-travel? You can have some fine debates with Talisman..one of the world's living experts on it, as I recall ! Sean: Tomorrow I hope to achieve broadband, and at some point will be switching email addresses (my own domain hopefully). In cheerful optimism, I'll take some more posts and pray Paul's IP checker can pick me up. Carolyn: Here you go: 43201-43300. Hope it goes smoothly - mine took about half an hour to install and set up. No problems as yet, two months later. PS. Is Lupinlore really representing a serious POV? I look in on the more or less continuous row that has been going on since before Xmas with almost complete disbelief now. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Mar 21 22:18:05 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:18:05 -0000 Subject: Choc.. and more choc, wow... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn: > PS. Is Lupinlore really representing a serious POV? I look in on the > more or less continuous row that has been going on since before Xmas > with almost complete disbelief now. Jen: Don't get me started. I can't believe I willingly walked into that deathtrap debate AGAIN! There's no way to shut it off either, as you said, because there are always people willing to take a new crack at the debate. So it goes on and on and on.....It will never end because JKR will never, ever, sastisfy people who feel the way LL does. Maybe said people will do us all a favor and chuck the books in the dustbin NOW instead of waiting until JKR 'fails' in their eyes. Jen, wondering exactly how many posts will be in the child abuse category once we've coded up through the last year when this topic seems on the boards ad nauseam. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Tue Mar 22 04:08:20 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:08:20 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Choc.. and more choc, wow... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050322040820.GA21108@aardvark.net.au> On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 10:18:05PM -0000, Jen Reese wrote: Carolyn: PS. Is Lupinlore really representing a serious POV? I look in on the more or less continuous row that has been going on since before Xmas with almost complete disbelief now. Jen: Don't get me started. I can't believe I willingly walked into that deathtrap debate AGAIN! There's no way to shut it off either, as you said, because there are always people willing to take a new crack at the debate. So it goes on and on and on.....It will never end because JKR will never, ever, sastisfy people who feel the way LL does. Maybe said people will do us all a favor and chuck the books in the dustbin NOW instead of waiting until JKR 'fails' in their eyes. Oddly enough I'm coming across much the same controversy over the FGB thread I'm currently coding (Fred and George are Bas^H^H Bullies). After 70-odd posts I'm beginning to reject a few as they become increasingly personal and meta-discussion. We are now at the point of the 'right to disagree with JKR' that LL has reached with DD. This IMHO is a primary danger of over-enthusiastic fandom, up there with fanfic which at least has the honesty to go ahead and rewrite the Potterverse for themselves. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Mar 22 09:51:36 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:51:36 -0000 Subject: Choc.. and more choc, wow... In-Reply-To: <20050322040820.GA21108@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 10:18:05PM -0000, Jen Reese wrote: > Carolyn: PS. Is Lupinlore really representing a serious POV? I look in on the more or less continuous row that has been going on since before Xmas with almost complete disbelief now. Jen: Don't get me started. I can't believe I willingly walked into that deathtrap debate AGAIN! There's no way to shut it off either, as you said, because there are always people willing to take a new crack at the debate. So it goes on and on and on.....It will never end because JKR will never, ever, sastisfy people who feel the way LL does. Maybe said people will do us all a favor and chuck the books in the dustbin NOW instead of waiting until JKR 'fails' in their eyes. Sean: Oddly enough I'm coming across much the same controversy over the FGB thread I'm currently coding (Fred and George are Bas^H^H Bullies). Carolyn: Yes, I did some coding yesterday evening and picked up the end of that thread, and thought the same thing. [For those of you who have not seen it, it's continuing the Elkins' SYCOPHANTS-type concern about the victims of practical jokesters]. First, is there anything wrong with JKR showing her characters engaging in the various crimes against humanity which she is regularly accused of? What I can't understand is that the logical extension of all these arguments is that all books should only be written from a particular POV [fill in the one you approve of]. In particular, children's lit, or any books involving children should only be filled with squeaky clean role models, sanitised to a point of absurdity, in order to cause no global cultural offence. On the nature of these fan debates, it seemed to me that the F&G argument, though heated, generated some interesting discussion [eg the TOON definitions], which the current LL stream of invective does not. Different people involved, different list era. Ironically (given the subject of discussion), what is going on now, IMO, is intimidation by one or two posters, hijacking every thread to their own agenda. It takes time and energy to counteract this and those capable of it can no longer be bothered, leaving the unpleasant impression that the views of LL et al represent some kind of list consensus. If you've not read the Jasper Fforde books you'll not appreciate this, but the Potter fandom definitely has gone way over the edge of blurring fiction with reality in much the way he describes. Essentially, Fforde's created a world where fiction drives the economy, politics, wars, people's personal lives. Fantastically clever and funny on the page, but more than slightly disturbing to see it played out for real. Carolyn Wearing a new badge this morning, discovered in the archives recently - LOOT (League Of Obsessed Theorists). From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Tue Mar 22 11:43:32 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:43:32 +1100 Subject: LLoopiness and more cody goodness! In-Reply-To: References: <20050322040820.GA21108@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: <20050322114332.GA5990@aardvark.net.au> another batch been and gone :) As mentioned previously the Gred & Forge Bastardry debate continued but began to exhibit signs of instability. The thread continues for another 100 or so posts that I can see, and will no doubt be totally worthless by that stage. Speaking of worthless, 12 rejects this time, mostly due to the hopes of some that Fred and George would actually complete their schooling, despite the totally speculative nature (#43240 pointed this out). I gave #43276 a KING OF SPAIN code as it was the only daddy!Snape post that had ANY acronym backing :) Further isolated batch notes in below discussion: > Carolyn: > Yes, I did some coding yesterday evening and picked up the end of > that thread, and thought the same thing. [For those of you who have > not seen it, it's continuing the Elkins' SYCOPHANTS-type concern > about the victims of practical jokesters]. Yes I noticed you'd coded a few things :) Helpful in a couple of threads I was about to query with you. BTW, good news Cho haters, #43242 is the original CONNIVING CHICK'S REVENGE post :) But an instructive post is #43290, obviously many Listees aren't capable of that kind of objectivity. > First, is there anything wrong with JKR showing her characters > engaging in the various crimes against humanity which she is > regularly accused of? What I can't understand is that the logical > extension of all these arguments is that all books should only be > written from a particular POV [fill in the one you approve of]. In > particular, children's lit, or any books involving children should > only be filled with squeaky clean role models, sanitised to a point > of absurdity, in order to cause no global cultural offence. Oh unfortunately it is _very_ understandable; very large corporations have grown accustomed to large-volume sales at the LCD of culture - anything outside those parameters is perceived as marginal to profit. Then JKR comes along and breaks all kinds of kids lit. rules and thank god. Because it SELLS. LL and the gang are up against profit motive, but fortunately this time a good story might survive. I have no doubt that when the dust settles on the Potterverse the We Know Best crowd will have a field day attempting to rewrite literary history, but that's their problem, isn't it :) > On the nature of these fan debates, it seemed to me that the F&G > argument, though heated, generated some interesting discussion [eg > the TOON definitions], which the current LL stream of invective does > not. Different people involved, different list era. Ironically (given > the subject of discussion), what is going on now, IMO, is > intimidation by one or two posters, hijacking every thread to their > own agenda. It takes time and energy to counteract this and those > capable of it can no longer be bothered, leaving the unpleasant > impression that the views of LL et al represent some kind of list > consensus. If they start writing protest songs I'm going to get upset :) Seriously, what can you say to someone who took the trouble to join a HP forum to outline why they're going to destroy books if the author doesn't toe the PC line? I'm so tempted to pursue the morality of this, but I must be a good penguin. > If you've not read the Jasper Fforde books you'll not appreciate > this, but the Potter fandom definitely has gone way over the edge of > blurring fiction with reality in much the way he describes. > Essentially, Fforde's created a world where fiction drives the > economy, politics, wars, people's personal lives. Fantastically > clever and funny on the page, but more than slightly disturbing to > see it played out for real. I hadn't read any but if the reviews of The Eyre Affair that I found on the web are anything to go by, I think I want to read this stuff! Heroines with names like Thursday Next are fine with me :) > Carolyn > Wearing a new badge this morning, discovered in the archives > recently - LOOT (League Of Obsessed Theorists). Where? I want a badge too! BTW, still no broadband, so chuck me another wad of posts, may as well do something while I wait! -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Mar 22 12:08:16 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:08:16 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Choc.. and more choc, wow... References: Message-ID: Carolyn: > If you've not read the Jasper Fforde books you'll not appreciate > this, but the Potter fandom definitely has gone way over the edge of > blurring fiction with reality in much the way he describes. > Essentially, Fforde's created a world where fiction drives the > economy, politics, wars, people's personal lives. Fantastically > clever and funny on the page, but more than slightly disturbing to > see it played out for real. > KathyW. I just finished the first book and have the next one on hold at the library. My theory is that Fford is a HPFGU member. I kept seeing HPFGU characters throughout the book! I was pulled into the fray along with Jen. And after going through a 12 step program to clear myself of the Marauder/Snape posts too! There are some posters that I never ever respond to, not sure how I overlooked the participants' names this time. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Tue Mar 22 12:40:55 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 04:40:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Choc.. and more choc, wow... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050322124055.25051.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> Carolyn: Why not do time-travel? You can have some fine debates with Talisman..one of the world's living experts on it, as I recall ! Ginger,cowering in fear: Um, I never signed up for a debate with Talisman, but if the vocabulary is limited to a primary school spelling book, I'll have a go at it. If it gets over my head, I start filking. You have been warned. Carolyn: PS. Is Lupinlore really representing a serious POV? I look in on the more or less continuous row that has been going on since before Xmas with almost complete disbelief now. Ginger: As I understand it, the main problem LL has is that JKR said that DD is the "epitome of goodness" and LL can't imagine anyone that good leaving Harry to be so miserable. I'm nowhere near the epitome of goodness, but I felt bad for Harry there too. Considering the option was death, I wouldn't have moved Harry either, but that doesn't fly with those who won't stand for an unhappy child, or realize that sometimes the greater good does require sacrifices, even from a child. I really wanted to throw in that corporal punishment in the homes and schools really needs to make a comeback and soon, but I'd have been "trolling" on that one, so I decided not to make trouble. For once. I've only gotten one howler in my life, and I want to keep it that way. If I get kicked off the list, I couldn't code, and them what would I do for fun? Ginger, who had a babbling brew this morning, and will start on Time Travel soon. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kakearney at comcast.net Tue Mar 22 14:29:37 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:29:37 -0000 Subject: Choc.. and more choc, wow... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn: > If you've not read the Jasper Fforde books you'll not appreciate > this, but the Potter fandom definitely has gone way over the edge of > blurring fiction with reality in much the way he describes. > Essentially, Fforde's created a world where fiction drives the > economy, politics, wars, people's personal lives. Fantastically > clever and funny on the page, but more than slightly disturbing to > see it played out for real. I think you've started a whole new fan group, Carolyn. I'm on the last chapter of "The Eyre Affair" and loving it. Although I admit I had to go look up the real Crimean War to remember what it was all about; seems not all of my European History has stuck with me. -Kelly From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Mar 22 14:42:43 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:42:43 -0000 Subject: Choc.. and more choc, wow... In-Reply-To: <20050322124055.25051.qmail@web60502.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Ginger wrote: > > Ginger,cowering in fear: > Um, I never signed up for a debate with Talisman, but if the vocabulary is limited to a primary school spelling book, I'll have a go at it. If it gets over my head, I start filking. You have been warned. Carolyn: Heh! That's the spirit... you could distract her by lobbing in a bit of OBHWF if things get really tough. I *thought* I understood time travel before the debates started, but after reading some of them, I realised I didn't. At all. Therefore, I look on respectfully, especially when people start drawing lines to explain it (apart from anything else, they don't come out too well on this apology for an interface that Yah offers us). > > Ginger: As I understand it, the main problem LL has is that JKR said that DD is the "epitome of goodness" and LL can't imagine anyone that good leaving Harry to be so miserable. I'm nowhere near the epitome of goodness, but I felt bad for Harry there too. Considering the option was death, I wouldn't have moved Harry either, but that doesn't fly with those who won't stand for an unhappy child, or realize that sometimes the greater good does require sacrifices, even from a child. Carolyn: Well, as I've pointed out in a back post somewhere in here, that quote isn't so cut and dried in it's meaning. JKR could have meant that DD is only supposed to be the 'epitome of goodness' within the context of the Potterverse, and who knows what that's supposed to mean. Also, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Harry wasn't as miserable as all that. Yes, it was boring and he'd do anything to get out from the Dursleys, but he wasn't afraid of them - just despised them. And as far as children suffering goes, it's perfectly obvious from everything the kids have to endure at Hogwarts that the WW seems to have somewhat more robust ideas about what constitutes unhappiness and physical danger than RL. Then there is the caustic Brit humour underpinning it all.. > Ginger: > I really wanted to throw in that corporal punishment in the homes and schools really needs to make a comeback and soon, but I'd have been "trolling" on that one, so I decided not to make trouble. > Carolyn: Mm.. I saw your post about the kids you had to deal with at work! Some of the same little darlings slashed all the tyres in our road a month or two back, and broke a row of newly planted saplings. I don't know what the answer is. I always force myself to remember what it was like to be a child/teenager. Corporal punishment probably wouldn't have stopped me; frightened me maybe, but also made me more defiant I expect, and even wilder than I already was. Sean: BTW, still no broadband, so chuck me another wad of posts, may as well do something while I wait! Carolyn: Potioncat just mentioned she wouldn't get to her allocation for a while, would you like to go back and pick up that group for her? It's 42701-42800. From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 22 14:54:54 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:54:54 -0000 Subject: a bit of progress Message-ID: I've finished coding posts 42601-42700. 48 Rejects. Lots of erroneous repetative blather about what Avadra Kedavra means /erroneous and repetative blather re Figg is a polyjuiced witch /erroneous repetative blather re Snape was in Ravenclaw ... etc. Talisman, who only dislikes talking about time-travel because it's usually as rewarding as talking to a goat. P.S. >Carolyn: >Why not do time-travel? You can have some fine debates with >Talisman.. >Ginger,cowering in fear: ...If it gets over my head, I start filking. You have been warned. Oooooh. A FILK war over Time-travel. What a hideous prospect. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Mar 22 14:59:35 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:59:35 -0000 Subject: Choc.. and more choc, wow... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "corinthum" wrote: > > > I think you've started a whole new fan group, Carolyn. I'm on the > last chapter of "The Eyre Affair" and loving it. Although I admit I > had to go look up the real Crimean War to remember what it was all > about; seems not all of my European History has stuck with me. > > -Kelly Carolyn: Have you visited the website? http://www.jasperfforde.com On one page there is a great button called 'Press here if your boss is approaching', it clicks to a totally innocuous download message for an 'important file'. Tee hee. Here's a taster of the chat (Eastenders is a gritty British soap): HARRY POTTER (ALL) Ok! Here at Jurisfiction we realise that there is the trendy book to skip into.. but we have had 78 complaints from one Hermione Granger that she has been forced on several occasions to give up on her studies and retire to the TV lounge to watch Eastenders. As we are made very aware by Miss Granger, she does not 'do TV' 'only books' and you, in your fictional tourism are making her job impossible. Only last week she was so enthralled by the 'Dirty Den Murder' that she almost missed her crucial part in helping Harry & Ron figure out yet another problem, thus leading to salvstion for us all and eventual defeat of 'He Who Cannot Be Named' (And he sat in the 'Green Room' slightly pissed off that he may have had to make an early entrance, thus missing 'The Bill'). From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Mar 22 15:16:13 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:16:13 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Choc.. and more choc, wow... References: Message-ID: > Carolyn: > Have you visited the website? > > http://www.jasperfforde.com > > On one page there is a great button called 'Press here if your boss > is approaching', it clicks to a totally innocuous download message > for an 'important file'. Tee hee. Kathy W. Thanks. If my catalogue productivity drops, you have only yourself to blame. Tee Hee. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Mar 22 15:27:21 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:27:21 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] a bit of progress References: Message-ID: > >Ginger,cowering in fear: ...If it gets over my head, I start > filking. You have been warned. >Talisman responded: > Oooooh. A FILK war over Time-travel. What a hideous prospect. Potioncat: It isn't a filk, but the entire time I was reviewing Timelines, the tune from an old sitcom kept playing in my head: "It's about time, it's about space, about two men in the strangest place..." a very short lived sitcom about 2 astronauts stranded in the days of cavemen. I can't remember its title, but was similar to "Gilligan's Island". Kathy W. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Mar 22 20:27:41 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:27:41 -0000 Subject: One more time Re: Timeline report In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carolyn: > I would remove the timelines code from the first two that you mention here, as they already have adequate other codes elsewhere. I don't know why people would look here first to think about timelines > relating to those events. > > What kind of subject is covered by the posts that would be left if > you did that? KW: I made the changes. (There are two posts left there also coded to dating the books.) I'd like to leave Timelines available for those posts that come up that don't have an event to be coded to. We may ultimately do away with it, but right now it is handy to have. > > KathyW: > Significant Dates 1.2.9.1.1 was 29 now 11 > This one has a change of definition. > > Carolyn: > Ok, but be sure to amend the definition in the new DB. KW: done > > KathyW: > Comparing WW to Muggle 1.2.9.3 was 33 now 0> > Carolyn: > Where did the rest get put? I was interpreting this code as > difficulties in making JKR's and RL timelines agree. Are these now in section 1.2.9.4? KW: Yes. But I don't want to do away with it until I really look at 1.2.9.4. If we keep it, I'd like to change it to Comparing WW to Real World Ginger, it's your fault! All day I've been trying to turn Jim Croce's "Time in a Bottle" into a filk by Snape. So far all I've gotten is: If I could make time in a bottle, the first thing that I'd like to brew... From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 23 00:24:55 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:24:55 -0000 Subject: Unforgivable Curses Message-ID: Regarding 3.09.2. Unforgivable Curses I propose the follwing definition: For substantive discussions broadly about the Unforgivable Curses as a group: why they are unforgivable, whether they have legitimate uses, etc. 1) Do not code here if the curses are merely mentioned, e.g. "Why did Fake!Moody teach them? (Followed by an exploration of Fake!Moody's motives.); 2) do not code here if coding to individual curses, below. I'll add this to the data base and make changes later if the group feels it necessary. Talisman From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Wed Mar 23 03:44:16 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:44:16 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] a bit of progress In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050323034416.GA24172@aardvark.net.au> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:54:54PM -0000, Talisman wrote: > > > I've finished coding posts 42601-42700. 48 Rejects. Lots of > erroneous repetative blather about what Avadra Kedavra > means /erroneous and repetative blather re Figg is a polyjuiced > witch /erroneous repetative blather re Snape was in Ravenclaw ... > etc. > > Talisman, who only dislikes talking about time-travel because it's > usually as rewarding as talking to a goat. Lucky you, I couldn't remove all the FGB's I wanted... > P.S. > > >Carolyn: > >Why not do time-travel? You can have some fine debates with > >Talisman.. > >Ginger,cowering in fear: ...If it gets over my head, I start > filking. You have been warned. > > Oooooh. A FILK war over Time-travel. What a hideous prospect. Any Time you can Turn I can Turn better I can Turn any Time better than youuu... -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 23 03:54:27 2005 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 03:54:27 -0000 Subject: a bit of progress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Kathy Willson" wrote: > > Potioncat: > It isn't a filk, but the entire time I was reviewing Timelines, the tune from an old sitcom kept playing in my head: > "It's about time, it's about space, about two men in the strangest place..." > a very short lived sitcom about 2 astronauts stranded in the days of cavemen. I can't remember its title, but was similar to "Gilligan's Island". > Kathy W. You can trip back to "It's About Time" and learn all the lyrics at http://www.tvparty.com/itsabout.html. The site will remind you that the caveman's name was Gronk. I seem to recall he was rather excitable and said "oo oo oo oo" alot. Talisman (Noting for future reference: The Timelines category is obviously controlled by the Sherwood Schwartz jinx.) From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Wed Mar 23 07:42:02 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:42:02 +1100 Subject: Put another batch on the fire Message-ID: <20050323074202.GC24172@aardvark.net.au> 42701-42800 scratch that batch :) Talisman, you're a bad influence: 32 rejects in this lot :) Some sorry theorising here, a LOT of carry-on about US vs. British editions. Some interesting thoughts about DADA: why exactly was Voldy so feared? Because DADA wasn't on the curriculum? Quite a lot about wand symbolism (and an awful lot of Listees got that wrong). Much ado about Moody!Crouch (he really is a character in his own right) and magical eyeballs. Why Hermionie doesn't deserve friends (but Draco isn't Mr. Popular either). And a few FILKS, my favourite being #42792. Not enough G&S FILKS for my liking :) STILL no broadband. More posts please! -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Mar 23 10:33:29 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:33:29 -0000 Subject: Replies Message-ID: Talisman: I've finished coding posts 42601-42700. 48 Rejects. Lots of erroneous repetative blather about what Avadra Kedavra means /erroneous and repetative blather re Figg is a polyjuiced witch /erroneous repetative blather re Snape was in Ravenclaw ... etc. Regarding 3.09.2. Unforgivable Curses I propose the follwing definition: C: Assuming this means you would like some more (?): 43401-43500 And your proposed amendment looks fine to me. ************************************* Potioncat: It isn't a filk, but the entire time I was reviewing Timelines, the tune from an old sitcom kept playing in my head: "It's about time, it's about space, about two men in the strangest place..." C: I'm no filker, as everyone knows, but this reminded me that there is a new series of Dr Who starting Saturday. Do you all know it outside the UK? Timelords, the Tardis, Cybermen and Daleks? Cult watching when I was young, with all the special effects made out of cardboard boxes and sink plungers more or less. Bet the new series ruins it all... > KathyW: > Comparing WW to Muggle 1.2.9.3 was 33 now 0> > Carolyn: > Where did the rest get put? I was interpreting this code as > difficulties in making JKR's and RL timelines agree. Are these now in section 1.2.9.4? KW: Yes. But I don't want to do away with it until I really look at 1.2.9.4. If we keep it, I'd like to change it to Comparing WW to Real World C: Am I right in thinking that you don't need me to make any changes to any of the timeline headings as yet? &..and wondering vaguely what the Sherwood Schwartz jinx is .. ******************** Sean: 42701-42800 scratch that batch :) Talisman, you're a bad influence: 32 rejects in this lot :) STILL no broadband. More posts please! Carolyn: I'm finding it quite useful to do a bit of coding and a bit of reviewing together. It really makes you mean about categories, or whether to code at all. But I trust that people are looking back at the discussions we've had, and thinking what is supposed to be in a section? I am going to take some time tonight to review my own definitions, and make sure they are up to date. Sean - some more posts: 43501-43600 I am only doling them out in small chunks because I think it is quite important to get different people to work on different parts of threads. Avoids bias, enables sharing of opinions on how things ought to be coded. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Mar 23 11:22:50 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:22:50 -0000 Subject: Dr Who In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > C: I'm no filker, as everyone knows, but this reminded me that there > is a new series of Dr Who starting Saturday. Do you all know it > outside the UK? Timelords, the Tardis, Cybermen and Daleks? Cult > watching when I was young, with all the special effects made out of > cardboard boxes and sink plungers more or less. Bet the new series > ruins it all... I'm indulging in some gloriously childish excitement, I can't wait! 16 years - I'd forgotten how much I enjoyed it all, have my niche behind the sofa ready. I think it looks fabulous, great cast: Simon Callow as Dickens, and *Andrew Marr* has a cameo. Of course, I'm nervous - who isn't? Everyone has their own view of what Dr Who should be, but I'm quite optimistic. Russell T. Davies (the writer) said: "We wanted to put the children back behind the sofa, where they belong." *Excellent*. The Tardis still makes the same noise, the sonic screwdriver is ever-present, and of course, it wouldn't be Dr Who without the incredible theme music, which still makes my hair stand on end. The joy of Dr Who (for me) is that it's so very British, I didn't like that Americanised TV movie, though Paul McGann wasn't bad as the Doctor. The first episode of the new series is the Autons (intelligent plastic) - I saw a clip of a wheelie bin swallowing someone, it looks *great*! At the risk of offending any Trekkies, I'm of the opinion that you can judge the quality of a sci-fi show by the quality of it's theme music. So at one end you have Dr Who, Hitch-hiker, possibly even Farscape, [which went downhill at exactly the point they changed the theme tune]. And at the other end you have the various Star Treks, Blake's Seven, Battlestar Galactica and all that other nonsense. Roll on Saturday! Dot Still head-over-heels in love with Tom Baker. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Wed Mar 23 11:42:57 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:42:57 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Replies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050323114257.GA9766@aardvark.net.au> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 10:33:29AM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > C: I'm no filker, as everyone knows, but this reminded me that there > is a new series of Dr Who starting Saturday. Do you all know it > outside the UK? Timelords, the Tardis, Cybermen and Daleks? Cult > watching when I was young, with all the special effects made out of > cardboard boxes and sink plungers more or less. Bet the new series > ruins it all... Oh yes indeed, staple diet of childhood teev here in Oz. It quite scared me as a child. I've actually seen the pilot episode (generally regarded as a deliberate leak) and Christopher Eccleston keeps up the Who tradition of daftness (scary Northern daftness I assume), but Billie Piper as Rose is a bit of a dolly-bird with a rather unconvincing backstory. But I wish the new series well, after a 10-year wait and an unsatisfying movie, it's been a LONG time coming. > Carolyn: > I'm finding it quite useful to do a bit of coding and a bit of > reviewing together. It really makes you mean about categories, or > whether to code at all. It's actually easier to be tough when reviewing, not so when coding. But after a few hundred posts I'm getting the balance back, and yes, there's a lot of stuff that can't pass the Useful Test. But in that process, your HP knowledge is really tested. I had no idea for instance that there were that many mistakes in the edition (my 1st edition OotP is riddled with them), and some of that has led to bad List theory or at the least continuing confusion. I strongly recommend a trip to mugglenet.com and getting the lists of mistakes in the books. A whole thread on Hagrid and the motorbike was wasted on one such mistake, only cleared up when the US/British versions were compared. > Sean - some more posts: 43501-43600 goody. > I am only doling them out in small chunks because I think it is quite > important to get different people to work on different parts of > threads. Avoids bias, enables sharing of opinions on how things ought > to be coded. Aww ok, there was me hoping I'd get to kill entire threads muhahaha. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Wed Mar 23 11:50:53 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:50:53 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Dr Who In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050323115053.GB9766@aardvark.net.au> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:22:50AM -0000, dungrollin wrote: > The Tardis still makes the same noise, the sonic screwdriver is > ever-present, and of course, it wouldn't be Dr Who without the > incredible theme music, which still makes my hair stand on end. The > joy of Dr Who (for me) is that it's so very British, I didn't like > that Americanised TV movie, though Paul McGann wasn't bad as the > Doctor. The first episode of the new series is the Autons > (intelligent plastic) - I saw a clip of a wheelie bin swallowing > someone, it looks *great*! I won't spoil it for you but I found the special effects entirely appropriate, and that's no mean feat. > At the risk of offending any Trekkies, I'm of the opinion that you > can judge the quality of a sci-fi show by the quality of it's theme > music. So at one end you have Dr Who, Hitch-hiker, possibly even > Farscape, [which went downhill at exactly the point they changed the > theme tune]. And at the other end you have the various Star Treks, > Blake's Seven, Battlestar Galactica and all that other nonsense. Hey I *like* Blake's Seven. It didn't even have the budget of Dr. Who but us fans are still here *waves Avon for President flag*. I don't want a comeback just all the series on DVD. > Dot > Still head-over-heels in love with Tom Baker. Oh dear, really? I've seen him in Monarch of the Glen and he looks like an 18th century squire, round and red-faced. But his narration of Little Britain is very naughty :) -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Mar 23 11:53:44 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:53:44 -0000 Subject: Dr Who In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: >> > > I'm indulging in some gloriously childish excitement, I can't wait! > > Roll on Saturday! > > Dot > Still head-over-heels in love with Tom Baker. Sean: Oh yes indeed, staple diet of childhood teev here in Oz. It quite scared me as a child. But I wish the new series well, after a 10-year wait and an unsatisfying movie, it's been a LONG time coming. Carolyn: If you visit this BBC site you can see clips from all the old series as well as a taster of the new one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/doctorwho/clips/index.shtml The music is still as brilliant as ever..agree, it's a litmus test. And Tom Baker - oh yes, I had a crush on him too... From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Mar 23 12:38:17 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:38:17 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Replies References: Message-ID: > C: Am I right in thinking that you don't need me to make any changes > to any of the timeline headings as yet? KW: That's right. I've made changes in the DB, but the catalogue can wait until I take a good look at the last batch. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Wed Mar 23 12:45:38 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:45:38 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Dr Who In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050323124538.GC9766@aardvark.net.au> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:53:44AM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > Carolyn: > The music is still as brilliant as ever..agree, it's a litmus test. > And Tom Baker - oh yes, I had a crush on him too... *Grumble* stupid Baker person... I *have* to mention this: funniest FILK yet, #43517: Skip to the Loo with Harry. A litmus test for humour... -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From elfundeb at comcast.net Thu Mar 24 14:19:38 2005 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (Debbie) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:19:38 -0500 Subject: 1.2.4/Gred&Forge/Humor Message-ID: <002601c5307c$836290c0$1102a8c0@your4105e587b6> Carolyn: > 1.2.4 Authorial intent/subversive readings - still in progress I > think, Debbie (?) NB, Laurasia did some of the acronyms now in this > section when she reviewed Anagrams & acronyms (which has now been > split across two sections). Yup, still in progress. It's slow going, as I'm de-coding or re-coding about 2/3 of the posts. And you coders keep slipping more posts in, so the number remaining to review keeps going up. To make sure that posts going in are likely to stay, here's my definition: For general discussions of reader response to the books, including subversion, subtext, limits on speculation, relationship of fanfic to text interpretation, and approaches to interpretation/discerning authorial intent. If the post discusses JKR's intent with respect to a specific theme (e.g., morality, rulebreaking, portrayal of females, etc.), or reader responses to specific characters I have taken it out of 1.2.4. I have moved discussions of JKR's use of language to Narrative Style (but not the grammar ones, which are in its own subcategory) except for the speech patterns ones, which I have coded to Speech Patterns and which IMO should be moved into Characterisation (or Narrative Syle, maybe). > Jen, wondering exactly how many posts will be in the child abuse > category once we've coded up through the last year when this topic > seems on the boards ad nauseam. Very few, I hope. Surely nothing new is being said (though I can't be sure as I can't bring myself to read another post on this topic). Though it does reinforce my opinion that OOP ch. 37 is one of the worst JKR ever wrote. > Sean: > Oddly enough I'm coming across much the same controversy over the FGB > thread > I'm currently coding (Fred and George are Bas^H^H Bullies). > > > Carolyn: > Yes, I did some coding yesterday evening and picked up the end of > that thread, and thought the same thing. [For those of you who have > not seen it, it's continuing the Elkins' SYCOPHANTS-type concern > about the victims of practical jokesters]. I dunno. I don't see this issue as a SYCOPHANTS concern. I see it as more of an issue of the bleeding hearts vs. comeuppance humor. If you don't like it, you're not going to respond well to the Twins. And though bullying victims may well become sycophants, not all of us bleeding hearts can sympathise with them. > First, is there anything wrong with JKR showing her characters > engaging in the various crimes against humanity which she is > regularly accused of? What I can't understand is that the logical > extension of all these arguments is that all books should only be > written from a particular POV [fill in the one you approve of]. In > particular, children's lit, or any books involving children should > only be filled with squeaky clean role models, sanitised to a point > of absurdity, in order to cause no global cultural offence. That's a big difference between the Bully thread and current discussions. Most of the posters at the time (not all) understood the difference between arguing whether F&G were bullies and arguing whether JKR should have put bullies into the books at all. Sean: > 42701-42800 > scratch that batch :) > > Talisman, you're a bad influence: 32 rejects in this lot :) Some sorry > theorising here, a LOT of carry-on about US vs. British editions. Some > interesting thoughts about DADA: why exactly was Voldy so feared? Because DADA > wasn't on the curriculum? Quite a lot about wand symbolism (and an awful lot > of Listees got that wrong). Much ado about Moody!Crouch (he really is a > character in his own right) and magical eyeballs. Why Hermionie doesn't > deserve friends (but Draco isn't Mr. Popular either). And a few FILKS, my > favourite being #42792. Not enough G&S FILKS for my liking :) Having coded the 43000s for the old catalogue (yes, I have a perverse liking for punishment of all sorts), I am avoiding these posts like the plague. Aside from the bully thread, which was an interesting read even if it degenerated into too much recounting of personal trauma, I recall a great deal of tedium. Fortunately, the 43000s should be divvied up by the time I get done with my current allotment. Sean: > I *have* to mention this: funniest FILK yet, #43517: Skip to the Loo with > Harry. A litmus test for humour... Oh, yes! Forgot this one . . . there are consolations even in the most desultory of list times. Debbie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From quigonginger at yahoo.com Wed Mar 23 14:44:14 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:44:14 -0000 Subject: Put another batch on the fire In-Reply-To: <20050323074202.GC24172@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: Sean: Not enough G&S FILKS for my liking :) Ginger: Have you been to the filk site lately? That sound you hear is me tooting my own horn. There is now a master index by title of original tune. There's a ton of G&S there, including a downright hilarious Sorting Hat Song under I am the Very Model of a Modern Major General. Check it out! "Time in a Bottle" and "It's about Time" have not been filked yet, although I was sure I remembered the latter. Must be an intelectual interlude. Since there are a lot of smart people here, I'll pass on this joke: Two philosophy professors meet at a nudist colony. "Tell me," said the first, "have you read Marx?" "Why, yes," replied the second, "I believe it's the wicker chairs." Ginger, killing time waiting for the chiropractor appt. (and, yes, reading her TT posts) From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Mar 23 19:15:51 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:15:51 -0000 Subject: Bloated Characters Was:Re: Choc.. and more choc, wow... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > Carolyn: > It's ok, you can un-sign up you know...I have not signed up for more > myself until I finish Voldemort, which is a giant section with nearly > 2000 posts. Or I might pick off little sections to do in between > sorting it out, for light relief. And I will probably start doing > some coding too in between. I think they call it multi-tasking. > Anne: And I see Talisman has Snape while I'm doing Harry -- each of these over 2000. I thought it might be useful to compare strategies for sorting these. As my memory is very foggy generally, I have actually been keeping lists of particular posts under specific headers (call them proto-subcategories) such as "H & Dursleys," "H vs. LV," "Lily's sac./Blood prot.," "Magical talent/training," etc., etc. Every time a new subject comes up, I add a new proto-category. I have notebook paper spread all over as I do this, and I am putting every post somewhere (including a reject cat., naturally). The goal is to be able to look at these at the end, or after "enough" posts have been gone through, to be able to sythesize these into a reasonable number of new subcategories plus a general Harry Potter one, each with definitions. So far, I have been able to list most posts under a discrete proto-subcategory, with a few that would be cross-coded to two of them. It's still fairly early days yet, though, as far as how late I've got to in HPfGU history, so I'm not sure if this will hold up. Any thoughts? Anything you two, Carolyn and Talisman, have come up with that would be helpful? Anne not touching the time-turner subject, as I've officially retired from that debate From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Mar 23 19:57:11 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:57:11 -0000 Subject: Bloated Characters Was:Re: Choc.. and more choc, wow... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" > wrote: > > > Carolyn: I might pick off little sections to do in between > > sorting it out, for light relief. And I will probably start doing > > some coding too in between. I think they call it multi-tasking. > > > > Anne: > And I see Talisman has Snape while I'm doing Harry -- each of these > over 2000. I thought it might be useful to compare strategies for > sorting these. > > So far, I have been able to list most posts under a discrete > proto-subcategory, with a few that would be cross-coded to two of > them. It's still fairly early days yet, though, as far as how late > I've got to in HPfGU history, so I'm not sure if this will hold up. > > Any thoughts? Anything you two, Carolyn and Talisman, have come up > with that would be helpful? > Carolyn: Pretty much the only approach I can think of, as well. The only refinement is that I will probably start to implement the decisions as soon as the categories stabilise, and not wait until I have read all of them. The thought of having to read the entire lot again in order to reject is too much, and if you start to have sections with some clearly defined types of post in them, it's easier to quickly refresh your mind what the distinction's are that you are trying to maintain. But now Kneasy's put up a fascinating post, and I'm torn between answering that and carrying on with this, which since both are about the same topic is an interesting multi-tasking dilemma. From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Mar 23 20:58:30 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:58:30 -0000 Subject: Bloated Characters Was:Re: Choc.. and more choc, wow... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carolyn: > Pretty much the only approach I can think of, as well. The only > refinement is that I will probably start to implement the decisions > as soon as the categories stabilise, and not wait until I have read > all of them. The thought of having to read the entire lot again in > order to reject is too much, and if you start to have sections with > some clearly defined types of post in them, it's easier to quickly > refresh your mind what the distinction's are that you are trying to > maintain. Anne: I don't think I'll have to read through them again, as I'm reading them pretty carefully the first time, and my categories are very specific. As I have each listed by post number, all I'll have to do is bring each up and recode without rereading, as soon as I've decided how to meld them into their final categories. > But now Kneasy's put up a fascinating post, and I'm torn between > answering that and carrying on with this, which since both are about > the same topic is an interesting multi-tasking dilemma. I started that one, but realised I don't have time to do it justice yet. Besides, there's a mail from Talisman I need to answer... Maybe tonight. I'm really missing HPfGU, though -- it can be sooo much fun to be the fox among the chickens... Anne From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Thu Mar 24 00:49:18 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:49:18 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Put another batch on the fire In-Reply-To: References: <20050323074202.GC24172@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: <20050324004918.GA987@aardvark.net.au> On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 02:44:14PM -0000, quigonginger wrote: > Since there are a lot of smart people here, I'll pass on this joke: > > Two philosophy professors meet at a nudist colony. > "Tell me," said the first, "have you read Marx?" > "Why, yes," replied the second, "I believe it's the wicker chairs." Why isn't there an Unforgivable Curse for bad jokes? :) Reverting to the topic of readers vs. authors, #43502 is a nice summary of many feelings I suspect. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Thu Mar 24 12:40:23 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:40:23 +1100 Subject: sing ho Message-ID: <20050324124023.GA20218@aardvark.net.au> 43501-43600 done. 39 rejects. One massive thread predicting Harry will become some kind of phoenix to be reborn after killing Voldemort so Ron and Hermione can bring him up as their kid (erghhh). Another long and extremely tiresome thread about "how" Riddle knew he was Heir of Slytherin and associated subject of whether Harry "is" Heir of Gryffindor as if I care. Another big thread about the exact curriculum of Hogwarts ho hum. Associated subject about where little wizards/wizardettes go before Hogwarts, IMHO completely ignoring the fact even in the Muggle world, 12 years of school is a comparatively new invention. There's a lot of stuff like this on which canon is completely, and probably permanently, silent and for good reason. Tolkien never got anything done trying to resolve the big picture LotR had changed, and I don't think JKR needs the same hassle. Stupid arguments about where Snape's office is, really stupid arguments about Hermione's placement into Gryffindor, and infuriating whinges about how unappealing JKR's world is compared to the Greats. I may have to hunt some of these people down and shoot them before book 6 comes out. wearily yours, the savage old penguin. PS yay kneasy, sic 'em. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Mar 24 15:12:11 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:12:11 -0000 Subject: Cockroach clusters.. Message-ID: Dot, did you know the cockroach clusters came from a Monty Python sketch?? I'd missed that - see this message: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/126528 Talking of comedy routines, you need some more posts Penguin? ......43601-43700 Carolyn From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Thu Mar 24 16:42:14 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:42:14 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Cockroach clusters.. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050324164214.GA26879@aardvark.net.au> On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:12:11PM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > > > Dot, did you know the cockroach clusters came from a Monty Python > sketch?? I'd missed that - see this message: > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/126528 Sadly, I immediately recognised this in the text. Even more sadly, I have the two definitive volumes of the Monty Python shows and can zero in on such references. Coincidentally, the Spanish Inquisition has just been voted the best Monty Python sketch by American Entertainment Weekly because it was "unforgettable for one reason: torture by kitchen drying rack, and Michael Palin's inability to count...two! Two reasons." > Talking of comedy routines, you need some more posts Penguin? > > ......43601-43700 And this is where the story REALLY starts, folks: an appropriate excerpt from the Goons - SEAGOON: Well done. Now tell me, what do you call those little black and white creatures in the penguin pool? WILLIUM: Well, I call that one Jim, that one's Terrance and that's Penelope over there. SEAGOON: What do you call that one sitting at the piano? WILLIUM: I call him a pianist, mate. SEAGOON: Don't tell me that penguin plays the piano! WILLIUM: Well, I ...er ... GRAMS: PENGUIN VOCAL WITH PIANO ACCOMPANIMENT SEAGOON: Good heavens! And he sings as well. WILLIUM: Yes. And them's all his own words too you know. SEAGOON: Dear listeners, I realised that the great crowd was due to this piano playing penguin. If I could get him on the stage I'd make a fortune. GREENSLADE: Immediately Seagoon went to a nearby house and put up a brass plate inscribed 'Curator of Birds - Inquire within.' FX: Quick knock. Door opens. SPRIGGS: Good morning. Come in. Come i-innnn. SEAGOON: I want to buy a penguin. SPRIGGS: You look like the type. But only one penguin? I'm afraid, I'm afra-aaaid we only sell them wholesale. SEAGOON: Alright then, I'll buy one wholesale. How much are they? SPRIGGS: How much are they? How much are the-eeeey! I'll just look in this catalogue. SEAGOON: I don't want a cat, I want a penguin. Look in the penguin log. SPRIGGS: It's a lie. I didn't write that one. Nevertheless I shall look in this penguin log. (sings) Hahahahaa! Hoawaoaoaoaw! Here we are. Here we ar-rrreeee! SEAGOON: You found it? SPRIGGS: No. I was just telling you where we were. SEAGOON: Thank heavens. I can throw away this map of China. SPRIGGS: I'll just make out this bill of sale. How do you spell penguin? SEAGOON: PEE - EN - guin. SPRIGGS: How do you pronounce it? SEAGOON: P - E - N - G - U - I - N. SPRIGGS: Thank you. Let me see now, I'll just write that down. E - Z - L - X - Q. Drat this pen, it can't spell! SEAGOON: Wait a minute. Perhaps it's the ink that can't spell. Let me taste it. SPRIGGS: Right-o Jim. SEAGOON: (Tasting) P - E - N - G ... No, no. This ink's alright. SPRIGGS: Thank you. Now then, here's the one Jim. The name's Tom, Tom Penguin. Pianoforte and penguin vocalist. (Sings) Melody divine he sings. SEAGOON: That's him. How much? SPRIGGS: How much? Twenty pounds sterling. SEAGOON: That's expensive for a second hand penguin. SPRIGGS: Ah, but he's just been done up. SEAGOON: Who by? SPRIGGS: The husband of the penguin he's been carrying on with. And there's more where that came from! -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Mar 24 17:23:17 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:23:17 -0000 Subject: Cockroach clusters.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > Dot, did you know the cockroach clusters came from a Monty Python > sketch?? I'd missed that - see this message: > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/126528 > > Talking of comedy routines, you need some more posts Penguin? > > ......43601-43700 > > Carolyn Ah yes, it's an old favourite - Crunchy Frog and Anthrax Ripple. Speaking of which, does Potioncat Kathy *really* want to know about British cockroaches? I could go on at some length... Glad to know I'm not alone in the Tom Baker thing, it's that voice, isn't it... and (politely ignoring Sean) I think he's *magnificent* in Monarch of the Glen, though I don't watch it. And do you remember him as Puddleglum in The Silver Chair? All that bobbance and bounce. Eccentricity is hugely undervalued. By the way, someone's finally given me a deadline, so I'm swamped at the moment and can't do anything on the catalogue. Will have a week or so off at the beginning of April, and promise to knuckle down and do lots then. Dot And thanks for that link, I thoroughly enjoyed "Mending Androids". ("Do you mind not standing on my chest, my hat's on fire...") Although the trailers for the new series got me a bit overexcited and I had to go and have a lie down. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Mar 24 17:48:58 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:48:58 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Cockroach clusters.. References: Message-ID: Dot asked: > Ah yes, it's an old favourite - Crunchy Frog and Anthrax Ripple. > Speaking of which, does Potioncat Kathy *really* want to know about > British cockroaches? I could go on at some length... Potioncat: Actually, when I was first forming my SICK theory (Snape Is Cockroach King) I researched cockroaches. My Alma Mater, sorry/proud to say, has a website dedicated to the critters. At any rate, they sound very much like our dear potion master, except they don't like the cold....or maybe that was just South Carolina Cockroaches. BTW, Dot, I haven't forgotten the meal worms. Our teachers are on spring break and of course my kids don't have a clue what their official name is! Kathy W. who did eat a bug once at a museum exhibit, and would have preferred some chocolate around it. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Mar 24 19:49:53 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:49:53 -0000 Subject: Cockroach clusters.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Potioncat: > Actually, when I was first forming my SICK theory (Snape Is > Cockroach King) I researched cockroaches. My Alma Mater, > sorry/proud to say, has a website dedicated to the critters. At > any rate, they sound very much like our dear potion master, except > they don't like the cold....or maybe that was just South Carolina > Cockroaches. > Aha, an expert! In that case, I'll just say that we only have a handful of native species in the genus Ectobius, which are unassuming pretty little things, mostly frequenting leaf litter. There are (I think) 4 species of introduced cockroaches**, which are the ones responsible for infestations, and I'm not sure that they can survive British winters, which is why they like warm dirty kitchens so much. Don't think infestations are that common (pest control's not my thing), though at the museum I used to work in the occasional escapee from our live exhibits used to put the wind up the catering staff a treat. > BTW, Dot, I haven't forgotten the meal worms. Our teachers are on > spring break and of course my kids don't have a clue what their > official name is! I wait with bated breath... > > Kathy W. who did eat a bug once at a museum exhibit, and would > have preferred some chocolate around it. My ex-boss was, for some reason, invited onto a daytime TV show to cook various insects, and did some crunchy mealworms dipped in chocolate. Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to try them. Dot **In case you care: Periplaneta americana (which is really from Africa), P. australasiae (which is also really from Africa), Blatta orientalis (which is probably really from Africa) and Blatella germanica (which is probably really from North Africa). There's also an introduced Supella species, but I don't think that does infestin'. From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Fri Mar 25 12:42:26 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:42:26 +1100 Subject: A Code Too Far Message-ID: <20050325124226.GA24911@aardvark.net.au> Having shocked the list into silence with my Goon impressions, I give you: 43601-43700 19 rejects This lot had a rash of FILKS, my favourite being #43638, a very funny Grease parody, honourable mention goes to #43693 for It's My Bathroom and I'll Cry If I Want To, that old Moaning Gore classic. Most of the rejects was the by now extremely silly Heir of Slytherin debate. Much of the batch was taken up by the continuing barney over JKR's battery of deux ex machina and the proliferating differences between the editions including differences between two UK editions and the Canadian version! One post #43610 is an amazing prediction of OotP based on the simple premise that all the fortune-telling themes had to add up to something and Voldy saw Harry as a threat by some means of divination. Not bad you say, but there's more, I quote: "I think we will continue to see a recurrence of the theme that the future is shaped by our actions rather than set in stone, which will lead up to Voldemorts critical misreading of the future and his ultimate demise." What do you make of that, Kneasy old chum? Where's everybody gone? -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Mar 25 15:56:04 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:56:04 -0000 Subject: A Code Too Far In-Reply-To: <20050325124226.GA24911@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer wrote: > Having shocked the list into silence with my Goon impressions, I give you: > > 43601-43700 > > 19 rejects > > What do you make of that, Kneasy old chum? > > Where's everybody gone? > Hiya Sean..afraid it's Easter bunny time, kids everywhere, barbies, what have you. With a bit of luck it'll rain... Here's a bigger batch: 43701-44000. But Kneasy's over on TOC, doing what he does best..stirring things up. Why not add your contribution? I'm very conscious that cataloguing distracts people from posting. As the whole point of it all is to help people review old ideas and think of new things, this is a pity.. Carolyn From ewe2 at aardvark.net.au Sat Mar 26 03:02:39 2005 From: ewe2 at aardvark.net.au (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:02:39 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: A Code Too Far In-Reply-To: References: <20050325124226.GA24911@aardvark.net.au> Message-ID: <20050326030239.GB24911@aardvark.net.au> > Here's a bigger batch: 43701-44000. I've done the 700's to the 800's already, but I'll take the others :) > But Kneasy's over on TOC, doing what he does best..stirring things > up. Why not add your contribution? I'm very conscious that > cataloguing distracts people from posting. As the whole point of it > all is to help people review old ideas and think of new things, this > is a pity.. The trouble, is the kind of mental effort it takes to merely survey such majestic theoretical landscapes usually saps me of the ability to think of anything else :) The one thing I want to think about and develop is the likelihood of some things canon will never explain. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Mar 26 09:27:03 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:27:03 -0000 Subject: Yahoo Groups - disaster.. Message-ID: Do you realise that it is no longer possible to search by message number ? I think the result of this must be to move to a new host. It's the final straw. Carolyn From ewetoo at gmail.com Sat Mar 26 10:08:46 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (Sean Dwyer) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:08:46 -0000 Subject: Yahoo Groups - disaster.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > Do you realise that it is no longer possible to search by message > number ? > > I think the result of this must be to move to a new host. It's the > final straw. > > Carolyn Guess we just became the new elite. My guess is they want to sell that as "extra functionality". It's infuriating to see that they're still counting emails while refusing that to members. We have effectively become the gatekeepers for message numbers to HPFGU. Bizarre situation. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sat Mar 26 11:02:02 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:02:02 -0000 Subject: Yahoo Groups - disaster.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: carolyn wrote: > > > > Do you realise that it is no longer possible to search by message > > number ? > > > > I think the result of this must be to move to a new host. It's the > > final straw. > > > > Carolyn > Sean: > Guess we just became the new elite. My guess is they want to sell that > as "extra functionality". It's infuriating to see that they're still > counting emails while refusing that to members. We have effectively > become the gatekeepers for message numbers to HPFGU. Bizarre situation. Christ alive, what bloody use is it if you can't refer message numbers from the catalogue to the main list? Until the catalogue's online nobody will be able to find anything, even Geoff. Dot Swearing and cursing. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sat Mar 26 11:04:10 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:04:10 -0000 Subject: Yahoo Groups - disaster.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > carolyn wrote: > > > > > > Do you realise that it is no longer possible to search by message > > > number ? > > > > > > I think the result of this must be to move to a new host. It's the > > > final straw. > > > > > > Carolyn > > > Sean: > > Guess we just became the new elite. My guess is they want to sell that > > as "extra functionality". It's infuriating to see that they're still > > counting emails while refusing that to members. We have effectively > > become the gatekeepers for message numbers to HPFGU. Bizarre > situation. > > > Christ alive, what bloody use is it if you can't refer message numbers > from the catalogue to the main list? Until the catalogue's online > nobody will be able to find anything, even Geoff. > > Dot > Swearing and cursing. Ah, no, you can type in a message number into the browser bar. Thank *%$? for that! From ewetoo at gmail.com Sat Mar 26 11:46:18 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (ewe2) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 22:46:18 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Yahoo Groups - disaster.. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91d14f320503260346455ebfcc@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:04:10 -0000, dungrollin wrote: > > > --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" > wrote: > > > > carolyn wrote: > > > > > > > > Do you realise that it is no longer possible to search by > message > > > > number ? > > > > > > > > I think the result of this must be to move to a new host. It's > the > > > > final straw. > > > > > > > > Carolyn > > > > > Sean: > > > Guess we just became the new elite. My guess is they want to > sell that > > > as "extra functionality". It's infuriating to see that they're > still > > > counting emails while refusing that to members. We have > effectively > > > become the gatekeepers for message numbers to HPFGU. Bizarre > > situation. > > > > > > Christ alive, what bloody use is it if you can't refer message > numbers > > from the catalogue to the main list? Until the catalogue's online > > nobody will be able to find anything, even Geoff. > > > > Dot > > Swearing and cursing. > > Ah, no, you can type in a message number into the browser bar. > Thank *%$? for that! Not the most intuitive method though. Too bloody lazy to put the javascript in the page no doubt. -- Emacs is an alright OS, but it lacks a decent editor. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Mar 26 12:27:16 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:27:16 -0000 Subject: Yahoo Groups - disaster/averted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > > > > Christ alive, what bloody use is it if you can't refer message > numbers > > from the catalogue to the main list? Until the catalogue's online > > nobody will be able to find anything, even Geoff. > > > > Dot > > Swearing and cursing. > > > Ah, no, you can type in a message number into the browser bar. > Thank *%$? for that! Carolyn: Dot, you VERY smart individual - thankyou for pointing that out. I freely admit I have just spent a couple of hours absolutely fuming with rage. I agree it is a stupid approach, but at least it works for now. But I hope Admin are going to cause the most immense rumpus with Yah groups about all this. And over on TOC, Talisman has just posted the most marvellous response to Neri which has made me whoop with laughter, unrepentently F&G style. As Kneasy once mangled Descartes: 'I think, therefore I theorise'. After a bad start to this weekend, I might carry on after all. Carolyn ..too highly strung and trying to manage too many projects; going to dig the garden. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sat Mar 26 13:19:35 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:19:35 -0000 Subject: Yahoo Groups - disaster/averted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carolyn: I freely admit I have just spent a couple of hours absolutely fuming with rage. I agree it is a stupid approach, but at least it works for now. Dot: Actually, I find fuming with rage to be rather a sensible approach on occasion. I just sent this to Yahoo feedback (typos and all in my furious haste), which was rather therapeutic: Ye Gods, the workings of the Yahoo mind defy logic. The web-access interface was never easy to use, but now that you've done away with displaying the message numbers next to the subject heading it's blisteringly painful to find anything in a group's archives. The deplorable inadequacies of the Yahoo 'search feature' are legend, of course. But now you've even succeeded in making it *more* difficult for those of us who go to the lengths of keeping a written record of post numbers of interest. We have to fiddle around with the URL to get where we want to go, and we can't tell whereabouts in the archives we are unless we open a message and check the message number in the URL. And now clicking `next' (a function which is now delightfully well-hidden at the bottom of the page) takes you to the previously numbered message, and clicking `previous' takes you to the next numbered message. Where are your brains? 'Counterintuitive' doesn't go quite far enough - 'bloody idiotic' is a far better description. I cannot stress enough how appallingly dreadful I find the new format, and (though I never *ever* thought I'd see myself typing this) how delighted I would be to return to the old system. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Mar 26 14:39:57 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:39:57 -0000 Subject: Tine question Message-ID: Hi all, Ginger here, back after a bit of an absence. Fell on the ice, landed on my buttocks, threw out my back and hip. I'm walking upright and can sit in the computer chair again. I won't lie and say I didn't enjoy a couple of days lounging in the recliner rather than working. On to the time question: There's "time turner" and "time travel". Time turner contains post about the functioning of the time turner itself. Time travel contains posts about various theories scientists and authors have used. So far, so good. My problem is that both contain posts on the events of Harry and Herm's time travel adventure. Both contain the various explanations on how Harry could save himself. Both contain discussions on whether or not Herm has aged. As far as I have seen, none are crosscoded to each other. This leads me to believe that we have different expectations. The "time travel" category has a vague definition, and the "time turner" category has none. Since I can't sit comfortably for any long periods of time yet (next week- keep fingers crossed), this seems like a good time to poll the group to see which sections people feel these posts belong in before I do any major work here. Or do we need a third category called H/H/H/H's great adventure? Just kidding on the title. I have found time-turning very useful in navigating the new set-up on the site. Just go back in time to when each post was posted, and keep reading the first one. Other than that, it's a bit of a challenge. At least it hasn't effected out coding tool (that I can tell). Ginger, off to recline and down pain pills. Blessed Easter to all who are celebrating. From ewetoo at gmail.com Sat Mar 26 15:08:00 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (ewe2) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 02:08:00 +1100 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Tine question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91d14f3205032607082d2be45d@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:39:57 -0000, quigonginger wrote: > > > Hi all, Ginger here, back after a bit of an absence. Fell on the > ice, landed on my buttocks, threw out my back and hip. I'm walking > upright and can sit in the computer chair again. I won't lie and say > I didn't enjoy a couple of days lounging in the recliner rather than > working. Ouch. And such good timing for the Easter break too :( Will attach panadeine fortes and best wishes for recovery! > > On to the time question: > > There's "time turner" and "time travel". Time turner contains post > about the functioning of the time turner itself. Time travel > contains posts about various theories scientists and authors have > used. So far, so good. > > My problem is that both contain posts on the events of Harry and > Herm's time travel adventure. Both contain the various explanations > on how Harry could save himself. Both contain discussions on whether > or not Herm has aged. As far as I have seen, none are crosscoded to > each other. This leads me to believe that we have different > expectations. The "time travel" category has a vague definition, and > the "time turner" category has none. Yes I found these posts annoying for the same reasons. My feeling is that the time travel-based posts really belong in 1.2.3.5 (science fiction) and/or 3.8.7 and the time-turner posts belong in 3.8.7.1 and anything straying beyond those boundaries should be viciously put down. Too much of the discussion is extra-canon, and too vague to fit in the category meant for it. Even 1.2.3.7 (classic plot devices) is closer to the spirit of many posts. I hate the time turner, always a bit too obvious for me. > Or do we need a third category called H/H/H/H's great adventure? > Just kidding on the title. A Millienium with Me by Gilderoy Lockhart (snigger). > I have found time-turning very useful in navigating the new set-up on > the site. Just go back in time to when each post was posted, and > keep reading the first one. Other than that, it's a bit of a > challenge. At least it hasn't effected out coding tool (that I can > tell). Bat-bogey hex is too good for 'em. -- Emacs is an alright OS, but it lacks a decent editor. From kakearney at comcast.net Sat Mar 26 16:59:38 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:59:38 -0000 Subject: Ti[m]e question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ginger: > There's "time turner" and "time travel". Time turner contains post > about the functioning of the time turner itself. Time travel > contains posts about various theories scientists and authors have > used. So far, so good. > > My problem is that both contain posts on the events of Harry and > Herm's time travel adventure. Both contain the various explanations > on how Harry could save himself. Both contain discussions on whether > or not Herm has aged. As far as I have seen, none are crosscoded to > each other. This leads me to believe that we have different > expectations. The "time travel" category has a vague definition, and > the "time turner" category has none. I'm one of the strange people who actually enjoy the time travel debate, and thoroghly disagree that these posts should be shunted under science fiction or the like. However, I agree that perhaps the Time turner and Time travel categories should be combined into one, since they almost always overlap. Perhaps time turner can be a subcategory of time travel, and be used for those posts that discuss the legality of time turners, how common they are, who knew Hermione had one, etc. All the arguments over the logistics of Harry saving himself, and other discussion of H/H/H/H's adventure (I rather like that title :) ) would go under the main time travel heading. Just my two cents. -Kelly, visiting her sister at the moment. Will be back to reviewing Hogwarts categories when I return. And there just isn't a word to express how bad this new Yahoo format is. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Mar 26 17:15:44 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:15:44 -0000 Subject: Some very interesting software - Paul, do you know it?? Message-ID: Dina just posted this link on OTC. Looks very useful, if it works. He's issued a patch already today to cope with this format change. http://www.pgoffline.com Carolyn From paul-groups at wibbles.org Sun Mar 27 05:39:17 2005 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 23:39:17 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Some very interesting software - Paul, do you know it?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No, but I'll have to similarly patch my archive software. On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:15:44 -0000, carolynwhite2 wrote: > > Dina just posted this link on OTC. Looks very useful, if it works. He's > issued a patch already today to cope with this format change. > > http://www.pgoffline.com > > Carolyn > > > > > 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 paul-groups at wibbles.org Sun Mar 27 06:23:54 2005 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:23:54 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Some very interesting software - Paul, do you know it?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I lucked out. My archiver is fine with the format. My internal archive will be current by morning. On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 23:39:17 -0600, Paul Kippes wrote: > No, but I'll have to similarly patch my archive software. > > > On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:15:44 -0000, carolynwhite2 wrote: > > > > Dina just posted this link on OTC. Looks very useful, if it works. He's > > issued a patch already today to cope with this format change. > > > > http://www.pgoffline.com > > > > Carolyn > > > > > > > > > > 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 kking0731 at gmail.com Sun Mar 27 07:08:46 2005 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 07:08:46 -0000 Subject: Yahoo Groups - disaster/averted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I was screaming at my husband last night that my pc was malfunctioning somehow due to his networking system, which he assured me was a new format from Yahoo. I couldn't possibly fathom such a severe change in format without notice and assured him that it was the pc or his network, which of course I had to admit the inevitable that is Yahoo. To what advantage is this new format? None that I can comprehend, at least at the moment, especially concidering cateloguing. Snow-- Perplexed --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > > > Carolyn: > I freely admit I have just spent a couple of hours absolutely > fuming with rage. I agree it is a stupid approach, but at least it > works for now. > > Dot: > Actually, I find fuming with rage to be rather a sensible approach > on occasion. I just sent this to Yahoo feedback (typos and all in > my furious haste), which was rather therapeutic: > > Ye Gods, the workings of the Yahoo mind defy logic. The web-access > interface was never easy to use, but now that you've done away with > displaying the message numbers next to the subject heading it's > blisteringly painful to find anything in a group's archives. > > The deplorable inadequacies of the Yahoo 'search feature' are > legend, of course. But now you've even succeeded in making it *more* > difficult for those of us who go to the lengths of keeping a written > record of post numbers of interest. We have to fiddle around with > the URL to get where we want to go, and we can't tell whereabouts in > the archives we are unless we open a message and check the message > number in the URL. And now clicking `next' (a function which is now > delightfully well-hidden at the bottom of the page) takes you to the > previously numbered message, and clicking `previous' takes you to > the next numbered message. Where are your > brains? 'Counterintuitive' doesn't go quite far enough - 'bloody > idiotic' is a far better description. > > I cannot stress enough how appallingly dreadful I find the new > format, and (though I never *ever* thought I'd see myself typing > this) how delighted I would be to return to the old system. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Mar 27 17:55:29 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:55:29 -0000 Subject: UPDATE, Easter Sunday, March 27th Message-ID: PROGRESS As of today, we have coded 50121 posts, and rejected 27811 of them (55.4%). That's 615 posts during the course of the week, with only 3 people coding. We've only managed one more review section - now 44 out of 105 sections are done. Hopefully more of us will be back on the case after the Easter break, and after we've got used to the ghastliness of the new design. I have just tried to use it to scroll through the messages since last Sunday, and found the further problem that when you click to 'Expand messages', none of the posts have their numbers showing, so you can't even jot them down as you work through. Really, the whole thing is totally appalling. However, I have now updated the three main definitions files with this week's review discussions, if anyone wants to refer to them. NEW MEMBER Pleased to welcome Magda Grantwich, who joined during the week and is taking a look round. Carolyn From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Mar 27 19:52:55 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:52:55 -0000 Subject: UPDATE, Easter Sunday, March 27th In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > I have > just tried to use it to scroll through the messages since last > Sunday, and found the further problem that when you click to 'Expand > messages', none of the posts have their numbers showing, so you can't > even jot them down as you work through. Really, the whole thing is > totally appalling. You do have the same Mickey-Mouse solution as in the regular Message Index listing, though: if you hold your mouse over the subject line of a message, the number shows up in that, I don't know what it's called, status bar at the bottom of the screen. The message number is slighty more buried, but it's still nearly at the end. Your message, number 1647, that I'm replying to shows up down there like so: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/messages/1647?expand=1 message number is here:----------------------------------^ > NEW MEMBER > Pleased to welcome Magda Grantwich, who joined during the week and is > taking a look round. Hi, Magda! *waves* Anne online on Easter Sunday because I'm home with daughter who's not feeling well -- she's asleep, and it's so nice and quiet. From ewetoo at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 05:30:13 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (ewe2) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:30:13 +1000 Subject: Funny Potter pic in Files. Message-ID: <91d14f32050327213052d6c12d@mail.gmail.com> It's unusual for me to post frivilous pictures to ANY forum so I beg forgiveness if this irritates anyone. This is literally around the corner from me, and I'm ashamed to say I burst out laughing in the street when I saw it (then rushed home to get my camera for a picture). I have no idea who did this, but someone has been drawing "abby" and "harry" on everything on a few blocks down from me, so I assume drunk kids in love who are HP fans. I need to cheer up, my favourite drummer killed himself today. -- Emacs is an alright OS, but it lacks a decent editor. From HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com Mon Mar 28 05:30:48 2005 From: HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com) Date: 28 Mar 2005 05:30:48 -0000 Subject: New file uploaded to HPFGU-Catalogue Message-ID: <1111987848.103781.59035.w121@yahoogroups.com> Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the HPFGU-Catalogue group. File : /potterjuice-small.jpg Uploaded by : ewe2_au Description : Go further with Potterjuice[tm] You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/files/potterjuice-small.jpg To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, ewe2_au From paul-groups at wibbles.org Mon Mar 28 06:52:58 2005 From: paul-groups at wibbles.org (Paul Kippes) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:52:58 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Funny Potter pic in Files. In-Reply-To: <91d14f32050327213052d6c12d@mail.gmail.com> References: <91d14f32050327213052d6c12d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: That's funny. The "flying red horse" company was once based here in Dallas. The horse was donated to the city, but I don't know if it was taken down or not. But here is a picture of it on the original building: http://www.dallassky.com/wpe4.jpg On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:30:13 +1000, ewe2 wrote: > It's unusual for me to post frivilous pictures to ANY forum so I beg > forgiveness if this irritates anyone. This is literally around the > corner from me, and I'm ashamed to say I burst out laughing in the > street when I saw it (then rushed home to get my camera for a > picture). I have no idea who did this, but someone has been drawing > "abby" and "harry" on everything on a few blocks down from me, so I > assume drunk kids in love who are HP fans. > > I need to cheer up, my favourite drummer killed himself today. > -- > Emacs is an alright OS, but it lacks a decent editor. > > 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 ewetoo at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 07:22:20 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (ewe2) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:22:20 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Funny Potter pic in Files. In-Reply-To: References: <91d14f32050327213052d6c12d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <91d14f3205032723223555ad89@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:52:58 -0600, Paul Kippes wrote: > > That's funny. The "flying red horse" company was once based here in > Dallas. The horse was donated to the city, but I don't know if it was > taken down or not. But here is a picture of it on the original > building: > > http://www.dallassky.com/wpe4.jpg Isn't it the symbol of Standard Oil? The picture is from a Mobil service station, believe it or not. I tell people that and I get funny looks :) -- Emacs is an alright OS, but it lacks a decent editor. From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Mar 28 14:41:52 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:41:52 -0000 Subject: Funny Potter pic in Files. In-Reply-To: <91d14f3205032723223555ad89@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, ewe2 wrote: > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:52:58 -0600, Paul Kippes wrote: > > > > That's funny. The "flying red horse" company was once based here in > > Dallas. The horse was donated to the city, but I don't know if it was > > taken down or not. But here is a picture of it on the original > > building: > > > > http://www.dallassky.com/wpe4.jpg > > Isn't it the symbol of Standard Oil? The picture is from a Mobil > service station, believe it or not. I tell people that and I get > funny looks :) > Sounds about right. Those old oil companies have been sold and resold so often, I forget what they were, and their logos. Let's see... Standard Oil ---> Esso (from S.O.) --> Exxon --> Mobil There was one with a dinosaur logo... was that Sinclair? That's long gone. Anyway, thanks for the pic -- I laughed, too! Anne From ewetoo at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 14:55:26 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (ewe2) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:55:26 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Funny Potter pic in Files. In-Reply-To: References: <91d14f3205032723223555ad89@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <91d14f3205032806557ae8ca40@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:41:52 -0000, annemehr wrote: > Sounds about right. Those old oil companies have been sold and resold > so often, I forget what they were, and their logos. > > Let's see... Standard Oil ---> Esso (from S.O.) --> Exxon --> Mobil I'm sure there's many more, I remember doing it in Modern History (last Ice Age) and I had a scary list. Don't forget the red torch symbol - that's an S.O. logo also. Do the "baby Bells" have a similar link? > There was one with a dinosaur logo... was that Sinclair? That's long > gone. Must be, I've never heard of it. > Anyway, thanks for the pic -- I laughed, too! Fantastic :) And there is a weak excuse for a canon link - call it fate, but as I was coding today I came across something about thestrals that had never occurred to me before. So TOC has my latest theory -- Emacs is an alright OS, but it lacks a decent editor. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Mar 28 16:39:23 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:39:23 -0000 Subject: Funny Potter pic in Files. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Sounds about right. Those old oil companies have been sold and resold > so often, I forget what they were, and their logos. > > Let's see... Standard Oil ---> Esso (from S.O.) --> Exxon --> Mobil > > There was one with a dinosaur logo... was that Sinclair? That's long > gone. > > Anyway, thanks for the pic -- I laughed, too! > > Anne Jen: Too funny, Sean! We have an exhibit in our Texas State History museum with all the old oil companies and logos, given the Texas petroleum connection and all that. Anyway, I think the dino *was* Sinclair, and then Fina was another one, but if I remember right they just had the distinctive orange sign with blue lettering. Texaco is still around, but the logo was a big 'T'in a star when it first started out. And the flying red horse was definitely Mobil--are you saying you still have Mobil stations in Australia, Sean? We don't have them around here anymore. Next time I visit I'll pay closer attention. Jen, fascinated by this because her grandfather ran a Texaco station way back when, and she spent many an idyllic afternoon getting free sodas and watching guys give people *full* service fill-ups with window washing, courtesy oil & tire checks and all the rest. From ewetoo at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 16:59:33 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (ewe2) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 02:59:33 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Funny Potter pic in Files. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91d14f3205032808593c89bf67@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:39:23 -0000, Jen Reese wrote: > Jen: Too funny, Sean! We have an exhibit in our Texas State History > museum with all the old oil companies and logos, given the Texas > petroleum connection and all that. Anyway, I think the dino *was* > Sinclair, and then Fina was another one, but if I remember right they > just had the distinctive orange sign with blue lettering. Texaco is > still around, but the logo was a big 'T'in a star when it first > started out. And the flying red horse was definitely Mobil--are you > saying you still have Mobil stations in Australia, Sean? We don't have > them around here anymore. We've had Mobil here for years, but the station around the corner from me is owned by a regional subsiduary which in turn answers to scary men in black suits and sunglasses from America, so I guess that answers the question :) I forgot about Texaco, that' s another one. > Jen, fascinated by this because her grandfather ran a Texaco station > way back when, and she spent many an idyllic afternoon getting free > sodas and watching guys give people *full* service fill-ups with > window washing, courtesy oil & tire checks and all the rest. Ah the days when we were kids and people had real jobs. -- Emacs is an alright OS, but it lacks a decent editor. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Mar 28 17:15:34 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:15:34 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Funny Potter pic in Files. References: Message-ID: Does anyone remember Earl Sinclair from "Dinosaur" (I think it was) a sitcom based on dinosaurs. (Sinclair from the oil company, earl from one mis-pronunciation of oil) We have Mobil stations on the East coast of the US. I really will resume catalogue duties tomorrow. KathyW. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jen Reese" To: Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 11:39 AM Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Funny Potter pic in Files. > > > Sounds about right. Those old oil companies have been sold and > resold > > so often, I forget what they were, and their logos. > > > > Let's see... Standard Oil ---> Esso (from S.O.) --> Exxon --> Mobil > > > > There was one with a dinosaur logo... was that Sinclair? That's long > > gone. > > > > Anyway, thanks for the pic -- I laughed, too! > > > > Anne > > > Jen: Too funny, Sean! We have an exhibit in our Texas State History > museum with all the old oil companies and logos, given the Texas > petroleum connection and all that. Anyway, I think the dino *was* > Sinclair, and then Fina was another one, but if I remember right they > just had the distinctive orange sign with blue lettering. Texaco is > still around, but the logo was a big 'T'in a star when it first > started out. And the flying red horse was definitely Mobil--are you > saying you still have Mobil stations in Australia, Sean? We don't have > them around here anymore. > > Next time I visit I'll pay closer attention. > > Jen, fascinated by this because her grandfather ran a Texaco station > way back when, and she spent many an idyllic afternoon getting free > sodas and watching guys give people *full* service fill-ups with > window washing, courtesy oil & tire checks and all the rest. > > > > > 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. > > From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Mar 29 09:01:32 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:01:32 -0000 Subject: Aha! Message-ID: Message number search has been re-instated, as have message numbers on the listing of posts, plus they have fixed the 'Next' and 'Previous' buttons. Perhaps the one or two messages we sent got through to them (hopefully thousands and thousands worldwide). Carolyn PS Sorry I haven't been around - been digging the wonderful spring garden (good if you are fuming, also recommend putting stuff through the shredder for compost; highly therapeutic). Back to Voldemort today. From ewetoo at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 11:59:05 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (Sean Dwyer) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:59:05 +1000 Subject: testing something Message-ID: <20050329115905.GB8303@gmail.com> excuse this. just trying to configure my all-singing, all-dancing gmail account :) -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From ewetoo at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 12:08:43 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (ewe2) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:08:43 +1000 Subject: another test Message-ID: <20050329120843.GA9830@gmail.com> stupid email client, stop changing my name! -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From ewetoo at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 12:42:29 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (ewe2) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:42:29 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Aha! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050329124229.GA9955@gmail.com> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 09:01:32AM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > > > Message number search has been re-instated, as have message numbers on > the listing of posts, plus they have fixed the 'Next' and 'Previous' > buttons. > > Perhaps the one or two messages we sent got through to them (hopefully > thousands and thousands worldwide). Yay, just in time for me to help TOC members with the Lupinlore Manifesto. I think we should demand video proof that he burns them when he doesn't get what he wants. I am *slowly* getting through my batch, there are days when I hate being a carer, and this weekend was four of them. > PS Sorry I haven't been around - been digging the wonderful spring > garden (good if you are fuming, also recommend putting stuff through > the shredder for compost; highly therapeutic). Back to Voldemort today. I love to lop branches, there's something symbolic about it. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Mar 29 16:56:42 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:56:42 -0000 Subject: Aha! In-Reply-To: <20050329124229.GA9955@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dean: > Yay, just in time for me to help TOC members with the Lupinlore > Manifesto. I think we should demand video proof that he burns them > when he doesn't get what he wants. I am *slowly* getting through my > batch, there are days when I hate being a carer, and this weekend > was four of them. Jen: If you need any help I made a list for Admin of *11* posts, yes that's right, 11 Lupinlore posts in a one-week period that said almost *exactly the same thing* in each one. No additions, no subtractions, and a fair few held the sweet promise of book burning and/or dumping if no apology was issued. He's such a tease. So while the rest of you were fuming over Yahoo and writing letters to them, I was pestering our overworked Elves for help on the homefront ;). What's a carer btw Sean? You mean for children, older people? Carolyn: > > PS Sorry I haven't been around - been digging the wonderful spring > > garden (good if you are fuming, also recommend putting stuff > > through the shredder for compost; highly therapeutic). Back to > > Voldemort today. Good for you!! Need to get me one of those shredder things for the LL- induced knot in my back. Jen, who is two short chapters away from completing the POA chapter review and will then post a complete chapter-by-chapter suggestion guide for posting to each of the first three books. And then....GOF. From ewetoo at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 16:36:29 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (ewe2) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 02:36:29 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Aha! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050329163629.GB11702@gmail.com> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 09:01:32AM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > > > Message number search has been re-instated, as have message numbers on > the listing of posts, plus they have fixed the 'Next' and 'Previous' > buttons. > > Perhaps the one or two messages we sent got through to them (hopefully > thousands and thousands worldwide). Seems your efforts weren't wasted, either. Have you been back to that blog entry you mentioned? A somewhat chastened blogger wanted to hear back from you. I read that silly Om thing a few days ago, and all I can say is, VC's need to spend money at the moment and I think they're a little over-excited. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From ewetoo at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 16:48:34 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (ewe2) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 02:48:34 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Aha! In-Reply-To: References: <20050329124229.GA9955@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20050329164834.GC11702@gmail.com> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 04:56:42PM -0000, Jen Reese wrote: > > > Dean: > > Yay, just in time for me to help TOC members with the Lupinlore > > Manifesto. I think we should demand video proof that he burns them > > when he doesn't get what he wants. I am *slowly* getting through my > > batch, there are days when I hate being a carer, and this weekend > > was four of them. > > Jen: If you need any help I made a list for Admin of *11* posts, yes > that's right, 11 Lupinlore posts in a one-week period that said almost > *exactly the same thing* in each one. No additions, no subtractions, > and a fair few held the sweet promise of book burning and/or dumping > if no apology was issued. He's such a tease. So while the rest of you > were fuming over Yahoo and writing letters to them, I was pestering > our overworked Elves for help on the homefront ;). It's more serious than I thought then. Just the idea was bizarre to me, but the repetitive nature of his demands is a bit weirder. > What's a carer btw Sean? You mean for children, older people? I'm full-time carer for my landlord. I do most of the housework and help him because he's disabled. The government pays me a pension. Suits everyone really. But it's made me an Internet fiend, to wind down. > Carolyn: > > > PS Sorry I haven't been around - been digging the wonderful spring > > > garden (good if you are fuming, also recommend putting stuff > > > through the shredder for compost; highly therapeutic). Back to > > > Voldemort today. > > Good for you!! Need to get me one of those shredder things for the LL- > induced knot in my back. Repeat after me: "Wizards don't apologize!", that'll make the LL go away :) -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Mar 29 17:55:20 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:55:20 -0000 Subject: Aha! In-Reply-To: <20050329163629.GB11702@gmail.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, ewe2 wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 09:01:32AM -0000, CarolynWhite2 wrote: > > > > > > Message number search has been re-instated, as have message numbers on > > the listing of posts, plus they have fixed the 'Next' and 'Previous' > > buttons. > > > > Perhaps the one or two messages we sent got through to them (hopefully > > thousands and thousands worldwide). > > Seems your efforts weren't wasted, either. Have you been back to that blog > entry you mentioned? A somewhat chastened blogger wanted to hear back from > you. I read that silly Om thing a few days ago, and all I can say is, VC's > need to spend money at the moment and I think they're a little over- excited. > Carolyn: Yep, just did. Responded on his blog, but also offlist to the email address he gave me, and then copied the whole thing to Admin. I spend a lot of my business life giving companies like Yahoo a hard time, so it's satisfying to put it to HP-service. I thought the blog was an absolute classic of its kind - techies completely losing sight of customer requirements. I'm sure they mean well, but they need to visit the coal face once in a while. I am amazed they haven't got a Yah!Groups forum somewhere precisely for people to raise this kind of feedback issue with them. Keeping it at arm's length like this is a real mistake. And well done Jen for getting to grips with the Lupinlore menace. I'm actually not prepared to post on the main list anymore because he wrecks so many threads, and has done so since early last year (using another ID). People like him were exactly what our 'Improving Posting Quality' paper was all about. Don't get me wrong - he is entitled to his opinion, just like anyone else (even Hans), but he should not be allowed act like a troll in the way he does continuously. I would have slapped him back on moderation a long time ago. He creates a terrible example for hangers on to mindlessly agree with, and just makes everyone else totally furious. Carolyn Demonstrating yet again why I wouldn't make a good elf. From kakearney at comcast.net Tue Mar 29 19:24:39 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:24:39 -0000 Subject: Aha! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn: > Yep, just did. Responded on his blog, but also offlist to the email > address he gave me, and then copied the whole thing to Admin. I spend > a lot of my business life giving companies like Yahoo a hard time, so > it's satisfying to put it to HP-service. > > I thought the blog was an absolute classic of its kind - techies > completely losing sight of customer requirements. I'm sure they mean > well, but they need to visit the coal face once in a while. I am > amazed they haven't got a Yah!Groups forum somewhere precisely for > people to raise this kind of feedback issue with them. Keeping it at > arm's length like this is a real mistake. Sorry if I missed the original reference, but do you mind giving a link to this blog? If it contains some sort of explanation for the recent format changes, I'd be interested in reading it. -Kelly From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Tue Mar 29 20:31:59 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:31:59 -0000 Subject: Aha! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "corinthum" wrote: > > Carolyn: > > > Yep, just did. Responded on his blog, but also offlist to the email > > address he gave me, and then copied the whole thing to Admin. I spend > > a lot of my business life giving companies like Yahoo a hard time, so > > it's satisfying to put it to HP-service. > > > > I thought the blog was an absolute classic of its kind - techies > > completely losing sight of customer requirements. I'm sure they mean > > well, but they need to visit the coal face once in a while. I am > > amazed they haven't got a Yah!Groups forum somewhere precisely for > > people to raise this kind of feedback issue with them. Keeping it at > > arm's length like this is a real mistake. > > Sorry if I missed the original reference, but do you mind giving a link > to this blog? If it contains some sort of explanation for the recent > format changes, I'd be interested in reading it. > > -Kelly Sure - it doesn't give any specific explanation for the format changes, but it makes interesting reading. Here's the link: http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/004385.html I originally posted it on OTC, plus the link to investor relations at Yahoo: http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/comment.cfm which I still recommend we use if we get no joy down this route. I can tell you journalists will adore a 'Yahoo upsets 17000 Harry Potter fans' story. Should make the front page of most newspapers and sites in the run up to July 16th. Carolyn From ewetoo at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 01:31:19 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (ewe2) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:31:19 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Aha! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050330013119.GE11702@gmail.com> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 07:24:39PM -0000, corinthum wrote: > Sorry if I missed the original reference, but do you mind giving a link > to this blog? If it contains some sort of explanation for the recent > format changes, I'd be interested in reading it. http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/004385.html check out the comments at the bottom as Carolyn lets rip :) I dunno about a good elf, but she'd make a good Beater :) -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Mar 30 13:20:19 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:20:19 -0000 Subject: Timing Controversies Message-ID: 1.2.9.4 Timing Controversies If set free, I will trim it from 95 to 32. I've continued with the theory that if the post can be coded to the event discussed, the timing code goes. If the post is about the timing issue itself, it stays. A few of these will be re-coded to a backstory code (missing 24 hours) or to characters' ages. Given that several of these time related headings are now pretty slim, we may want to combine sections and re-name the heading. It's taken quite a while to do this, but afterall, the world wasn't made in 7 days! KathyW (not sure which site she's posting on) (and who thinks she should quickly say she believes in Creation and evolution) (and maybe should say her grandfather belonged to the Church of England...) From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Mar 30 15:53:51 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:53:51 -0000 Subject: Timing Controversies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > 1.2.9.4 Timing Controversies > If set free, I will trim it from 95 to 32. I've continued with the > theory that if the post can be coded to the event discussed, the > timing code goes. If the post is about the timing issue itself, it > stays. A few of these will be re-coded to a backstory code (missing 24 > hours) or to characters' ages. > > Given that several of these time related headings are now pretty slim, > we may want to combine sections and re-name the heading. > Carolyn: Sounds fine to me..let me know when/if you want headings changed/deleted. > It's taken quite a while to do this, but afterall, the world wasn't > made in 7 days! > > KathyW (not sure which site she's posting on) > > (and who thinks she should quickly say she believes in Creation and > evolution) > > (and maybe should say her grandfather belonged to the Church of > England...) Hm..the six impossible things before breakfast approach . Each to their own.. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Wed Mar 30 21:44:20 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:44:20 -0000 Subject: Colours on this site... Message-ID: What do we think of the colours on this website? I kind of didn't notice before, but do they need rethinking with this redesign that's been imposed on us? I think it is relatively easy to do ..any suggestions? Carolyn From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Mar 31 05:33:30 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:33:30 -0000 Subject: Colours on this site... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > What do we think of the colours on this website? I kind of didn't > notice before, but do they need rethinking with this redesign that's > been imposed on us? > > I think it is relatively easy to do ..any suggestions? > > Carolyn Something cheery, maybe yellows or greens? Green is supposed to be calming I hear, after all the Yahoo crap. I like the quotes on the front page though, wouldn't change those. I'm about to change the decor at Hog's Head myself and Anne is helping me, so she's the go-to person if you get stuck. Oh, and about my suggested chapter list, you want me to just upload that to the file section as a Word doc? I couldn't see a place to fit it in your current definition list. It will be pretty big with the addition of GOF, when that's complete. But it should be something people can print out and use as they're coding, a quick reference for chapter references. Jen, with no sense of design whatsoever but always free with the opinions ;). From ewetoo at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 05:48:31 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (ewe2) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:48:31 +1000 Subject: coding stuffs Message-ID: <20050331054831.GA26872@gmail.com> 4380-44000 done. 37 rejects. Sorry this was so terribly slow. It's been an eventful week. I'm particularly sorry to have started the ID thing on TOC, I didn't get anything done for 2 days. Not a lot of interest in this batch, mostly threads that were started well before or of marginal interest during. About the only bright spot was the amusing Evil Potter Code (#43880) and of course the Filks. Sean, off to take his chains off. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From pip at etchells0.demon.co.uk Thu Mar 31 08:09:04 2005 From: pip at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:09:04 -0000 Subject: Colours on this site... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" > wrote: > > > > What do we think of the colours on this website? I kind of > > didn't notice before, but do they need rethinking with this > > redesign that's been imposed on us? > > > > I think it is relatively easy to do ..any suggestions? > Jen wrote: > Something cheery, maybe yellows or greens? Green is supposed to be > calming I hear, after all the Yahoo crap. I like the quotes on the > front page though, wouldn't change those. I'm about to change the > decor at Hog's Head myself and Anne is helping me, so she's the go- > to person if you get stuck. > Greens and blues are supposed to be cool and soothing. Yellow is great in real life, but - depending on people's display screens - can be very difficult to read/read text against in the virtual world. But anything would be better than this Yahoo default beige. :-) Pip (sticking her head briefly out of the teacup to make a comment, then diving down back inside for another little snooze ...) From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Mar 31 11:41:29 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:41:29 -0000 Subject: Colours on this site... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" wrote these famous last words: > > > I think it is relatively easy to do ..any suggestions? > > > Jen usefully said: Anne is helping me, so she's the go- > > to person if you get stuck. > > Pip amazingly re-surfaced to say: > Greens and blues are supposed to be cool and soothing. Yellow is > great in real life, but - depending on people's display screens - > can be very difficult to read/read text against in the virtual > world. > > But anything would be better than this Yahoo default beige. :-) > Erm, well...problems so far: 1) There are a limited choice of greens, and I can't alter the typeface colours...and Yahoo insists on making yellow the reverse-out colour for green. Don't know how that works on other people's screens. Shriek if you absolutely hate it. The alternative greens are very livid on my monitor. 2) I accidentally deleted the picture when inspecting that page..all I did was hit cancel, expecting to reverse out of the page without making changes. Hm..have emailed Maria to re-send the pic to me! 3) When you hit 'reply' you get the Yahoo default beige colours whatever you do. Maybe I shouldn't have started this. Anne??? Sean - some more posts: 44101 - 44300 Carolyn Wondering if the big G had the same problems choosing colours with all the stuff he had to get done in 7 days... From ewetoo at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 11:43:09 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (ewe2) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:43:09 +1000 Subject: hurrah Message-ID: <20050331114309.GA16090@gmail.com> Finally got broadband today, after some complicated messing about. This speed is a bit daunting though :) -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Thu Mar 31 13:47:59 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:47:59 -0000 Subject: Time (with the m this time) Message-ID: Well, I whittled the Time-turner part of my section down from 91 to 54 posts. I rejected 20, mostly due to repitition, but a few due to mistakes where the poster misunderstood canon. I didn't want to include these as it might confuse any future readers as much as the posters were. I uncoded Time-turner on 17, mostly because the post was really about something else (MD was a biggie) and not much was said about the TT itself. I will tackle Time travel tonight and then try to figure out a set definition for each category to avoid future confusion. These do overlap a lot. Re: colours. Dark tends to be hard to read for me. Aside from that, I've always been partial to periwinkle. Loquat is nice too. Ginger, who has always been amused by that rule of psychology that states that when a person stands up in a crowded room and announces, "I am a severly mutated fish!" that someone else will immediately rise and respond, "I am an animated dust bunny!" (or vice versa) and each will think the other nuts. I never knew it applied to penguins. From ewetoo at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 14:27:07 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (ewe2) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 00:27:07 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Time (with the m this time) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050331142707.GB16363@gmail.com> On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 01:47:59PM -0000, quigonginger wrote: > Ginger, who has always been amused by that rule of psychology that > states that when a person stands up in a crowded room and > announces, "I am a severly mutated fish!" that someone else will > immediately rise and respond, "I am an animated dust bunny!" (or vice > versa) and each will think the other nuts. I never knew it applied > to penguins. Only to the severely mutated ones. -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From kakearney at comcast.net Thu Mar 31 14:36:24 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:36:24 -0000 Subject: Colours on this site... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pip: > > Greens and blues are supposed to be cool and soothing. Yellow is > > great in real life, but - depending on people's display screens - > > can be very difficult to read/read text against in the virtual > > world. > > > > But anything would be better than this Yahoo default beige. :-) Carolyn: > Erm, well...problems so far: > 1) There are a limited choice of greens, and I can't alter the > typeface colours...and Yahoo insists on making yellow the reverse- out > colour for green. Don't know how that works on other people's > screens. Shriek if you absolutely hate it. The alternative greens are > very livid on my monitor. ... > 3) When you hit 'reply' you get the Yahoo default beige colours > whatever you do. Kelly: Well, I don't get the beige/pink when I hit reply, I keep this new, uh, green? Is this green? I guess it is. I'll refrain from stating an opinion on this color. :) -Kelly, who never realized Pip was a member of this group. How did I miss that? From ewetoo at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 15:13:18 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (ewe2) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 01:13:18 +1000 Subject: entry requirements Message-ID: <20050331151318.GA24643@gmail.com> Um, having trouble getting to the catalogue site since my IP updated, is www.hpfgu.org.uk no longer relevant? -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Mar 31 15:25:41 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:25:41 -0000 Subject: Colours on this site... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Kelly: > > Well, I don't get the beige/pink when I hit reply, I keep this new, > uh, green? Is this green? I guess it is. I'll refrain from stating > an opinion on this color. :) Jen: This lavender is a winner, better than the green :). Did you get this color from the Yahoo custom choices or from another website? Nice. From ewetoo at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 15:44:18 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (ewe2) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 01:44:18 +1000 Subject: whoooo Message-ID: <20050331154418.GB25784@gmail.com> dang! Chris Eccleston has given up being Dr. Who after one season! The good Doctor must be running out of lives... -- When all you have are foxes, everything looks like a henhouse. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Mar 31 15:44:28 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:44:28 -0000 Subject: Colours on this site... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Jen: This lavender is a winner, better than the green :). Did you get > this color from the Yahoo custom choices or from another website? > Nice. Potioncat: I vote for the lavendar as well...unless of course the colour is random, like a box of Every flavour beans... that would be cool too. I'm off now to apply for a position according to the add on the homepage. KathyW (who never could spell in the first place and now doesn't know her American from her British spellings.) From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Thu Mar 31 17:06:05 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:06:05 -0000 Subject: Time, colours, Dr Who, cheese & biscuits Message-ID: Ginger: Well, I whittled the Time-turner part of my section down from 91 to 54 posts. I uncoded Time-turner on 17, I will tackle Time travel tonight and then try to figure out a set definition for each category to avoid future confusion. These do overlap a lot. Carolyn: Great..thanks for plugging away on this one Ginger. ******************* Ginger: Re: colours. Dark tends to be hard to read for me. Aside from that, I've always been partial to periwinkle. Loquat is nice too. Kelly: Well, I don't get the beige/pink when I hit reply, I keep this new, uh, green? Is this green? I guess it is. I'll refrain from stating an opinion on this color. :) Jen: This lavender is a winner, better than the green :). Did you get this color from the Yahoo custom choices or from another website? Nice. Potioncat: I vote for the lavendar as well...unless of course the colour is random, like a box of Every flavour beans... that would be cool too. I'm off now to apply for a position according to the add on the homepage. Carolyn: Well, cool blues seem to have got the vote. The greens were a bit mucky. Yes, it's a custom choice they offer. We could have it all white like the TOC site, though, if you like. Nicked the ad off the Jasper Fforde site - hope they don't notice. ************* Sean: dang! Chris Eccleston has given up being Dr. Who after one season! The good Doctor must be running out of lives... Carolyn: I saw that too. I wasn't overwhelmed after the first episode, to be honest - though, to be fair, it wasn't him so much as the plot. Too much setting the scene, teen girlies etc. Maybe best never to revisit cult series. ********************* -Kelly, who never realized Pip was a member of this group. How did I miss that? Carolyn: She's been curled up in her teacup for nearly a year ...too busy. I regularly refresh the bits of cheese and biscuits to see if she can be enticed out to talk to us.... From kakearney at comcast.net Thu Mar 31 18:13:27 2005 From: kakearney at comcast.net (corinthum) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:13:27 -0000 Subject: 3.6.1 Layout of Hogwarts Review Message-ID: 3.16.1 Review There weren't any big problems in this category, just a few minor adjustments. 3.16.1.1 Bathrooms & loos --------------------------- Originally: 33 Now: 30 New description: Existance and location of bathrooms (general or specific), plumbing and sewage at Hogwarts, discussion of how and when the Chamber of Secrets became connected to Myrtle's bathroom. 3.16.1.2 Room of Requirement ---------------------------- Originally: 15 Now: 17 New description: Predictions for the room JKR would like to visit (which we now know to be the Room of Requirement), discussion of location, magical properties, etc. Side note: At this point there is nothing here except predictions, but I assume discussion will occur after OoP. 3.16.1.3 Library ---------------------------- Originally: 6 Now: 6 New description: Rules, checkout policies, resources available, etc. 3.16.1.4 Hogwarts' defences ---------------------------- Originally: 32 Now: 28 New description: What type of travel is possible into, out of, and within Howarts? How safe is Hogwarts? Discussion of the portkey in the Third Task and wy it was used. Side note: What's up with the backslashes? Seems to be an issue with a lot of apostrophes in the category list (an unnecessary escape character, perhaps?), but it's really going overboard here. :) And not to be a pedant (oh, who am I kidding), but shouldn't it be Hogwarts', not Hogwart's? 3.16.1 Layout of Hogwarts ---------------------------- Originally: 72 Now: 67 Location of various rooms in Hogwarts (unless a subcategory exists for that room), size and layout of the castle and the grounds. Final side note: I've come across post #18792 (Red Flags, Red Herrings) and its replies while reviewing several categories. I personally think it belongs only in 1.2.7.6 Forshadowing, clues, & misdirection, rather than the billion codes it currently holds. It's a list-type post, theorizing what details might be clues, and really doesn't contribute anything substantial to the subcategories discussed. Would anyone be opposed to my changing it as such? And I will leave tou with a priceless quote by Marina that I came across in a post discussing the Slytherin common room decor: 'Great; now I have mental image of Snape sweeping into the staff room crying, "Oh, I just saw the most *marvelous* window treatment!"' -Kelly