Short replies...

[carolynwhite2]

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...