From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Oct 1 17:08:37 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 17:08:37 -0000 Subject: Catalogue Update for MEG, 1st October 2005 Message-ID: Would one of you passing elves pick this up and take over to MEG? ****************************************************************** PROGRESS ON CATALOGUING PROJECT AS AT 1st October 2005 68599 posts catalogued in total 40759 posts rejected in total (59.4%) 79 of 106 sections reviewed In July we reached post 61393 on the main list, the last post before publication of OOP. The whole group then stopped coding and concentrated on reviewing every category within our database. We divided the categories into 106 sections, and have currently completed nearly 75% of the sections. However, there was a long break in activity following publication of HBP in July and the group has only begun to get back to work in September. There are currently 22 people in the group, of which about half are active in reviewing posts. Our two key techies, Paul & Tim, are now free to work on the project, and are undertaking a number of things at the moment: - Paul is moving the catalogue database to a temporary home on a FictionAlley test server, courtesy of Heidi. This is expected to be completed sometime early October. - Paul is considering buying the domain name 'hpfgu.org', as Yahoo has a special offer on at the moment, with a view to using it to host the project, tentative domain address: catalog.hpfgu.org - Tim has a copy of the current database and is working on producing a second/third iteration of the user interface design. -Tim is contacting a colleague who helped with the Accio website, to see if she is interested in helping with web design. As the future of the whole project is completely dependent on these techie initiatives, the group is simply crossing collective fingers and hoping that the work will be completed soon. Our general plan is now as follows: - finish reviews of pre-OOP posts - beta test catalogue interface (when written) with members of catalogue group and HPfGU MEG members - finalise server locations/funding with agreement of MEG - this project requires a heavy-traffic solution; we need to discuss how and who will pay for this - launch this part of catalogue to HPfGU membership - continue working on cataloguing post-OOP posts on a copy of the dbase - intermittantly launching updates of the database to the membership as we complete new sections ******************************************************************* From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sat Oct 1 21:09:35 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 21:09:35 -0000 Subject: 1.1.8 Bravery/courage Message-ID: Um, yes I know I am supposed to be doing other sections, but I just picked up this one because it was, er, short... This is a first half report - 1.1.8.1 Cowardice/fear yet to come. The main issue about this section is that there are virtually no posts on general bravery/courage. Virtually the whole section is about examples of courage from one character or another. All of these posts are cross-coded to their relevant characters, and are often good in-depth ones from Elkins etc. So, the question is, do I leave them cross-coded to here as well as to their own character section? The major characters addressed are Neville, Peter, Harry, Ron,Hermione, Sirius, Snape, Draco and Lupin. Not sure I am advocating sub-sections within this code, so any thoughts? There is some mis-coding which should be under morality to be weeded out. Carolyn From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Oct 3 03:35:14 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 03:35:14 -0000 Subject: Psychological assessments Message-ID: I'm about halfway through this category and want to make sure I'm on the right track. My dilemma is characterization vs. psychological assessments. For example, a post looking at possible motivations for Snape to join the DE's including the Prank, interest in pureblood ideology promoted by LV, etc., I would classify under characterization. If someone were to analyze what we think we know about Snape's childhood, emotional responses to the Marauders, underlying motivations such as jealousy--that I would classify as a psychological assessment. The characterization category has about 20 posts in it, some I moved there from psych assessments. The psych assess category started out with 286. I think it's fair to say characterization is being underused and psych possibly overused (especially when you think of the many Sirius posts we have coming our way post-OOTP ). Please give me input! I want to get finished this week, but need to know if my understanding of these categories fits the group understanding. Jen From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 06:26:28 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 23:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Psychological assessments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051003062628.9119.qmail@web30205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Jen: For example, a post looking at possible motivations for Snape to join the DE's including the Prank, interest in pureblood ideology promoted by LV, etc., I would classify under characterization. If someone were to analyze what we think we know about Snape's childhood, emotional responses to the Marauders, underlying motivations such as jealousy--that I would classify as a psychological assessment. The characterization category has about 20 posts in it, some I moved there from psych assessments. The psych assess category started out with 286. I think it's fair to say characterization is being underused and psych possibly overused (especially when you think of the many Sirius posts we have coming our way post-OOTP ). Ginger's input: When I first started coding, anything that seemed to be related to one's psychological makeup went under psych. Then I realized that about half of what I was coding there would have been better served under characterazation. At that point, I started reserving Psych for posts about actual Psych diagnoses. I could be very wrong about that, so input from others would be welcome from me too. What do others say? Ginger, psych minor, still undecided as to her own sanity. --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 3 12:37:07 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 12:37:07 -0000 Subject: Psychological assessments and Food In-Reply-To: <20051003062628.9119.qmail@web30205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Ginger's input: > > When I first started coding, anything that seemed to be related to one's psychological makeup went under psych. Then I realized that about half of what I was coding there would have been better served under characterazation. At that point, I started reserving Psych for posts about actual Psych diagnoses. I could be very wrong about that, so input from others would be welcome from me too. Kathy W: I thought the psychological assessments was for those posts that ask: Do you think Sirius is depressed? Is Snape/Harry/Trevor suffering from PTSD? or any other such topic. Kneasy maintained those posts said more about the person writing the post than about the character. >Miss H: > After considering it from several angles, Miss H decides to seek > clarification: > > - so, no posts at all about chewing gum or chocolate frogs as food > items? Magical cooking and diet become 3.13.2 and 3.13.3 respectively? Kathy W: Well, that's what I thought we said. Right now there are no posts in Droobles or in Frogs. Do we want to keep them for use only as a discussion of the sweet, or do we want to combine them into Sweets? I'm actually surprised we haven't seen any posts about cockroach clusters or blood lollipops. If we are keeping them, I would change the one to "Chocolate Frogs" rather than "Chocolate Frog Cards". From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Oct 3 13:14:42 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:14:42 -0000 Subject: Psychological assessments In-Reply-To: <20051003062628.9119.qmail@web30205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Ginger's input: > > When I first started coding, anything that seemed to be related to > one's psychological makeup went under psych. Then I realized that > about half of what I was coding there would have been better > served under characterazation. At that point, I started reserving > Psych for posts about actual Psych diagnoses. I could be very > wrong about that, so input from others would be welcome from me > too. Potioncat: > I thought the psychological assessments was for those posts that > ask: Do you think Sirius is depressed? Is Snape/Harry/Trevor > suffering from PTSD? or any other such topic. Jen: I initially thought the same as you guys, keep it for actual psych diagnosis, psychological theory, etc., but started wondering if it would be too narrow. Like I read a post with a really good analysis of Hermione, but no formal terminology, and debated where to put it. If no one objects, though, I'll go with Ginger/Potioncat and stick the bulk of the posts in characterizaltion, leaving only the more formalized posts for psych assessment. > Ginger, psych minor, still undecided as to her own sanity. Jen, doing it for a living and certain hers is on the edge. From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 13:46:17 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:46:17 -0000 Subject: 1.2.6.5 Effect of POV on Narration Message-ID: I wanted to check in the database if this subject (1.2.6.5) had been reviewed yet. Barry's name is there, so I assume he finished it. Anyway, I found this definition: "This will mainly be about Harry's perspective and how that influences our reaction to the text but other character's POV are also discussed. Don't forget to click the character as well." I have amended the definition to make it "Don't forget to click the character as well in cases where it is NOT Harry Potter." Otherwise we have a great deal of redundancy as almost all POV posts are about Harry's POV, and I have been uncoding HP in these *unless* they also contain fresh character analysis of Harry. Which means I've been uncoding most of them. Anne From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 3 13:56:38 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:56:38 -0000 Subject: Clothing 3.11.1 and Uniforms 3.16.09 Message-ID: I've been going though the database and files to tie up any loose ends before starting new categories. The first section was clothing which I had reviewed and uniforms which Ginger did. We had discussed combining WW clothing and Hogwarts Uniforms into one heading. I had to read through it to jog my memory. Here's the last part of discussion: >>>C - I would be happy to move Hogwart's uniforms to be a subset of WW clothing if you like, or even to combine those two if that is the consensus. KathyW: WW Clothes should become WW Clothing and Uniforms don't code here if it's only discussing how a particular person's clothing looks or why Molly gets maroon for Ron. Should be for general clothing.<<< At the moment the two headings still exist. Should I re-code the uniform posts into the clothing heading? And once that is done, Carolyn, could you delete Uniforms 3.16.09 and Rename 3.11.1 to WW Clothing and Uniforms? Kathy W, who studied Psychiatric Nursing but realised it would bring out the worst in her. From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Oct 3 13:57:46 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:57:46 -0000 Subject: Psychological assessments and Food In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Kathy W: > I thought the psychological assessments was for those posts that ask: > Do you think Sirius is depressed? Is Snape/Harry/Trevor suffering > from PTSD? or any other such topic. > > Kneasy maintained those posts said more about the person writing the > post than about the character. Anne: For what it's worth, I've always coded this way as well -- anything goes here that's attempting or considering an acutal psych diagnosis (even if it's pop psych). Otherwise, it's character analysis, no? > Kathy W: > I'm actually surprised we haven't seen any posts about cockroach > clusters or blood lollipops. Anne: Eh? I know I posted once or twice speculating on the status of Vampires in the WW based on the availability of Blood Lollipops in Honeydukes. Must have been considered not catalogue-worthy. *pout* Re Cockroach Clusters, it was only to wonder whether Harry was right, and Dumbledore liked them. Hey, now we know he enjoyed acid pops... ~Anne From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 3 14:13:41 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:13:41 -0000 Subject: Psychological assessments and Food In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Anne: > Eh? I know I posted once or twice speculating on the status of > Vampires in the WW based on the availability of Blood Lollipops in > Honeydukes. Must have been considered not catalogue-worthy. *pout* Kathy W: Well, the post could have been coded to Vampires rather than to the sweet. There isn't a code for either the blood lollipops or cockroach clusters. And for that matter, some of those discussions could have come up after OoP. Good news. The two issues I've recently asked about are the only two I found in my review of the review. The rest are just a matter of my updating the database. From ewetoo at gmail.com Mon Oct 3 19:56:21 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (ewe2) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 05:56:21 +1000 Subject: 4.1.1-4.1.1.2 Pronounciation/character accents & dialects/speech patterns Message-ID: <20051003195621.GC12138@4dot0.net> Was 104 Still is 104 I have only two comments about these categories: 4.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.2 are together so often I wonder that they are separate at all. Secondly, most discussion where these categories arise (not including mostly club postings which were about pronouncing Hermione) is in the context of Hagrid and/or class discussions. It could also be argued that a third of speech patterns are really discussing the differences between readers of the books but there's nowhere else to put them...hmmm. ewe2 who eeks therefore he iz -- "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Mon Oct 3 20:40:16 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 20:40:16 -0000 Subject: Psychology/POV/Sweets/Clothes/Vampires/Pronunciation Message-ID: Miss H unlocked the catalogue office door and was startled to find a hive of industry, after the echoing silence at the weekend. No one had answered her query, but industriously had put their own up on the blackboard. ********* Jen: I'm about halfway through this category and want to make sure I'm on the right track. My dilemma is characterization vs. psychological assessments. (& subseqently) If no one objects, though, I'll go with Ginger/Potioncat and stick the bulk of the posts in characterizaltion, leaving only the more formalized posts for psych assessment. Kathy W: Kneasy maintained those posts said more about the person writing the post than about the character. C - Yep, Ginger & Potioncat are right, go with the very narrow definition, if nothing else for Kneasy's sanity. If poked with a sharpish stick he may be induced to produce case studies illustrating state of mind of said posters. ********** Anne: I have amended the [POV section] definition to make it "Don't forget to click the character as well in cases where it is NOT Harry Potter." Otherwise we have a great deal of redundancy as almost all POV posts are about Harry's POV, and I have been uncoding HP in these *unless* they also contain fresh character analysis of Harry. Which means I've been uncoding most of them. C - thanks Anne. I said to him offlist ages ago that I'd do the definitions for his sections, but it is one of the things I have not got to yet. ******** Kathy: If we are keeping them, I would change the one to "Chocolate Frogs" rather than "Chocolate Frog Cards". C - No, let's not keep them. Confusing I think. I will delete and re- number the other sections. ******* KathyW: At the moment the two headings still exist. Should I re-code the uniform posts into the clothing heading? And once that is done, Carolyn, could you delete Uniforms 3.16.09 and Rename 3.11.1 to WW Clothing and Uniforms? C - no, I can just merge one into the other, then adjust the name of the heading. **** Anne: Eh? I know I posted once or twice speculating on the status of Vampires in the WW based on the availability of Blood Lollipops in Honeydukes. Must have been considered not catalogue-worthy. *pout* C - never mind. I still think Snape's a vampire, so there. *********** Sean: 4.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.2 are together so often I wonder that they are separate at all. C - so, should we merge them?? Also, did you bin most of the Hermione pronunciation discussions ? Hope so. Carolyn Having to lie down in a darkened room this week owing to ODing on Archers' excitement. Have reached the stage where both sets of parents and the whole village find out. Have to apologise - have been listening to this soap for 35 years, and ashamed to admit I can remember Ed and Em being *born*. Its a bit like Kneasy watching the golf..just ignore me. Oh, you just did. See if I care. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 3 21:54:21 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:54:21 -0000 Subject: 1.1.8 Bravery/courage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Potioncat is trying very hard to write a definition in that funny little scroll box, when she hears something that sounds like a query. Yes, Miss H. herself is discussing bravery. (and as we all know, courage is the highest of all virtues.) C: < So, the question is, do > I leave them cross-coded to here as well as to their own character > section? The major characters addressed are Neville, Peter, Harry, > Ron,Hermione, Sirius, Snape, Draco and Lupin. Not sure I am > advocating sub-sections within this code, so any thoughts? > > There is some mis-coding which should be under morality to be weeded > out. Kathy W: Do you know what I think? You don't? Oh, darn, neither do I. Actually, I think that once upon a time, we coded everything that was mentioned in a post. Remember those days of wild abandon? We also started creating headings for things that seemed to be mentioned a lot. Now that we're reviewing these, some of the headings are proving less useful than anticipated. Do away with it. Or rather, does Bravery/Courage stand alone as a topic to look up? I would have thought we would see posts about JKR's opinion of courage and ambition, etc, etc. Of course everything I recall happens on the list after OoP. If it does stand alone, I'd vote for cross-coding if you think it's justified. Have I said anything that was of any use at all? I would say I was being mealey mouthed, but that reminds me of Meal worms and by the way, Dot, there was a joke in MAD magazine about scientists who study dung-beetles. From elfundeb at comcast.net Tue Oct 4 01:33:37 2005 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (Debbie) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 01:33:37 -0000 Subject: Equality/Class Message-ID: Debbie drops by the catalogue office to assure everyone she's not dead (yet, anyway) and to report -- 1. That Equality and Fairness is now empty and can be deleted, and 2. That she's halfway through Class System, Bigotry and Prejudice, and the machete is sharp and slicing away posts at a better than 1/3 clip [are House-Elves suited to slavery? Slash! Is Hagrid and/or Ron prejudiced? Slash!] 3. That she'll miss a whole weekend of review coding due to deciding on a last-minute whim to attend The Witching Hour. Debbie who's never taken a psych course in her life, the better to remain blissfully ignorant of all her neuroses and psychoses From ewetoo at gmail.com Tue Oct 4 02:39:16 2005 From: ewetoo at gmail.com (ewe2) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:39:16 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Psychology/POV/Sweets/Clothes/Vampires/Pronunciation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20051004023916.GE12138@4dot0.net> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 08:40:16PM -0000, Carolyn White wrote: > Sean: > 4.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.2 are together so often I wonder that they are > separate at all. > > C - so, should we merge them?? Also, did you bin most of the Hermione > pronunciation discussions ? Hope so. Haven't touched anything yet, my post was a Request For Comments. I'd be happy to bin Herm-MY-oh-nee discussions but was unwilling to bin club posts without notice. I suggest merging at least the Character accents & dialects with Speech patterns together or put the three together as "Dialect/Pronounciation". I've just read the description to Pronounciation and reckon it could be chopped to one post, the one that got it right. Half the Hagrid could go elsewhere too, it's really more to do with 1.1.5 but using dialect as a class indicator. Any other views? > Carolyn > Having to lie down in a darkened room this week owing to ODing on > Archers' excitement. Have reached the stage where both sets of > parents and the whole village find out. > > Have to apologise - have been listening to this soap for 35 years, > and ashamed to admit I can remember Ed and Em being *born*. Its a bit > like Kneasy watching the golf..just ignore me. Oh, you just did. See > if I care. We had "Blue Hills" for many years in Australia, but I was too young to start with it (it started late 40's and finished sometime in the 70's) but I can appreciate this dimly. Of course Neighbours refuses to die, much to my disgust. -- "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - Adam Savage From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Oct 4 02:40:36 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 02:40:36 -0000 Subject: Equality/Class In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Debbie" wrote: > 3. That she'll miss a whole weekend of review coding due to deciding > on a last-minute whim to attend The Witching Hour. What? That's dreadful! I've been registered for a whole year. Anne who intends to bill the catalogue office for the trip because it's "research" From quigonginger at yahoo.com Wed Oct 5 11:42:57 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 04:42:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: Equality/Class In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051005114257.53092.qmail@web30213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> wrote: > 3. That she'll miss a whole weekend of review coding due to deciding > on a last-minute whim to attend The Witching Hour. What? That's dreadful! I've been registered for a whole year. Anne who intends to bill the catalogue office for the trip because it's "research" Ginger screeches in disbelief: What! We can do that? Why didn't anyone tell me! Here I've already made reservations in Greenville, Ill for the Gaunt, er, I mean, Wall Family Reunion. (Mom's mom's side. Half of the inbreeding has been diluted, so my generation isn't as fun.) Ah, well, to all those of you off to Salem: Have a great time. I'll miss you! Ginger, envious --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Oct 5 15:21:38 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:21:38 -0000 Subject: Equality/Class In-Reply-To: <20051005114257.53092.qmail@web30213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Ginger screeches in disbelief: > What! We can do that? Why didn't anyone tell me! Here I've > already made reservations in Greenville, Ill for the Gaunt, er, I > mean, Wall Family Reunion. (Mom's mom's side. Half of the > inbreeding has been diluted, so my generation isn't as fun.) > > Ah, well, to all those of you off to Salem: Have a great time. > I'll miss you! > > Ginger, envious Jen: I second Ginger, and also Anne, you have to give us a report to earn that voucher for travel expenses from Miss Havisham (let me guess she said you would be *reimbursed*, right? Uh-huh, thought so). Jen, who also has a side of the family with married cousins, but whether first or second cousins, she didn't stay around the reunion long enough to find out. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 6 19:10:42 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 19:10:42 -0000 Subject: Humungous update, Sunday 18th September In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn wrote: > SECTIONS YET TO BE REVIEWED > Based on the decisions recorded in those Word files, I have brought > my section-by-section crib sheet up to date, and compared it with > the 'Review allocation database', and find that although we are > showing 80 sections as finished in our database, in fact there are > some sub-sections within those groups marked as done which may have > been missed. I think this is because we've made changes to the 107 > sections that we initially sub-divide that list into, and bits have > got left out. To follow my analysis listed below, please take a look > at whichever of these files you can open: > > Current Categories, Excel Sept 05 > Current Categories, Word Sept 05 Kathy W So, this file has the most up to date list of whether anyone is reviewing a particular section? This is the one we should choose from? I see that it's different from the other allocation list. I'm ready to sign up for a new batch. Is there a particular area that you'd like to hit first, or should we just choose a topic? I went through and updated the database with newest definitions for my batches. I think I did all them, assuming we don't need a definition for the characters. I updated and wrote EDITED on the ones which have new definitions. I deleted the couple of ones which you've already removed from the main list. However, I didn't know how to add the two codes you added to the main list. 2.12.7 Characters from cards and calendar 3.14.3 Other games Or for matter, do you even need a definition for these or need to add them to the allocation list? From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Oct 7 19:21:51 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 19:21:51 -0000 Subject: Bravery & courage/Equal & fairness/Pronunciation etc/bar bills/definitions Message-ID: KathyW re 1.1.8 Bravery & Courage: Do away with it. Or rather, does Bravery/Courage stand alone as a topic to look up? I would have thought we would see posts about JKR's opinion of courage and ambition, etc, etc. Of course everything I recall happens on the list after OoP. If it does stand alone, I'd vote for cross-coding if you think it's justified. C - Basically, if I remove all the character examples from this category, it will cease to exist. Is that what people want? I suppose it is interesting to see what people thought were examples of bravery and courage in the books. However, once I have done cowardice, I suspect that I will want to amalgamate the two, as everything is more or less cross-coded to both. ******* Debbie: 1. That Equality and Fairness is now empty and can be deleted, C - now done. *********** Sean: Haven't touched anything yet, my post was a Request For Comments. I'd be happy to bin Herm-MY-oh-nee discussions but was unwilling to bin club posts without notice. I suggest merging at least the Character accents & dialects with Speech patterns together or put the three together as "Dialect/Pronounciation". I've just read the description to Pronounciation and reckon it could be chopped to one post, the one that got it right. Half the Hagrid could go elsewhere too, it's really more to do with 1.1.5 but using dialect as a class indicator. Any other views? C - I don't have a problem with any of these suggestions - everyone in agreement? ********** Anne who intends to bill the catalogue office for the trip because it's "research" C - makes a change from paying Kneasy's bar bill ************** Kathy W: So, this file has the most up to date list of whether anyone is reviewing a particular section? This is the one we should choose from? I see that it's different from the other allocation list. C - no, use the allocation list. I bring the the Word/Excel file up to date to match the allocation list rather than vice versa. It's just a little more detailed, that's all. KathyW: I'm ready to sign up for a new batch. Is there a particular area that you'd like to hit first, or should we just choose a topic? C: Whatever you feel happy with really, but would you like to tackle Group 22 Group Dynamics, bearing in mind that KathyK had an initial go at sub-sections 1.2.11 and 1.2.11.3? KathyW: However, I didn't know how to add the two codes you added to the main list. 2.12.7 Characters from cards and calendar 3.14.3 Other games Or for matter, do you even need a definition for these or need to add them to the allocation list? C: What you do is click on 'Add new record' when you are in that database, and fill in the appropriate details. Have a go by all means, or I can do it for you if worried. Thanks for updating all your definitions. I intend to paste them into the live catalogue in one go. From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Fri Oct 7 19:25:47 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 19:25:47 -0000 Subject: From Kelly: re symbolism (using new Yah feature, composing in HTML) Message-ID: I've finished reviewing the remainder of the symbolism categories. I think that finishes off my review categories. I have about two weeks left out here, so if there are any small categories I can tackle in that time, let me know. To clarify my previous comments regarding Stoned!Harry posts, I wasn't suggesting making any changes to the Stoned!Harry category, only the symbolism categories, since most Stoned!Harry posts carried a lot of those in addition to the theory name code. It seemed like unnecessary clutter to me. For now, I've left the Stoned!Harry posts I found in the the specific subcategories (but I continued to mark them as such), but taken them out of the main 1.2.13 category, since that one was too vague to begin with. Did you know there is no 1.2.13.9 category? I assume this is due to some old category that got deleted, and it doesn't cause any problems that I can see, but I just thought I'd bring that to your attention. On to the reviews... 1.2.13.3 Heraldry ----------------- Originally: 28 Now: 21 Discussion of the heraldy symbolism with respect to the Hogwarts coat of arms. No real problems here. Just make sure that heraldic symbolism is being discussed; other coat of arms discussion can be put in 3.16.2 School motto and coat of arms. 1.2.13.4 Wood -------------- Originally: 41 Now: 35 All discussion of wood and tree symbolism, usually with respect to wands. No problems here either. 1.2.13.5 Metals --------------- Originally: 7 Now: 4 Symbolism and significance of metals, usually in relation to alchemy or werewolves (silver). 1.2.13.6 Stars -------------- Originally: 2 Now: 0 I would like to combine this category with 1.2.13.10 Astrology (rename Stars and Astrology?), since star symbolism almost always refers to astrology. The two posts here were definitely astrology-based; I have marked them to be moved to 1.2.13.10. 1.2.13.7 Flowers ---------------- Originally: 11 Now: 9 Discussion of flower symbolism. Don't use this category for posts that simply note the abundance of flower names, only those that discuss the possible meaning of this. 1.2.13.8 Alchemy and Rosicrucianism ----------------------------------- Originally: 63 Now: 35 For all discussion of alchemical symbols in the books. Most of the posts focus on traditional alchemy (philosopher's stone, eternal life, metal symbology, etc), but there were a handful discussing Jungian analysis (i.e. spiritual alchemy). Most of the rejects here were discussion of Nicholas Flamel as a character. Also, I rejected several Stoned!Harry posts where the discussion had turned away from the alchemical symbolism and on to predictions of Harry's death or survival. After all the outcry on the catalogue list regarding the infamous Hans, I was expecting to finally be able to get a handle on what his posts were about by reading this category (I thought I was a pretty thorough reader of the HPFGU list during its heyday, but I must admit, I don't remember Hans' posts at all or really have any idea what he wrote about or why it was controversal). And what do I find? Nada, zilch, zero. Not even a hint of rosicrucianism in this category. Where did all those posts go? Were they all rejected? Or are they hiding in another category somewhere? 1.2.13.10 Astrology ------------------- Originally: 40 Now: 37 Discussion of the astrology that actually appears in the books (e.g. Divination class and homework comments, Mars is bright, etc.), and also attempts to use astrology to describe, analyze, and predict futures for various characters. 1.2.13.11 Numbers -------------------- Originally: 13 Now: 10 I think this category is far too small to have so many subcategories, especially with the amount of crossover found between all the subcategories. For now, I've kept posts that discuss one number and one number only in the specific number categories. Any overlap and it goes to the main category. For the record, the number 20 actually had the most discussions devoted to it (7 posts), not 3, 4, 12, or 13. Pending group decision, I'd like to trash the subcategories altogether and just put everything (only 22 posts total) in 1.2.13.11. 1.2.13.11.1 Three ----------------- Originally: 5 Now: 1 1.2.13.11.2 Four ---------------- Originally: 3 Now: 1 1.2.13.11.2 Twelve ------------------ Originally: 9 Now: 6 1.2.13.11.2 Thirteen -------------------- Originally: 5 Now: 4 1.2.13 Symbolism ---------------- Originally: 51 Now: 20 For any post that discusses symbolism as its main topic but does not fit any of the other symbolism subcategories. Currently, this includes some animal symbolism, geomantic symbolism, characters as chess pieces analysis, and a bit of Freud. Many of the posts I rejected were already coded to many other much more focused topics (both symbolism subcats and others), so the symbolism code was unnecessary. -Kelly, still homeless and carless, but making some great money now that I don't owe rent or any bills. :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Oct 8 22:12:18 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 22:12:18 -0000 Subject: Psychological assessments Message-ID: This category went from 286 down to 73 posts. Many of the chopped posts were actually re-coded to one of the other Characterisation codes. Approx. 10 were rejected as Adds nothing new. So the new rule- of-thumb for this section is to code only when a diagnosis or particular psychological theory is discussed. Anne, there was one post I re-coded to Harry's character traits/maturation becase it was threaded to another post coded that way (and fit better there). The two posts are 11166 & 11193. This was the last sub-category in Deb's Characterisation section, so I marked it done. Jen From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 10 13:50:15 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:50:15 -0000 Subject: Bravery & courage/Equal & fairness/Pronunciation etc/bar bills/definitions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > KathyW: > I'm ready to sign up for a new batch. Is there a particular area that > you'd like to hit first, or should we just choose a topic? > > C: Whatever you feel happy with really, but would you like to tackle > Group 22 Group Dynamics, bearing in mind that KathyK had an initial > go at sub-sections 1.2.11 and 1.2.11.3? > Kathy W: I'll take that section. I snipped directions for adding codes to database. I'll do that too. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Fri Oct 14 23:29:51 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:29:51 -0000 Subject: Edited definition Message-ID: Ginger returns from the family reunion, recovers from the ensuing illness, and gets back to work. Nothing much to add at this time, just a note that I did an "edit" in the definition section under Quidditch as was discussed here on the board. Ginger, dull as a duck's butt today From elfundeb at comcast.net Sat Oct 15 15:05:57 2005 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (Debbie) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:05:57 -0000 Subject: Class system, bigotry & prejudice/ESE!/Grammar, capitalisation and punctuation Message-ID: ::pokes head into catalogue office, holding a roll of parchment in each hand:: "Hello? Anyone around? I'm back from TWC, fresh and invigorated from hours of canon discussion. Having carefully chosen to attend programming that corresponded to my own review sections, I'm sure there will be no problem ::cough cough:: approving these few little expenses What? That's not enough to justify approval? But TWH motivated me to complete lots of cataloguing this week! Seen in that light, surely Miss Havisham will agree that these are reimbursable expenses . . . . No? Well, here's my report anyway: I've finished 1.1.5 (Class system, bigotry & prejudice). It has been nicely slimmed from 406 to 246 posts. As reduced, this category is only for posts discussing class/race/prejudice *themes or undertones* in the books. It is NOT for posts discussing whether particular characters are prejudiced, whether house elves are enslaved, etc. > GROUP 13 (Authorial intent etc) > This is finished apart from a re-check of 1.2.4.4 ESE!, as we have > discussed. This is finished (was 93, now 51). This category is now basically for ESE! accusations (the more subversive the better). Many of the posts are quite funny -- no one and nothing is exempt, not even the Sorting Hat. I'm not convinced we've captured all of the characters who have been accused of being ESE! but there's a wide cross-section. I uncoded the defenses, which generally are less interesting (or at least less amusing) and they could've overwhelmed the category if they were included. People will have to find them under the character code. > GROUP 102 (Differences between editions) > Debbie, re our discussion about the new category 1.2.6.8 Grammar, > capitalisation and punctuation, I wondered if you should double check > what Jo had put into 4.1.2.1 capitalisation and punctuation in this > section. There looks to be some potential overlap. Done. Only one of 12 was deleted. I marked the assignment database to show these were complete. I want to tweak the category definitions, but I'm not sure where to do it. In the three databases which break down each subcategory? This hasn't been updated to reflect all the shifting we've done with some of these categories. Shall I do it? I'll have to go to the dreaded 1.1.7 (Parenting and Child Development) next. The good news is that it's shorter than Snape. And, the "I wuz right" bonus for today: "I think Harry will eventually discover that he has inherited a house and is a house-elf owner." Morag Traynor, post #16774. Debbie From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 02:01:57 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 02:01:57 -0000 Subject: orphan post Message-ID: Hi all, I found this post. It was uncoded, so I thought I'd take a look at it. Usually if I find one, I just do it and go on with things, but this one is a multi-post and quite long. I know the stuff about pics and portraits is redundant for that category, having just finished with it, but I didn't want to go throwing it into a bunch of other categories without checking first, nor did I want to just toss it out on its ear. Probably the easiest way to do this would be for each of us to look and see if it would add anything new to the categories we have already done, and if so, add that category. If not, do nothing (my speciality). I'll keep the number handy, and if, in a week or so, there has been no one jumping to it, then I'll just reject it. Of course, anyone can go to it after that and unreject it, but it will at least be out of the way. I found the first bit highly amusing and the bit about DD's lack of reaction to Hagrid having Sirius' bike interesting. Ginger, wondering if there is life after book 7. Number: 47512 From: Laura Date: Sun Dec 01, 2002 04:48:00 AM UTC Subject: Re: Some Questions = Theories Wanted Let's see...I'll try to not mention the excellent points everyone else has already made....but this was a great post, very intriguing questions. "evenflow200214" wrote: > 1) How would Ron have explained to the rest of the Weasley's about the disappearence of Scabbers and aquiring Pig? We can see that they do not know that Sirius is innocent in GoF and Ron supposedly has no money... How would he explain Pig? > Well, I can't avoid it here, someone else already explained it away for me. My opinion would be that everyone already thought he had been eaten by Crookshanks...so unless Ron decided to say "oh, by the way Mum, that night I was dragged into Hogsmeade by a dog who turned out to be a convincted criminal and followed by a werewolf, I found out that my pet rat wasn't actually wasn't dead, would you believe he was a DE who was responsible for the deaths of my best friend's parents?" there really wouldn't be too much to explain. =) And Pig could very well be a present form Harry or Hermione. > 2)The Weasley's have a clock that tells each of them where each member of the family is, home, work etc... Why then, during Why doesn't the clock tell the Weasely's that they are in "mortal danger"? > My best guess would simply be that they weren't paying attention. I also particularly like the idea that the Fred/George duo either broke the "mortal peril" function of the clock or set it off so many times that no one cares anymore. =) > 3) Where is the proof that Crouch attacked the Longbottoms? Sorry to reiterate it but it has not been proven that he is guilty...> Sorry, can't help out here...my memory fails me, I don't remember the exact details of the plot development. Of course, it's *entirely* possible that his innocence/guilt has nothing to do with the plot. But that's no fun. =) >4) How was Sirius allowed a flying motorbike and why did Dumbledore not react at Privet Drive? As far as he knows, Sirius is responsible yet he lets what Hagrid says about Sirius giving him the motorbike go over his head and doesn't even stop Hagrid when he says he wants to take the bike back to Sirius? Is this Dumbledore being lacklustre or something else?> Now this interesting. Perhaps certain laws regarding Muggle objects were not in effect then? Or maybe, like Arthur Weasley, Sirius enchanted the motorcycle "without the intention of flying it" and used it in this instance, seeing it as an emergancy. This seems highly unlikely, however. Why would Sirius have a Muggle objet like a motorcycle and the intent to enchant it to fly? (theory, anyone? ::wink::) My best guess would be that there were no laws against it at the time. Of course, that is pure speculation. As for Dumbledore...firstly, I'm relatively certain that the Muggle murders had not been committed yet. However, IIRC, only Lily, James, Sirius, and Peter knew that Sirius was NOT the Potter's Secret- Keeper. So when the Potters were attacked, Dumbledore would have thought that Sirius had betrayed them. Or did Dumbledore know about the switch? > 5) How did Sirius know where to find Peter after the Potter's deaths? He seems to track him down a little too easily... Did Peter plan that Sirius find him in that particular street? And was it part of his and Voldemort's original plan, to pretend to blow himself up, thus framing Sirius for three murders?> My best guess would be that they found each other because they had been such close friends. I don't know if Peter planned to meet Sirius in a specific spot, but I do believe he had his escape planned. We know from canon that Peter was not very bright, so I find it doubtful that he would come up with the clever "cutting-off- the-finger-and-transforming" scheme on the spot. I doubt this was part of Voldemort's plan, why would he care about Sirius? Besides, the DEs control people through fear, they'd *want* to take credit for 12 murders in broad daylight. This seems to me just a case of a good-for-nothing-only-looking-out-for-himself *rat* saving his own *tail*. >6) How do the Paintings exist? Were they people who chose to become paintings? Are the in the control of the artist that drew them?> Perhaps the paints used in them work in a similar manner of the potion that magical photographs are developed in. I have a hunch (based *kinda* on canon) that magical photographs, if not paintings, capture a person's mood at the time the picture was taken. For example, the photo album of Harry's parents show them smiling and waving, and Sirius is shown laughing and having fun. However, we do know that Sirius has something of a short temper and a rough, somewhat ill-natured side (i.e. luring Snape into the path of Lupin). My best evidence for this theory is in CoS, when Colin takes the photograph of Lockhart and Harry - Harry notices that his "photo self" was trying very hard by to resist being pulled into the picture by Lockhart. Surely this shows his mood at the time (embarrassment, annoyance at Lockhart's interference) and not his normal, friendly nature. >7) Will Harry and Cho get together, in your opinions?> Nope. Not anytime soon, anyway. Someone else mentioned that he was Harry's first crush. First crushes don't mean much. Besides, the poor girl's boyfriend was just killed by the darkest wizard of all time. Talk about rebound, I don't think she's looking for someone new just yet, or will be for awhile. I do have a hunch that she'll become more central to the plot, perhaps because of the Cedric connection. >8) Why did Snape leave Voldemort and join him in the first place, in your opinions?> Snape is a very Slytherin-like character. He's nasty and vicious and determined, I think he was lured into the DE circle because of these characteristics. As for why he left...I'd say it would have to be something BIG. Not just "oh, he suddenly realized that the DE's were evil." I'm leaning towards a personal conflict with Voldemort. And don't forget, there has to be something that happens that gains him Dumbledore's trust, and I doubt "I realized that they're not nice" is going to cut it with Dumbledore. >9)Why did Tom become Voldemort? Was there a trigger do you think?> I think it actually began as something very normal and innocent. He found out that his father left his mother because she was a witch. Obviously his father would also be ashamed/embarrassed of him (Voldemort) because he also had magical abilites. So he naturally had a strong dislike for his father. The fact that his father was a Muggle simply allowed him to use all Muggles as a scapegoat. Then he finds out about Salazaar Slytherin and his "kill all mudbloods" theme, and it's all Dark Arts and downhill from there. > 10) Is Fudge merely corrupt, a good man at heart, or evil? And to what degree?> Fudge is an idiot. Evil, I'm not sure. Possibly. But my opinion is that he's just a complete moron who lets himself be controlled and maniplulated in order to gain respect. I expect he may be a good man at heart, because he seems rather friendly; but my opinion is that he's a complete ditz with the total inability to handle his poisition as MoM. /end of Laura's random babbling/ -Laura From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 07:57:48 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 07:57:48 -0000 Subject: Godparents Message-ID: Some have two and some have one. Some have three and some have none. Catholic, Wiccan, C of E, Every faith that there can be. Athiest, Agnostic, Jew, (Everyone but You-Know-Who). All wrote in to let us know How their folks chose to bestow. Charming, though, as they may be, I hereby dub them all OT. Reject if RL they converse, Or else I'll go from bad to verse. I dropped Guardians and Godparents from 63 to 39, the majority of which were posts about how many GPs Harry should have had determined by how many the listee had. We can also not code any more asking about a Godmother as JKR has settled that. Ginger, who is a Godmother and has educated her beloved in the Jedi arts. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Oct 16 12:37:19 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 08:37:19 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] orphan post References: Message-ID: Kathy W: Neither number 2: clocks nor number 6: portraits add anything new. I would not code them. ----- Original Message ----- From: quigonginger To: HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 10:01 PM Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] orphan post Hi all, I found this post. It was uncoded, so I thought I'd take a look at it. Usually if I find one, I just do it and go on with things, but this one is a multi-post and quite long. I know the stuff about pics and portraits is redundant for that category, having just finished with it, but I didn't want to go throwing it into a bunch of other categories without checking first, nor did I want to just toss it out on its ear. Probably the easiest way to do this would be for each of us to look and see if it would add anything new to the categories we have already done, and if so, add that category. If not, do nothing (my speciality). I'll keep the number handy, and if, in a week or so, there has been no one jumping to it, then I'll just reject it. Of course, anyone can go to it after that and unreject it, but it will at least be out of the way. I found the first bit highly amusing and the bit about DD's lack of reaction to Hagrid having Sirius' bike interesting. Ginger, wondering if there is life after book 7. Number: 47512 From: Laura Date: Sun Dec 01, 2002 04:48:00 AM UTC Subject: Re: Some Questions = Theories Wanted Let's see...I'll try to not mention the excellent points everyone else has already made....but this was a great post, very intriguing questions. "evenflow200214" wrote: > 1) How would Ron have explained to the rest of the Weasley's about the disappearence of Scabbers and aquiring Pig? We can see that they do not know that Sirius is innocent in GoF and Ron supposedly has no money... How would he explain Pig? > Well, I can't avoid it here, someone else already explained it away for me. My opinion would be that everyone already thought he had been eaten by Crookshanks...so unless Ron decided to say "oh, by the way Mum, that night I was dragged into Hogsmeade by a dog who turned out to be a convincted criminal and followed by a werewolf, I found out that my pet rat wasn't actually wasn't dead, would you believe he was a DE who was responsible for the deaths of my best friend's parents?" there really wouldn't be too much to explain. =) And Pig could very well be a present form Harry or Hermione. > 2)The Weasley's have a clock that tells each of them where each member of the family is, home, work etc... Why then, during Why doesn't the clock tell the Weasely's that they are in "mortal danger"? > My best guess would simply be that they weren't paying attention. I also particularly like the idea that the Fred/George duo either broke the "mortal peril" function of the clock or set it off so many times that no one cares anymore. =) > 3) Where is the proof that Crouch attacked the Longbottoms? Sorry to reiterate it but it has not been proven that he is guilty...> Sorry, can't help out here...my memory fails me, I don't remember the exact details of the plot development. Of course, it's *entirely* possible that his innocence/guilt has nothing to do with the plot. But that's no fun. =) >4) How was Sirius allowed a flying motorbike and why did Dumbledore not react at Privet Drive? As far as he knows, Sirius is responsible yet he lets what Hagrid says about Sirius giving him the motorbike go over his head and doesn't even stop Hagrid when he says he wants to take the bike back to Sirius? Is this Dumbledore being lacklustre or something else?> Now this interesting. Perhaps certain laws regarding Muggle objects were not in effect then? Or maybe, like Arthur Weasley, Sirius enchanted the motorcycle "without the intention of flying it" and used it in this instance, seeing it as an emergancy. This seems highly unlikely, however. Why would Sirius have a Muggle objet like a motorcycle and the intent to enchant it to fly? (theory, anyone? ::wink::) My best guess would be that there were no laws against it at the time. Of course, that is pure speculation. As for Dumbledore...firstly, I'm relatively certain that the Muggle murders had not been committed yet. However, IIRC, only Lily, James, Sirius, and Peter knew that Sirius was NOT the Potter's Secret- Keeper. So when the Potters were attacked, Dumbledore would have thought that Sirius had betrayed them. Or did Dumbledore know about the switch? > 5) How did Sirius know where to find Peter after the Potter's deaths? He seems to track him down a little too easily... Did Peter plan that Sirius find him in that particular street? And was it part of his and Voldemort's original plan, to pretend to blow himself up, thus framing Sirius for three murders?> My best guess would be that they found each other because they had been such close friends. I don't know if Peter planned to meet Sirius in a specific spot, but I do believe he had his escape planned. We know from canon that Peter was not very bright, so I find it doubtful that he would come up with the clever "cutting-off- the-finger-and-transforming" scheme on the spot. I doubt this was part of Voldemort's plan, why would he care about Sirius? Besides, the DEs control people through fear, they'd *want* to take credit for 12 murders in broad daylight. This seems to me just a case of a good-for-nothing-only-looking-out-for-himself *rat* saving his own *tail*. >6) How do the Paintings exist? Were they people who chose to become paintings? Are the in the control of the artist that drew them?> Perhaps the paints used in them work in a similar manner of the potion that magical photographs are developed in. I have a hunch (based *kinda* on canon) that magical photographs, if not paintings, capture a person's mood at the time the picture was taken. For example, the photo album of Harry's parents show them smiling and waving, and Sirius is shown laughing and having fun. However, we do know that Sirius has something of a short temper and a rough, somewhat ill-natured side (i.e. luring Snape into the path of Lupin). My best evidence for this theory is in CoS, when Colin takes the photograph of Lockhart and Harry - Harry notices that his "photo self" was trying very hard by to resist being pulled into the picture by Lockhart. Surely this shows his mood at the time (embarrassment, annoyance at Lockhart's interference) and not his normal, friendly nature. >7) Will Harry and Cho get together, in your opinions?> Nope. Not anytime soon, anyway. Someone else mentioned that he was Harry's first crush. First crushes don't mean much. Besides, the poor girl's boyfriend was just killed by the darkest wizard of all time. Talk about rebound, I don't think she's looking for someone new just yet, or will be for awhile. I do have a hunch that she'll become more central to the plot, perhaps because of the Cedric connection. >8) Why did Snape leave Voldemort and join him in the first place, in your opinions?> Snape is a very Slytherin-like character. He's nasty and vicious and determined, I think he was lured into the DE circle because of these characteristics. As for why he left...I'd say it would have to be something BIG. Not just "oh, he suddenly realized that the DE's were evil." I'm leaning towards a personal conflict with Voldemort. And don't forget, there has to be something that happens that gains him Dumbledore's trust, and I doubt "I realized that they're not nice" is going to cut it with Dumbledore. >9)Why did Tom become Voldemort? Was there a trigger do you think?> I think it actually began as something very normal and innocent. He found out that his father left his mother because she was a witch. Obviously his father would also be ashamed/embarrassed of him (Voldemort) because he also had magical abilites. So he naturally had a strong dislike for his father. The fact that his father was a Muggle simply allowed him to use all Muggles as a scapegoat. Then he finds out about Salazaar Slytherin and his "kill all mudbloods" theme, and it's all Dark Arts and downhill from there. > 10) Is Fudge merely corrupt, a good man at heart, or evil? And to what degree?> Fudge is an idiot. Evil, I'm not sure. Possibly. But my opinion is that he's just a complete moron who lets himself be controlled and maniplulated in order to gain respect. I expect he may be a good man at heart, because he seems rather friendly; but my opinion is that he's a complete ditz with the total inability to handle his poisition as MoM. /end of Laura's random babbling/ -Laura ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS a.. Visit your group "HPFGU-Catalogue" on the web. 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 annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 13:04:24 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 13:04:24 -0000 Subject: orphan post In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Kathy Willson" wrote: > > Kathy W: > Neither number 2: clocks nor number 6: portraits add anything new. I would not code them. Anne: Nor Harry. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 17:40:37 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:40:37 -0000 Subject: Households and Families Message-ID: Asking opinions here: I've looked at the Households and Families posts, and I must say they are a hodge-podge. Are Lily and Petunia related to Snape? Is James? How about Sirius? Are the Weasleys and DD related? How about DD and Lily? Are the teachers married? Why are the Malfoys so snooty? How many mixed marriages are there? Who gets house elves? Were the Riddles really married? Who is having sex and with whom? You get the idea. About all that ties them together is the category definition: General category for discussions of extended households & family links in WW sociology basically Basically, it's a general category, that's for sure. The vast majority of the posts are already coded to categories where they would fit better (Weasleys, symbolic names, individual characters, family planning, shipping...) and the ones that aren't either could be (they are in my area or in areas I have done) or they have probably been rejected in other peoples' areas (Hey! Lily and Petunis are both *flowers*!). So I was wondering, what was the original idea behind this category? Do the posts now contained herein reflect this idea? Have new categories been added that makes this one redundant? There are currently 50 posts. I hate to bug Carolyn, who is probably immersed in LV at the moment, but if anyone has a second, could I get some sort of idea as to whether I'm just dense and not getting the point or if this category needs a more strigent definition? I have lots to do to keep me busy in the interim, so take your time. Any input is appreciated. Ginger, the dense From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Oct 16 18:35:39 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:35:39 -0000 Subject: Households and Families In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" wrote: > So I was wondering, what was the original idea behind this category? > Do the posts now contained herein reflect this idea? Have new > categories been added that makes this one redundant? There are > currently 50 posts. > > I hate to bug Carolyn, who is probably immersed in LV at the moment, > but if anyone has a second, could I get some sort of idea as to > whether I'm just dense and not getting the point or if this category > needs a more strigent definition? > > I have lots to do to keep me busy in the interim, so take your time. > Any input is appreciated. > > Ginger Sorry, I just couldn't leave that word "dense" on there, you goose. ;) I just had a quick browse through the posts. I think the category makes sense for posts discussing the generalities of the subject as we find or don't find them in the text. Even when posts discuss particular characters, many of them are really using them as examples to discuss the culture in general. The only ones that wouldn't belong are posts that deal with a specific family in particular (e.g. ones about who wears the pants in the Weasley family). Maybe the definition could be modified to something more like this: "For discussions households and families in the WW in general, including those generalising from specific examples." Er... maybe someone will come up with a better one. But, I do think it's a valid category. Lots of people are interested in the workings of the WW in general (like, how many students in Hogwarts, how does the economy/government/healthcare work, etc.). Anne running out of synonyms for "discuss" and "general" From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Oct 16 19:19:44 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:19:44 -0000 Subject: Update & catchup, Sunday 16th October Message-ID: Dear AllSorry I have been so absent. I just cannot believe this job thing. It seems they want you to turn up every day..is this normal? Doesn't half take up a lot of time when I could be doing useful things like re-reading Macbeth, in order to respond to Talisman's fascinating new theory. Otherwise I've been struggling for months now sorting through a mass of files which were turfed out of my office when it was re-decorated back in the summer. I was determined not to put anything back that hadn't been weeded through. Anyone else this mad? I've been finding 1970s knitting patterns and yarn catalogues. ::group collectively boggles at the idea that I can knit:: Well, I can. Just not for babies, ok? Creative, *designer* knits... PROGRESS:We've now done another 5 review groups, taking us up to 84 out of 106 review sections, . Two further sections are very nearly finished, apart from some final sub-sections which need completing, as follows: Group 1: Good vs evil (1.1.1.1 -1.1.1.5)Dicey did a lot of this, but when I asked: > When you tackled the Good n'evil section, did you include in your > review the sub-sections on religious influences, Wicca, Redemption and the theory LAMBASTING ? she replied offlist:I don't believe I did. I only looked at the one category: Good Vs. Evil. I did not look at the subcategories. I don't recall reading about Wicca at any point, nor the LAMBASTING theory, though I do know that from time to time I added a category to a post if it seemed to merit such. CW: So, if anyone would like to pick up the sub-sections here, that would be great. Please note that Sean did 1.1.1.3 Religious banning. The other group which is nearly finished is Group 17 Back History, which Barry did most of, but sub-sections 1.2.8.8 and 1.2.8.9 were added to the group after he finished it. So, if anyone would like to pick them up, that would be another group finished. ********************Kelly:I would like to combine this category [1.2.13.6] with 1.2.13.10 Astrology (rename Stars and Astrology?), since star symbolism almost always refers to astrology. The two posts here were definitely astrology-based; I have marked them to be moved to 1.2.13.10. CW - I don't have a problem combining stars and astrology - anyone else?? [Re Hans & section 1.2.13.8]Where did all those posts go? Were they all rejected? Or are they hiding in another category somewhere? CW - I ran my eye down the list and he is there, but he goes under a couple of different names. One is Ibot Bracchae-Breves, and the other is Ivan Vablatsky, plus Hans. However, his email address is always ibotsjfvxfst at y... Clearly multiple personality disorder is one of his numerous problems.. [re Numbers sub-categories]Pending group decision, I'd like to trash the subcategories altogether and just put everything (only 22 posts total) in 1.2.13.11. CW - I would be happy to do this - anyone else??***************Ginger:Ginger returns from the family reunion, recovers from the ensuing illness, and gets back to work. C - sympathies; any family reunion brings me out in hives ************** Debbie:"Hello? Anyone around? I'm back from TWC, fresh and invigorated from hours of canon discussion. Having carefully chosen to attend programming that corresponded to my own review sections, I'm sure there will be no problem ::cough cough:: approving these few little expenses What? That's not enough to justify approval? But TWH motivated me to complete lots of cataloguing this week! Seen in that light, surely Miss Havisham will agree that these are reimbursable expenses . . . . CW: Welcome back Debbie (and Anne). Trust there was more light than heat? All expense claims are going through on the nod at the moment, in the hope that you never discover how I'm fiddling the books. Oh, the embezzlement you can get up to using virtual galleons. What, you want paying in *dollars*...oh. Debbie:I want to tweak the category definitions, but I'm not sure where to do it. In the three databases which break down each subcategory? This hasn't been updated to reflect all the shifting we've done with some of these categories. Shall I do it? CW: Yes, there are in fact four databases. Please could you tidy up any incorrect references that have moved on since they were uploaded. Also, when you change a definition, put 'Debbie/edited' in the far right hand column so we can see which have been changed? I plan to go through those four databases in one go, transferring the changed definitions to the live dbase. Don't want to do it bit by bit or I will never know which ones I've done. *********** CW: > Also, I wondered if you had made any progress on Mrs > Figg, which I think you were going to take a look at? Dicentra: I got about halfway through the category, and found that there was little repetition or fatuous posting in the category. Consequently, I deleted few posts. CW - I think I would still rather this category was completely looked through before signing it off, if anyone would like to look at it (it's quite a short one). ***********Ginger: I found this post. It was uncoded, so I thought I'd take a look at it. Usually if I find one, I just do it and go on with things, but this one is a multi-post and quite long. C - I didn't see anything that should be especially coded, though it was a good guess about Tom becoming Riddle. ******** Ginger:I've looked at the Households and Families posts, and I must say they are a hodge-podge. So I was wondering, what was the original idea behind this category? Do the posts now contained herein reflect this idea? Have new categories been added that makes this one redundant? There are currently 50 posts. CW - I am pleased to say that this category was all Barry's idea. The original point, IIRC, was to have a place that you could put posts that talked about households as a socio-economic unit. How big families were, how they functioned in WW society. I see Anne thinks there is some merit in what's got in there, so will leave it to your excellent judgement as to what should be kicked out.. CarolynApologising yet again for absences, but thinking the sound of Anne's voice at the bottom of a tin can was a hoot. [Elsewhere we've been experimenting with VOIP phone calls - PC to PC. Free with Yahoo Messenger now. Only snag is, although I can hear people, I cannot get my microphone to transmit my voice as yet. I'm working on it - just think, I could really bark down the megaphone, for real!!] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Oct 17 15:35:56 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:35:56 -0000 Subject: Update & catchup, Sunday 16th October In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" wrote: > > Dear AllSorry I have been so absent. I just cannot believe this > job thing. It seems they want you to turn up every day..is this > normal? Jen: You'd think showing up would be enough, but apparently they feel you should show up AND work, which seems a bit presumptuous. (Although at the moment I wouldn't know, because I can't *get* a job. Sigh. Hopefully in a month I'll be in your shoes.) CW: ::group collectively boggles at the idea that I can knit:: Well, I can. Just not for babies, ok? Creative, *designer* knits... Jen: Carolyn knits? Interesting. Must be her warm, creative side which she shields behind Miss Havisham. (Jen ponders the possibility of a psychological assessment and decides it might result in getting locked in her cupboard). CW: > PROGRESS:We've now done another 5 review groups, taking us up to > 84 out of 106 review sections. J: Wow! We're close now. I'm working on two at the same time and hope to get the smallest done this week. As long as I keep my vow to STOP arguing straight-forward readings on the main list. Lost several hours yesterday both on and off-list with people and don't ever, ever want to revisit that topic again (did I say ever again?). CW: Two further sections are very nearly finished, apart from some final sub-sections which need completing, as follows: Group 1: Good vs evil (1.1.1.1 -1.1.1.5)Dicey did a lot of this, CW: So, if anyone would like to pick up the sub-sections here, that would be great. Please note that Sean did 1.1.1.3 Religious banning. J: I can finish this off as Sean did the big sub-category. Jen, who actually got to talk to Anne *on the phone* from the Witching Hour via SSSusan and was thrilled to 'meet' her. :) From elfundeb at comcast.net Mon Oct 17 20:34:57 2005 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (Debbie) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:34:57 -0000 Subject: Update & catchup, Sunday 16th October In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jen: Wow! We're close now. I'm working on two at the same time and > hope to get the smallest done this week. As long as I keep my vow to > STOP arguing straight-forward readings on the main list. Lost > several hours yesterday both on and off-list with people and don't > ever, ever want to revisit that topic again (did I say ever again?). Debbie, pocketing her TWH reimbursement cheque: I guess that means it's a good thing for the cataloguing project that I didn't get around to posting a response. It seems even Miss Havisham expects us to actually do some *work* around here, when we could be entertaining ourselves with creative theorising (which we all know from this project is much more fun than a straightforward reading). > Jen, who actually got to talk to Anne *on the phone* from the > Witching Hour via SSSusan and was thrilled to 'meet' her. :) Lucky you! I think I saw Anne at a distance (I was only there fore one day) but didn't have the opportunity to meet her since I was dealing with a little snafu at the time. As I was only in Salem for one day and it was so spread out, I missed catching up with a number of people I knew were there. Next time I won't make that mistake. Debbie getting back to work, because that's what they expect me to do while I'm taking up office space From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 20:48:17 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:48:17 -0000 Subject: Totally OT funny Message-ID: This is a story my aunt told at the family reunion. Just for a laugh. My aunt has 2 kids and 4 grandkids. All are named after family members. Her son Jim is the only one named after our side of the family. She took the grandkids to the cemetary on Memorial Day to put flowers on the graves of her husband and father-in-law. Both my aunt and her mother-in-law are still living, but have double tombstomes with their late husbands for use after their deaths. My aunt was showing the names to the kids and explaining who each one was named after. The older 3 kids can all read and were interested in the family history. The youngest, 3-year-old John-John, was getting bored with the whole thing and went off to look around. On the way home he asked, "Grandma, why are we all named after a bunch of rocks?" Ginger, named after no one. From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Oct 17 22:54:16 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:54:16 -0000 Subject: Update & catchup, Sunday 16th October In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Debbie" wrote: > > Jen: > > Jen, who actually got to talk to Anne *on the phone* from the > > Witching Hour via SSSusan and was thrilled to 'meet' her. :) > > Lucky you! I think I saw Anne at a distance (I was only there fore > one day) but didn't have the opportunity to meet her since I was > dealing with a little snafu at the time. As I was only in Salem for > one day and it was so spread out, I missed catching up with a number > of people I knew were there. Next time I won't make that mistake. > > Debbie > getting back to work, because that's what they expect me to do while > I'm taking up office space > Anne: Jen sounded surprisingly... normal. O_o Hee hee. I'm sorry I didn't get to meet you, Debbie! The weekend was all too short, I can't imagine only going for one day. Anyway, I posted a couple of photos. There was only one decent one of me, and we're holding this pair of boots... The boots belong to a friend of mine I met through Leaky -- Bel~ -- she has a pic of them in her avatar, so we thought it was cool they were actually really hers and not some image she found online... Right. I'm easily amused. Anne From kakearney at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 13:39:13 2005 From: kakearney at gmail.com (corinthum) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 13:39:13 -0000 Subject: Hello and good-bye Message-ID: Hello all. I'm back stateside once more, which means it's time for me to take some leave from the catalogue. Must try to rebuild my life from Katrina, and I don't know how long that might take. I finished three of the Geography and Location subcategory reviews, and I'll send those to Carolyn to apply (sorry, Carolyn, but they're short). The rest can be taken by whoever wants to do them. Thanks for the support while I was gone, and hopefully I'll be back soon. Kelly, whose job actually doesn't expect her to show up and work right now :) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Oct 22 03:02:01 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 03:02:01 -0000 Subject: Hello and good-bye In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "corinthum" wrote: > > Hello all. I'm back stateside once more, which means it's time for > me to take some leave from the catalogue. Must try to rebuild my > life from Katrina, and I don't know how long that might take. Jen: Bye Kelly, we'll really miss you 'round here! Wish you the best in rebuilding and don't forget to keep us posted on how things are going. >Kelly, whose job actually doesn't expect her to show up and work > right now :) Jen: Well, I guess that's something, huh? :) From carolynwhite2 at aol.com Sun Oct 23 12:16:36 2005 From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:16:36 -0000 Subject: Hello and good-bye In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "corinthum" wrote: > I finished three of the Geography and Location subcategory reviews, and > I'll send those to Carolyn to apply (sorry, Carolyn, but they're > short). The rest can be taken by whoever wants to do them. > > Thanks for the support while I was gone, and hopefully I'll be back > soon. > Hi Kelly In some ways, it must be rather interesting to start out from nothing. Ghastly, but kind of invigorating! Will you go back to the same area?? Thank you for all the hard work on the catalogue, and I really hope you can come back to us when you've got sorted. Could you send me those geography categories when you are ready? Carolyn Who's flat looks like Katrina and Wilma hit it from different directions...but turns out that it was just my darn cats killing something last night. From kakearney at gmail.com Sun Oct 23 21:56:53 2005 From: kakearney at gmail.com (corinthum) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:56:53 -0000 Subject: Hello and good-bye In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carolyn wrote: > In some ways, it must be rather interesting to start out from > nothing. Ghastly, but kind of invigorating! Will you go back to the > same area?? Replacing stuff actually is fun. That little voice in my head that usually comes with me when I go shopping and says, "Kelly, you don't really need that" has taken a little vacation. Cute shoes? Well, I need new ones. Great outfit? Yup, need that too. Flat-screen TV? Well, as long as I'm buying a new one... I'll be staying in the same general area, since my job is still here. But right now, finding a place is the most difficult step. There simply aren't any spare apartments or houses to rent. In my office alone, 488 families out of about 1000 lost their homes. Multiply that out to the whole community, and, well, it's definitely a seller's market. I've posted another picture, of me in (or rather under, since I was on the second floor), my apartment. I think the term "flat" is definitely appropriate here. > Thank you for all the hard work on the catalogue, and I really hope > you can come back to us when you've got sorted. Could you send me > those geography categories when you are ready? I've emailed them to you. And here are the comments to go along with it: 3.15.1 Hogwarts --------------- Originally: 48 Now: 21 Discussions that belong in other categories: - possible locations for other wizarding schools (3.17.1 Other wizarding schools) - geography within Hogwarts and its grounds (2.16.1 Layout of Hogwarts) - uplottable charms and how they apply to Hogwarts (3.16.1.4 Hogwarts' defenses, possibly 3.8.4 Spells, potions, and incantations) --- I would like to combine 3.15.2 Diagon Alley and 2.15.14 The Leaky Cauldron. The latter is more or less a specific subset of the former, and only holds six good posts. The posts in the Diagon Alley category often discuss the location of The Leaky Cauldron as a leadin to locating the entire alley. 3.15.2 Diagon Alley ------------------- Originally: 26 Now: 21 Discussion of exactly where in London Diagon Alley, as well as the Leaky Cauldron and Knockturn Alley, may be located. Also, a lot of discussion on the physics of magical space. 3.15.14 The Leaky Cauldron -------------------------- Originally: 9 Now: 6 Specific discussion of where The Leaky Cauldron is located. -Kelly, really going this time From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Oct 23 23:41:40 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 23:41:40 -0000 Subject: Hello and good-bye In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Kelly: > I've posted another picture, of me in (or rather under, since I was on > the second floor), my apartment. I think the term "flat" is > definitely appropriate here. Ginger: Oh, my, Kelly. That's quite the pic. I sent it to my parents and a couple friends. I hope you don't mind. I had told them about you. I have family from NO, and I haven't heard what their plans are yet. I hope you find a good place and that everything goes well. Have fun with your shopping. You deserve it. Take care, Ginger From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Oct 24 14:29:34 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:29:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore death predictions Message-ID: Working through the death & immortality category, including a thead about how DD will die. Here were a couple of comments, very interesting in light of HBP: Cindy, #39610 "So what is JKR to do with all *that*? Well, she has to *weaken* Dumbledore before she can credibly kill him, doesn't she? She has to show him becoming weary, worn down, weak. That way, when someone pushes Dumbledore off of a rickety catwalk into a river of lava, the reader will *believe it* and won't cry out, 'But wait! Dumbledore is too *powerful* for that to work!' "Yeah, Dumbledore is fading all right, but he won't fade straight to the grave. He's going to get a push from someone ? hopefully from a close and trusted friend." The Captain leans forward, her nose inches from George's trembling lips. "Bang!" she whispers. Eloise #39634: I have no problem with the idea that Dumbledore, once he feels that he has passed on his mantle, or at least the potential to wear his mantle, to Harry and that he can do no more for him in terms of passing on his wisdom, just might act in what appears to be reckless way; might either deliberately sacrifice himself (whether wearing a target on his forehead or not ;-) ), or put himself wittingly into a situation which he knows he may not survive. As Cindy pointed out, the constant harping on Dumbledore's aging would only serve to make his non-survival of such an encounter more believable. Bang *with* pathos and irony as we (and he) know he can't survive, yet he forges ahead nonetheless. Jen From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Oct 27 14:51:39 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:51:39 -0000 Subject: Death and Immortality Message-ID: 1.1.6 Death and Immortality (261 down to 105) 1.1.6.1 Graveyards and Burial Practices (20 down to 15) The definition stated this category is not for Voldemort's immortality, but the WW at large, and I think we should keep it that way. HBP will bring a slew of posts dealing with souls which will probably go here or we'll need a new category when the time comes. So I uncoded posts in the first category that were primarily about the graveyard scene, MD and Voldemort's immortality/agenda. Carolyn, there was a long thread or several threads of MD posts I axed which were also coded to: Dumbledore's agenda, LV/Tom Riddle, and MD. I don't know if you are considering a category under Voldemort for Immortality, but there must have been at least 40-50 posts dealing with his attempts to gain a body back and what transformations he went through to become immortal. Another sequence of posts I uncoded were death predictions. Those are better coded in predictions or, if regarding how a certain death will fit into the story, plot development. As for graveyards/burial practices, not many posts yet but those are coming with DD's funeral and the still unverified (?) comment by Cuaron about the graveyard in POA movie. Jen