From elfundeb at comcast.net  Wed Mar  1 04:11:20 2006
From: elfundeb at comcast.net (Debbie)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 04:11:20 -0000
Subject: Snape, Trolls, etc.
In-Reply-To: <dtvst0+op1n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du36t8+i8pl@eGroups.com>

At the Catalogue office, the coffee is 
> hot, water is heating for tea, the donuts are fresh . . .

::stops by to devour a box of donuts before Ash Wednesday dawns::

Jen, still working hard to convince us how much fun we're having:
> > you know, it would be fun to start coding again. 

I thought that would be our reward for finishing the reviewing. ;-)

Carolyn wrote:
> Snape is indeed next, did anyone have thoughts on Talisman's 
> suggestions?

The categories look fine to me (including the additions of 
Snape/Harry; Snape's abuse, er, I mean teaching style; and the 
literary construct one), though the definition of that last 
subsection may have to evolve and/or be clarified.


Potioncat:
> I think when we do get to Snape, we should look at more than code 
at a 
> time. Haven't we sort of come to the conclusion that a post really 
> doesn't need more than 2 or 3 codes?

Most of them, anyway.  At least not more than 1-2 Snape codes, right?

I continue to slog through the House Elves, and will move on to the 
Centaurs, leaving the Vampire posts for last as an entree to Snape.


Potioncat:
What we need is a 
> goal...and a slogun....That'll do the trick! Where's Jen? She's 
good 
> at that sort of thing.

Yes!  We need Jen!  My idea of a slogan would be something 
like, "And the inferi will get you if you don't code fast."  See? 
Lame, and creepy to boot.


Carolyn:
> OTOH, security trolls were set to guard the Fat Lady after Sirius 
> attacked the painting, and spent the time walking up and down 
> comparing the size of their clubs <g>. So, it appears they can at 
> least talk, though possibly not about the finer points of 
wizarding 
> law...

You don't think they can compare their clubs without talking? ;-)

Debbie
who in contrast to Kelly may complete the review process without 
ever touching a Wizarding World category








From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Mar  1 05:02:52 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 05:02:52 -0000
Subject: Weasleys, Blacks and coding
In-Reply-To: <du1p8o+skld@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du39ts+edve@eGroups.com>

Jen slumps over her computer, her spirit dampened for a moment. 
DelayedGratification!Debbie and Rational!Potioncat have vetoed the 
idea of starting to code again before finishing the review. Jen knows 
they're *right* and all that, it would be a royal *mess*, but 
still....suddenly, Jen hears something to brighten her day:

"What we need is a goal...and a slogun....That'll do the trick! 
Where's Jen? She's good at that sort of thing."

A slogan, of course! That could do the trick, external motivation 
leading to internal rewards. Or was that internal motivation leading 
to....? Never mind. "I know, I know!!" Jen jumps up and down, waving 
her hand in the air like an overeager Hermione. *Clears throat for 
emphasis*. "Snape, Snape, he's our man, if we can finish him, the 
project's in the can!"

She looks around at the odd expressions of her fellow cataloguers, 
smiles frozen in place. "You know, in the can like a completed film? 
So then we can code some more?" A few people nod politely, others roll 
their eyes and turn back to the doughnuts, obviously finding a sugar 
high more exciting than Jen's new slogan. Talisman appears to be 
daydreaming, probably considering the possibilities of the 
phrase 'finishing Snape' in her gutter mind.

Undaunted, Jen taps a pencil against her head and tries again, "Only 
86,000 posts to go and counting!!" she shouts with enthusiasm. This 
slogan is met with outright frowns and grumbling to the point Jen 
considers retiring to her cupboard and actually doing some work. 
Finally, ditching the peppy rah-rah routine, Jen decides on a slogan 
only slighty less depressing than Debbie's 'If you don't code fast the 
Inferi will get you'.

"Right you lot, lets get this done or I'm spiking the doughnuts AND 
the drinks with the stuff that gave Fred and George boils where the 
sun don't shine." Then, before anyone has time to point out Jen hasn't 
posted a review since January, she beats a hasty retreat to her 
cupboard and nudges a chair under the doorknob, just in case. 

Jen, who so wants to start coding again she's going to get her review 
done and resurrect Talisman's Snape post to start off the discussion. 
Tomorrow, for sure. The weekend at the latest. Before the Inferi get 
her at the very, very latest. 







From dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Mar  1 10:30:05 2006
From: dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk (Tim Regan)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 10:30:05 -0000
Subject: Progress (slow) on UI
Message-ID: <000001c63d1b$1b86d3b0$e801fea9@europe.corp.microsoft.com>

Hi All,

Just a quick update on the Catalogue UI.

I have a bare bones version running locally here, i.e. the HTML, the JavaScript do some of what I wanted to achieve locally and the PHP on the server. Currently I am working on the CSS so that it looks more finished.

Our plan is to then get this up, probably on a staging server but possibly on the target machine that Paul has been working on. Once that's done I'll invite you all to give feedback and we'll prioritise what needs changing before exposing it to a round of testing, possible from the HPfGU mods or possibly from a small group recruited via HPfGU OT-Chatter. Once we've iterated around that improvement loop a few times we'll release it to the world :-)

Sorry this has taken so much longer to achieve than I'd hoped. It's been a mixture of grappling with the technology, work and home demands, and a pretty horrible six months as my dad succumbed to leukaemia.

Anyway, onwards and upwards ...

Cheers,

Tim (Dumbledad)



		
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com



From kakearney at gmail.com  Thu Mar  2 00:58:41 2006
From: kakearney at gmail.com (corinthum)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:58:41 -0000
Subject: Neville and memory charms
Message-ID: <du5g01+f0lp@eGroups.com>

I'm about to start reviewing 3.8.4.1 Memory Charms, and I wanted to do
a little planning in advance.  Do you think MemoryCharmed!Neville
should be a category to itself, under 2.5.4 Neville Longbottom, or
should I keep those in this category?  A quick scan shows that 99% of
the posts here discuss Neville.

Also, Debbie, did you toss out a lot of Neville-related posts as Adds
Nothing New?  Plenty of the posts here don't have the Neville code,
and I'm hoping that's because you kicked them out, and I can do the
same.  :)

-Kelly, who experienced a memory charm herself yesterday, but did
manage to replace her Mardi Gras bead collection :)







From elfundeb at comcast.net  Thu Mar  2 23:36:54 2006
From: elfundeb at comcast.net (Debbie)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 23:36:54 -0000
Subject: Neville and memory charms
In-Reply-To: <du5g01+f0lp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du7vim+f9eg@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "corinthum" <kakearney at ...> 
wrote:
>
> I'm about to start reviewing 3.8.4.1 Memory Charms, and I wanted to 
do
> a little planning in advance.  Do you think MemoryCharmed!Neville
> should be a category to itself, under 2.5.4 Neville Longbottom, or
> should I keep those in this category?  A quick scan shows that 99% of
> the posts here discuss Neville.

My vote is to keep all speculation about whether Neville was Memory 
Charmed under 2.5.4.  It would be nice to have a subcategory, but we 
could probably live without one for now.

> Also, Debbie, did you toss out a lot of Neville-related posts as Adds
> Nothing New?  Plenty of the posts here don't have the Neville code,
> and I'm hoping that's because you kicked them out, and I can do the
> same.  :)

At 345 posts, 2.5.4 is already chock full of Memory Charms of every 
description.  I say toss them out of 3.8.4.1 unless they talk about 
the operation or effects of the charm itself.

Debbie
leaving for Las Vegas momentarily
Leaving Las Vegas tomorrow
10 hours flight time for a 2 hour meeting :-(






From kakearney at gmail.com  Fri Mar  3 04:35:40 2006
From: kakearney at gmail.com (corinthum)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 04:35:40 -0000
Subject: Neville and memory charms
In-Reply-To: <du7vim+f9eg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <du8h2s+kkta@eGroups.com>

Me:

> Do you think MemoryCharmed!Neville
> > should be a category to itself, under 2.5.4 Neville Longbottom, or
> > should I keep those in this category?  A quick scan shows that 99% of
> > the posts here discuss Neville.
>

Debbie:

> My vote is to keep all speculation about whether Neville was Memory 
> Charmed under 2.5.4.  It would be nice to have a subcategory, but we 
> could probably live without one for now.
...
> At 345 posts, 2.5.4 is already chock full of Memory Charms of every 
> description.  I say toss them out of 3.8.4.1 unless they talk about 
> the operation or effects of the charm itself.

I was really hoping you'd say that.  I agree, I think all the
subcategories here should be reserved for discussion of the
spell/potion/incantation itself rather than related characterization
and plot development.

I think I'll just take this shredder and get to work...

-Kelly











From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Mar  5 04:30:14 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 04:30:14 -0000
Subject: Talisman's Snape Plan and UI progress
In-Reply-To: <dpul8n+4ee9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dudpgm+9r6v@eGroups.com>

Well, I thought it might be the weekend before getting back to the 
Snape plan Talisman drafted. Hopefully some of you will still have 
time to respond before your week gets incredibly busy.

First, Tim, I wanted to send my condolences to you and your family 
during this incredibly hard time. Thank you for everything you're 
doing with this project. I was thrilled to hear we have a bare bones 
version running! 

Snapey. I'm keeping almost all the parts of Talisman's plan intact 
in this reply so others can read her thoughts, but there is some 
snipping if you want to go upthread for Real Thing. 

> Ah, yes.  Snape as a finale.  Seems to be Rowlings' plan, too. :)  

Just liked this part <g>.

Talisman:
> When I was initially considering the problem, I felt that it would 
> be desirable to sort Snape posts as either Pro or Anti, no matter 
> which other categories were involved.
> 
> Snape is the controversy lightning-rod of the series, and one's 
> *camp* tends to color whatever else is being discussed.
 
> Usually I don't like two-box decision trees, but there is the
> matter of expediency, and even posters who are on-the-fence tend
> to come down on one side or the other (e.g. *He may turn out to be
> working for the Order, BUT I can't excuse his behavior, etc. 
> etc.*) 
> 
> Pro/Anti is a bit different than Voldie/DD. Some people think
> Snape rocks even if he turns out to be LV's man; others think he
> stinks even if he's going to kill the Dark Lord wth his bare
> hands.  
> 
> I think this slant follows through the other categories.  The 
> character assasination, I mean analysis, section will reek of it. 
> Assumptions and interpretations of what we know of his early days 
> will be slanted toward whichever side the poster is trying to
> reach.

This is actually the only part I have reservations about because, 
like T. mentioned, the two-box decision tree. Even though there is a 
slant in many of the categories, like MD having a category to 
itself, there wouldn't be another major character divided this 
cleanly. Now I *could* see a sub-category within Snape named 'Pro' 
and 'Anti' or whatever name, offering a selection of posts. 

The biggest problem I see is breaking up threads. To me the arguing 
back and forth and pulling out more canon to make a case is what 
makes the Snape threads so....erm....vibrant. If you cut these up 
into two categories, threads will get cut up, too, and the 
continuity is lost. 
 
Talisman:
> I don't know how others feel, but I can well imagine wanting to
> pull up posts that examine issues without the Anti-Snape lens.
> Others may want to research an enormous hate-fest without any
> apologists to bat out of the way.
> 
> Or, conversely, we may want to review only the opposing side's 
> arguments on an issue, when, armed with new canon, we set out to 
> methodically rebut them all.  tee hee. 
> 
> In any event, I thought it would be a useful management tool for
> the researcher.

Jen: Wanted to leave this part in so others can read the full 
reasoning for dividing into pro/anti.

Talisman:
> In the *For Whom is Snape Working* aka *Whose Man?* category, we 
> probably want to include the *Out for Himself* crowd.  No 
> different category, just a refined definition. 
> 
> Also, we know that Snape was both loved and loving.  Maybe the
> *Who He Loved* category could be expanded to handle posts going
> either way.  Or, just call it *Snape and Love.*  Alternatively,
> there should be a category for each possibility (lover/lovee)  By
> the way-- are we SURE all these feelings are past tense? <g>

Jen:  Liked all these suggestions myself. Vote yes, and think 
there's a possibility Snape has a few embers burning for Narcissa 
since Talisman brought it up. 

Talisman: 
> Otherwise I'm assuming that the plan expects Snape-related plot 
> incidents to be covered by existing *significant scenes* divisions 
> in the list.  
> 
> This may not be the case. IIRC, posts are not supposed to be coded 
> to the character name, but there are many scenes which have
> spurred particular analysis of Snape's actions in specific
> incidents. E.g. what was *really going on* in the first potions 
> class, Cos dueling scene, scene on the stairs in GOF, etc.  

> The bottom line is, you may want to review the extant *significant 
> scenes* codes with specific thought to Snape, to see if others are 
> necessary.  Obviously, if coders find threads that don't seem to 
> have a good home, you can always create new Snape scene-related 
> codes along the way.
> 
> IIRC, there is an established code for teachers that would cover
> all the Snape-is-a-horible-teacher rants.
> 
> I'm sure Anne is all over posts related to Harry's
> POV/relationship with Snape.
> 
> Why DD trusts him can probably fit into the Whose Man? category.
> 
> Spying is already covered.


Jen: I really like this idea of significant scenes. Talisman 
mentioned cross-coding to chapters in a snipped section and I think 
the chapters have plenty of information in them already, inlcuding 
some threads on important Snape scenes. If people find a good thread 
that didn't make it in and wanted to cross-code to a chapter, that's 
fine. But otherwise we don't need to bother with the chapter cross-
coding at this point.

 
> Why Snape and Sirius REALLY loathe each other fits into Young
> Snape.(Hint, it's not the Prank.)

Hmmm, I should know your theory on this and don't. Why do they? A 
woman? They're related? do tell.....


Talisman's section recs:

> Pro/Anti
> Character Analysis
> Whose Man?
> Young Snape
> Snape and Love
> Vampire/BatAnimagus
> TBAYS
> Significant Scenes
> 
> 
> Seems like a good start, anyway.
> 
> Talisman.  Game for a share of 500 posts.


Jen, game for whatever amount of posts, and wanting to get started 
soon because she'll have some time off over Spring Break next week.






From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  5 05:01:37 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger)
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 21:01:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Talisman's Snape Plan and UI progress
In-Reply-To: <dudpgm+9r6v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060305050137.98152.qmail@web30205.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Thanks, Jen.  I had been meaning to add to this, but got waylaid.
  
I'd also like to add my concolences to Tim and his family.  
   
  
Talisman:
> When I was initially considering the problem, I felt that it would 
> be desirable to sort Snape posts as either Pro or Anti, no matter 
> which other categories were involved.

  Ginger:
  I'd have to disagree, on the same grounds that Jen stated:  Threads get broken up, and posts responding to one another get split up so you forget who said what to whom.  I had that problem with ESE! vs Good! Lupin, and finally went crying to Miss to merge them.
   
  Don't forget that we need a category for "Snape is a nasty child-abuser and if JKR doesn't address this issue, she's promoting child abuse and I'll throw my books in the bin."  Oh, wait, we have that category:  It's called "adds nothing new".  Oh, well, carry on, then.
   
  Ginger, slogging through 554 "relationship with the Muggle World" posts.  

		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail  makes sharing a breeze. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20060304/54e520df/attachment.html>

From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Mar  5 14:30:20 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 14:30:20 -0000
Subject: Talisman's Snape Plan and UI progress
In-Reply-To: <20060305050137.98152.qmail@web30205.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <duesls+erle@eGroups.com>

> 
>   Ginger:
>   I'd have to disagree, on the same grounds that Jen stated:  
Threads get broken up, and posts responding to one another get split 
up so you forget who said what to whom.  I had that problem with ESE! 
vs Good! Lupin, and finally went crying to Miss to merge them.

Potioncat: 
Me too. What Jen and Ginger said.


Ginger:    
>   Don't forget that we need a category for "Snape is a nasty child-
abuser and if JKR doesn't address this issue, she's promoting child 
abuse and I'll throw my books in the bin."  Oh, wait, we have that 
category:  It's called "adds nothing new".  Oh, well, carry on, then.


Potioncat:
Me too.

Has anyone been over at the Severus Snape for Grownups site lately? 
There's not a single thread about anyone else! Someone quick, go post 
a different idea.

Potioncat, feeling weak at the knees for suggesting such a thing as 
too much Snape.






From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  5 17:00:23 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger)
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 09:00:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re:Snape
In-Reply-To: <duesls+erle@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060305170023.68911.qmail@web30214.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

  Potioncat:

Has anyone been over at the Severus Snape for Grownups site lately? 
There's not a single thread about anyone else! Someone quick, go post 
a different idea.

Ginger:
  Waddya mean not a single thread?  I did a whole chapter review that didn't contain one single reference to Snapeypoo!  Just some lovely shipping.  Ah, romance that doesn't involve sweets.  And I did a filk too.  No Snapey there, either.  
   
  Ginger, still at it on relating to the Muggle world.

			
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20060305/aad49543/attachment.html>

From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Mar  5 22:02:39 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:02:39 -0000
Subject: group dynamics and Re:Snape
In-Reply-To: <20060305170023.68911.qmail@web30214.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dufn5v+l9f3@eGroups.com>

 
> Ginger:
>   Waddya mean not a single thread?  I did a whole chapter review 
that didn't contain one single reference to Snapeypoo!  Just some 
lovely shipping.  Ah, romance that doesn't involve sweets.  And I did 
a filk too.  No Snapey there, either.  
>    
>   Ginger, still at it on relating to the Muggle world.


Kathy W.
Well, last time I visited HPfGU before coming to the office the 
entire screen was posts about Snape. Of course, after I posted I went 
over and saw a few other topics on screen.

As I've gone through and started removing the Weasley code, I've 
noticed a trend. Once we start coding again, we should use the 
dynamics code for posts about groups or about the interaction within 
the group. Rarely would there also be a code for an individual, but 
it would happen from time to time. In some cases, although several 
individuals are mentioned, the post will really be about one 
individual, not the group. Go with your gut instinct on it.

The other code I've seen a lot today is the "review" code. Carolyn, 
will we have to go through that one before we open the doors? In a  
couple of cases, I actually went ahead and rejected the post. I know, 
I know, I shouldn't have....

Potioncat, humming "Who put the fun in...."








From kking0731 at gmail.com  Wed Mar  8 01:00:32 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 01:00:32 -0000
Subject: A Snape Suggestion
Message-ID: <dulabg+mlck@eGroups.com>





Since the recent discussion over the Snape category and how it should 
best be approached I took a look at the awesome Snape heading and its 
2000+ posts. It dawned on me that when we were cataloging and going 
at top-notch speed, we couldn't do that many posts in two weeks. 
That's when this idea hit me; why don't we collectively attack the 
main category the same way as cataloging. If we all took 100 posts at 
a time simply to weed out unwanted posts, it would not be such an 
overwhelming project. (We could allocate the posts ourselves in the 
same manner as cataloguing) Further more we could have a few 
temporary dump bins for Snape/personal, Snape/love, and Snape/whose 
man.  This way the cataloger only has two tasks to perform with each 
post; is it a Snape worthy post and if so which temp-dump bin should 
it go into. When the main heading is empty you only need to divvy up 
the dump bins to proceed to the next stage, which would be to assign 
the posts into their more refined categories. This would also give 
the reviewer of the temp bin an opportunity to view all similar posts 
for repetition before dispersing them to their rightful subcategory.  

I liked this type of operation for many reasons one of which is the 
limited time everyone has in their lives right now that makes it 
difficult to commit to the undertaking of such a huge task. Another 
is what Jen had said about getting back to cataloging, which is 
almost a leisurely endeavor because you are only attacking 100 posts 
at a time. I know for myself, I have felt badly that I don't have 
time to contribute to any major degree and at the same time would 
love to see this project come off the shelf. I definitely could 
commit to 100 posts at a time and wouldn't feel that I was holding up 
the project if life gets in the way for a day or two. 

Just a suggestion

Snow








From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  8 13:10:21 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger)
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 05:10:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] A Snape Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <dulabg+mlck@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060308131021.2724.qmail@web30209.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

You know, I think I like that suggestion.  It is exactly the same way I'm going about relationship with the Muggle world right now.  I have the obvious ones rejected and the other 502 posts sorted into 4 categories (one of which is "other") and will go about weeding them next week.  Of course, in my case, I have just written down the numbers.  It would be tons easier to go about them if we could just click instead of playing secratary for ourselves.  I went through almost 600 posts last weekend in this manner and am ready to start rejecting the repeats in just the mannor you suggested.
   
  That's also how I handled trio ships.
   
  Why does it seem like whenever someone suggests something that I always agree?  Am I that easily swayed or am I surrounded by brilliant people?
   
  Ginger

		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail  makes sharing a breeze. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20060308/a5e78c49/attachment.html>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Wed Mar  8 21:40:50 2006
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 21:40:50 -0000
Subject: A Snape Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <dulabg+mlck@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dunj12+rp5a@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" <kking0731 at ...> 
wrote:

 why don't we collectively attack the 
> main category the same way as cataloging. If we all took 100 posts at 
> a time simply to weed out unwanted posts, it would not be such an 
> overwhelming project. (We could allocate the posts ourselves in the 
> same manner as cataloguing) Further more we could have a few 
> temporary dump bins for Snape/personal, Snape/love, and Snape/whose 
> man.  This way the cataloger only has two tasks to perform with each 
> post; is it a Snape worthy post and if so which temp-dump bin should 
> it go into. When the main heading is empty you only need to divvy up 
> the dump bins to proceed to the next stage, which would be to assign 
> the posts into their more refined categories. 

Carolyn, stumbling in almost too bleary eyed to read tonight:
Yes, this is essence of Snape suggestion a little way back. I think my 
version was to allocate 500 posts each, then for us to go through and 
pre-dump em as you suggest, in preparation for a more careful sort out 
of each section subsequently.

Will get back to y'all at weekend..

Carolyn






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Mar  9 16:16:42 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (Kathy Willson)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:16:42 -0500
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: A Snape Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <dunj12+rp5a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY106-F9F9CBE8FDAF5B84D5FB7CADEC0@phx.gbl>

My computer is down...don't ask...and I'm using the public one at the 
library...if it comes up, for the next week it will be dial-up then it 
should be whatever the new version of cyberspace is...we'll see.

I agree with the batch idea, but please Miss, when it's time to start, could 
I have a smaller batch than 500? It's taken me forever to get through the 
350 posts in Weasley dynamics...and while that's a different process, I 
don't want to slow others down.

I reaize that in the long run, the faster dynamoes in our group will end up 
doing more posts, but that will allow us to get done sooner.

Kathy W





From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 13 15:19:05 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:19:05 -0000
Subject: report and suggestion
Message-ID: <dv42h9+bn5o@eGroups.com>

A bleary-eyed Ginger sits up at her desk.  It is an ungodly hour of a 
Monday morning, and she has been up late all weekend 
finishing "relationship with the Muggle World".  

It started as 554 posts, and now has been hacked to.... only 335.  
Really.  That's all I could hack out of it.  It is such a wide 
category that there was little repetition (oh, a few threads about 
how Muggleborns find Diagon Alley and why Muggles let the kids attend 
Hogwarts), but a lot of posts that really didn't belong there.

My suggestion:  I propose we rename the category "Garbage Scow for 
every blessed post ever written in which the word 'Muggle' appears".  

OK, I'm kidding.  It would be nice in the future if we drew a 
distinction, though.  For example: if a post talks about how a young 
wizard would go about getting a Muggle drivers' license, then it 
belongs there; if it only mentions that the age for Apparation is the 
same as the age at which British Muggles get their licenses, then it 
does not.

Now on to the serious suggestion.

In tackling this massive category, I divided the posts into 4 
categories:  Family (includes Muggle-born students and mixed 
marriages), Culture (indludes technology, dress, language, 
education...), History/Politics (includes government, but not the 
Political Comparisons, which is already a sub-category), and Other.
Other is a really wide category.

I propose that we make these sub-categories, in addition to the PC 
category (which I now have to re-review as there were many posts that 
I put there whilst weeding the main category).

If we did that, Other would just be the main heading.

The posts would stand as follows:
Main: 49
Family: 63
Culture: 121
History/Politics: 107
Political Comparisons: about 50 at this time, but still to be re-
reviewed.  Should only change by a few.

There are a handful (maybe a half dozen) that overlap between these 
sub-heads.

I have, of course, taken notes and could quickly (in a few hours) put 
them in their correct locations should we decide to go this route.

What say ye?

Ginger, off to dreamyland.

Politics: From the Greek "poly" meaning "many" and the English "tick" 
meaning "annoying bloodsucking creatures".






From annemehr at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 19 03:47:42 2006
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 03:47:42 -0000
Subject: A Snape Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <20060308131021.2724.qmail@web30209.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dvik8u+pd36@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Ginger <quigonginger at ...> wrote:
>
> You know, I think I like that suggestion.  It is exactly the same
way I'm going about relationship with the Muggle world right now.  I
have the obvious ones rejected and the other 502 posts sorted into 4
categories (one of which is "other") and will go about weeding them
next week.  Of course, in my case, I have just written down the
numbers.  It would be tons easier to go about them if we could just
click instead of playing secratary for ourselves.

Anne:
Actually, we still will have to play secretary, because while this
preliminary review is going on, no one can uncode any of the posts. 
The reason for this is, say you are reviewing Snape posts 500 - 600,
and someone starts uncoding posts before yours -- then suddenly, what
had been the 500th Snape post becomes the 400-and-somethingth one and
you will lose your place.

Um, yes -- back to Arabella Figg now...

*slinks back into office to de-rust the machete*

~Anne







From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 19 04:17:17 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:17:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: A Snape Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <dvik8u+pd36@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060319041717.99654.qmail@web30212.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


    I wrote:
   It would be tons easier to go about them if we could just
click instead of playing secratary for ourselves.

Anne:
Actually, we still will have to play secretary, because while this
preliminary review is going on, no one can uncode any of the posts. 
The reason for this is, say you are reviewing Snape posts 500 - 600,
and someone starts uncoding posts before yours -- then suddenly, what
had been the 500th Snape post becomes the 400-and-somethingth one and
you will lose your place.

Ginger again:
   
  Good preemptive strike, Anne.  
  It could still be done if we assign it by message #s instead of post numbers.  For example, rather than saying "you do the first 100" say "you do 233CLUB through 5433CLUB" and the next person takes 5439CLUB through 234GROUP".  I'm pulling numbers out of the air here, but you get the idea.
   
  I am planning to finish Law and Order this weekend.
   
  Ginger, glad Anne is thinking.

		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20060318/5f0b5dee/attachment.html>

From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Sun Mar 19 19:50:15 2006
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:50:15 -0000
Subject: A Snape Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <20060319041717.99654.qmail@web30212.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <dvkcln+5a2g@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Ginger <quigonginger at ...> 
wrote:
>

> 
> Anne:
> Actually, we still will have to play secretary, because while this
> preliminary review is going on, no one can uncode any of the posts. 
> The reason for this is, say you are reviewing Snape posts 500 - 600,
> and someone starts uncoding posts before yours -- then suddenly, 
what had been the 500th Snape post becomes the 400-and-somethingth 
one and you will lose your place.
> 
> Ginger again:
>    
>   Good preemptive strike, Anne.  
>   It could still be done if we assign it by message #s instead of 
post numbers.  For example, rather than saying "you do the first 100" 
say "you do 233CLUB through 5433CLUB" and the next person takes 
5439CLUB through 234GROUP".  I'm pulling numbers out of the air here, 
but you get the idea.


Miss H, head bound up and full of flu agrees, alas. The only way 
would be to download all the Snape numbers onto a spreadsheet, and 
then issue batches of them, 100 or 500 at a time, whatever.




>    
>   I am planning to finish Law and Order this weekend.
>    

All those senators, Congress, Rumsfeld... not a chance against Ginger 
the invincible.. will you be on CNN, holding the nation to ransom? :)
 		









From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 20 01:42:58 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:42:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re: A Snape Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <dvkcln+5a2g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060320014258.71438.qmail@web30203.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


    Miss H, head bound up and full of flu agrees, alas. The only way 
would be to download all the Snape numbers onto a spreadsheet, and 
then issue batches of them, 100 or 500 at a time, whatever.

  Ginger:
   
  As sorry as I am for you for your flu (and I do hope you feel better soon), when I read that "head bound up" part, I pictured you in a Purple Turban.
   
  I said:    
>   I am planning to finish Law and Order this weekend.
>    
Miss H replied:
All those senators, Congress, Rumsfeld... not a chance against Ginger 
the invincible.. will you be on CNN, holding the nation to ransom? :)
            
Me again:
  Nah, this is a British book.  I'm going to hold the House of Lords hostage until Prince William agrees to marry me, at which time I will quit my job and move to your beautiful country and practice waving at people in parades and denying all tabloid articles whilst keeping a stiff upper lip.  That's about as close to politics as I care to come.  On second thought, maybe I'd better go for Prince Harry.  He's less likely to get the top spot, so I really wouldn't have to do as much, duty-wise, and I wouldn't be under nearly as much pressure to produce an heir at my age.  I would, of course, do charity work.  I may even get to meet JKR and ask her all those burning questions we have (except those involving spoilers, of course.  I really don't want to know those.)  And I could have annoying listees beheaded...  Alas, the annoying ones seem to be Americans.  So much for that.  Well, it was a nice thought.  I guess I'd best get on with the last section of my category, which, ironicly,
 involves "ethics".  
    Cheers, and hopes of a fully recovered Fearless Leader,
  Ginger

		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20060319/c6c5154b/attachment.html>

From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 20 10:18:34 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:18:34 -0000
Subject: done with this set
Message-ID: <dvlvhq+mlfd@eGroups.com>

I finished 3.1 through 3.3.  Just one note:  I added a definition 
under 3.3.6 (rules and ethics for using magic).  There seemed to be 
some confusion as to what it means when a person "can" do something.  
I added in the definition to check 3.8.0 (JKR's rules).

Asking if someone if physically capable of using magic to do 
something in JKR's world goes under 3.8.0.  Asking if it is 
permissable is under 3.3.6.

Sometimes they do overlap.  

Oh, yes... under 3.3.5 (underage magic) we have quite enough posts 
along the lines of "Why did Harry get in trouble for the pudding when 
________ didn't get in trouble for __________?", at least as it 
involved book 1-4 canon.  I'm sure there will be a lot said about the 
Dementors in book 5.

I did some shifting around in the govt. section, but I think some of 
those categories may have been added later as it was mostly in early 
posts.

Also (did I say "just one note?") please watch in the 3.3.1 through 
3.3.4 sections.  They do overlap quite a bit, so please try to code 
to that which applies "best" rather than all or several.  I uncoded a 
herd of posts which were coded to all of them, but really only 
belonged to one or two.  The majority of them were originally coded 
by (points accusing finger)...me.  I remember coding them.  I 
remember seeing those code buttons and thinking "oooh, shiny...must 
touch."  As you sow, so shall you reap.

So that's done, although when Miss is better she can look at my 
request for subcategories under relationship with the Muggle world 
and I can deal with that then.

I believe Spirits is still open.  So I shall attack them next.  Why 
not.  They're dead.  They won't care if I come at them with the old 
weed whacker.

Ginger, wishing Miss a speedy recovery






From annemehr at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 20 16:57:09 2006
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:57:09 -0000
Subject: A Snape Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <dvkcln+5a2g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvmmt5+g9ct@eGroups.com>

> > Anne:
> > Actually, we still will have to play secretary, because while this
> > preliminary review is going on, no one can uncode any of the posts. 
> > The reason for this is, say you are reviewing Snape posts 500 - 600,
> > and someone starts uncoding posts before yours -- then suddenly, 
> what had been the 500th Snape post becomes the 400-and-somethingth 
> one and you will lose your place.
> > 
> > Ginger again:
> >    
> >   Good preemptive strike, Anne.  
> >   It could still be done if we assign it by message #s instead of 
> post numbers.  For example, rather than saying "you do the first 100" 
> say "you do 233CLUB through 5433CLUB" and the next person takes 
> 5439CLUB through 234GROUP".  I'm pulling numbers out of the air here, 
> but you get the idea.
> 
> 
> Miss H, head bound up and full of flu agrees, alas. The only way 
> would be to download all the Snape numbers onto a spreadsheet, and 
> then issue batches of them, 100 or 500 at a time, whatever.
> 

Anne:
There are 2648 Snape posts (under the main heading).

How many people do we have volunteering?  I know people have expressed
a willingness in the past, but things may have changed for some in the
meantime.

Anyway, suppose we have five people.  If we divvy them all up at once,
that means assigning over 500 posts each.  If we have, say, eight
people, that becomes about 330 posts each.

*Is* there a reasonable easy way to cull all the post numbers from the
post listing you get when you click the [p] next to the Snape category?


If we cannot easily cull a list of all the Snape post numbers (or even
if we can), then I think it might be much easier to assign 100 posts
at a time.  We could use Ginger's suggestion, and assign the first
person post 2886(club) to post 3111(group), etc.  People would sort
their allocations into temp categories and empty them out of main
Snape.  Then they would come back to be assigned the next free 100 posts. 

For one thing, it makes it a much smaller task to copy and paste the
post numbers from the [p] screen into a post on this group to assign
them to people, if that's how we have to do it.  

For another thing, this will eat away at the beginning of the list, so
that the post numbers farther along become more easily accessible
without clicking on "posts 41 and above," "posts 81 and above," etc,
etc, all the way up to 2*** (it takes forever, you know).  

For a third thing, people are going to sort at different speeds, so
this will get the whole thing done more efficiently without waiting
for the slowest person to get done.  

For a fourth thing, with a smaller task, people might be inclined to
sort faster because it doesn't seem so daunting.


Now, about whether to sort them into "pro" and "anti," I can see
Talisman's wish to read only one side at a time, sometimes.  I'm not
sure keeping threads together is all *that* important, because with
these huge categories the threads are heavily chopped in order to keep
only the most relevant and original posts anyway.  That's what
happened with the Harry category.  Threads were ruthlessly divvied up.
 If users want to see a whole thread, they will just have to use our
catalogue to find the post on the main list and read the thread there.
 However, I'm still not sure it is much use sorting them into pro and
anti, because each post is sure to quote heavily from the other side,
so 99% of the posts will contain arguments from both sides anyway.

Anne







From elfundeb at comcast.net  Tue Mar 21 05:07:08 2006
From: elfundeb at comcast.net (Debbie)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 05:07:08 -0000
Subject: A Snape Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <dvmmt5+g9ct@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvo1ls+1v97@eGroups.com>

Anne:
> There are 2648 Snape posts (under the main heading).
> 
> How many people do we have volunteering?  I know people have 
expressed
> a willingness in the past, but things may have changed for some in 
the
> meantime.

I'm in.

> If we cannot easily cull a list of all the Snape post numbers (or 
even
> if we can), then I think it might be much easier to assign 100 
posts
> at a time.  We could use Ginger's suggestion, and assign the first
> person post 2886(club) to post 3111(group), etc.  People would sort
> their allocations into temp categories and empty them out of main
> Snape.  Then they would come back to be assigned the next free 100 
posts. 

> For one thing, it makes it a much smaller task to copy and paste 
the
> post numbers from the [p] screen into a post on this group to 
assign
> them to people, if that's how we have to do it. 

I agree with this approach.  In fact, I like it so much I'll 
volunteer to break down the 2600+ posts into 100-post increments.  
Maybe if the blocks are so small we can entice more victims into 
helping out. 

Debbie
who is more than 3/4 done with the Beings and hopes to make a final 
report soon






From carolynwhite2 at aol.com  Tue Mar 21 08:55:06 2006
From: carolynwhite2 at aol.com (carolynwhite2)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:55:06 -0000
Subject: A Snape Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <dvo1ls+1v97@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvof1a+eg2r@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Debbie" <elfundeb at ...> wrote:
>
 
> I agree with this approach.  In fact, I like it so much I'll 
> volunteer to break down the 2600+ posts into 100-post increments.  
> Maybe if the blocks are so small we can entice more victims into 
> helping out. 
> 
> Debbie
> who is more than 3/4 done with the Beings and hopes to make a final 
> report soon
>

Miss H peers blearily at the screen. 
Can this be true? Someone has VOLUNTEERED to do something about Snape..

Being a Brit, as a token of gratitude all I can do is offer to 
introduce you to our PM, I'm sure that the little difficulty of you 
being an American won't stop him making you a Baroness..

Hey, if I introduced all of you to him (services rendered to the UK 
literary community and all that), you could all get into the House of 
Lords and make sure a Bill gets passed making Wills or Harry marry an 
American, then all you'd have to do is fight it out your side of the 
pond!

C
Hoping Ginger is practising her wave..






From elfundeb at comcast.net  Wed Mar 22 13:17:42 2006
From: elfundeb at comcast.net (Debbie)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:17:42 -0000
Subject: A Snape Suggestion
In-Reply-To: <dvof1a+eg2r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <dvripm+20fv@eGroups.com>

Miss H peers blearily at the screen. 
> Can this be true? Someone has VOLUNTEERED to do something about 
Snape..

And done it, too.  Here's the table

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Catalogue/database?
method=reportRows&tbl=22

broken down into 27 very manageable 100-post blocks, so we can start 
as soon as we're settled on the subcategories.  We are almost there, 
no?

> Being a Brit, as a token of gratitude all I can do is offer to 
> introduce you to our PM, I'm sure that the little difficulty of 
you 
> being an American won't stop him making you a Baroness..

That would be wonderful!  Do I get a manor house to go with it?  Or 
better yet, a castle?  Even more important, does it come with a 
house-elf?

> C
> Hoping Ginger is practising her wave..

Debbie, hoping Ginger can fulfill all her public relations duties, 
as her wave is rather weak.










From elfundeb at comcast.net  Fri Mar 24 11:42:09 2006
From: elfundeb at comcast.net (Debbie)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:42:09 -0000
Subject: Werewolves and Lycanthropy
Message-ID: <e00luh+sa79@eGroups.com>

I've taken a first scan of 2.14.6 (Werewolves, under Beings) and 
quickly realized that there is a good deal of overlap with 3.4.4 
(Lycanthropy, under Health and Physiology.  Since a good many of the 
werewolf discussions revolve around symptoms of lycanthropy, it's hard 
to decide which ones go where, as I discovered when I found a very 
well-written, early-in-time discussion of lycanthropy as an 
illness . . . but coded only to Werewolves and not to Lycanthropy.

Has anyone reviewed Lycanthropy yet?  What's in it -- symptoms, how 
one becomes a werewolf, remedies, silver hand theories, transformation 
issues, WW attitudes, all or none of the above?  Should I avoid moving 
any posts over there?  

I'll be AFK till Monday and hope to get back to this on Tuesday.

Debbie






From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 14:44:45 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 06:44:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Werewolves and Lycanthropy
In-Reply-To: <e00luh+sa79@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060324144445.85217.qmail@web30208.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


    Deb:
  I've taken a first scan of 2.14.6 (Werewolves, under Beings) and 
quickly realized that there is a good deal of overlap with 3.4.4 
(Lycanthropy, under Health and Physiology.  Since a good many of the 
werewolf discussions revolve around symptoms of lycanthropy, it's hard 
to decide which ones go where, as I discovered when I found a very 
well-written, early-in-time discussion of lycanthropy as an 
illness . . . but coded only to Werewolves and not to Lycanthropy.

Has anyone reviewed Lycanthropy yet?  What's in it -- symptoms, how 
one becomes a werewolf, remedies, silver hand theories, transformation 
issues, WW attitudes, all or none of the above?  Should I avoid moving 
any posts over there?  

I'll be AFK till Monday and hope to get back to this on Tuesday.

  Ginger, who has no idea what AFK means, says:
   
  Yoo-hoo!  YOO-hoo!  Pick me, Professor!  Pick me!
   
  I did both Lycanthropy *and* Lupin, so I would bet dollars to doughnuts that I have seen most of those posts at one time or another.  I culled lycanthropy from 139 to 96 posts, and lots of what I rejected was also coded to werewolves (not to be confused with underwearwolves, which are those nasty guys that stare down your shirt and whistle).
   
  Anyway, I do remember that there were a few that were pretty good which I uncoded because they were repetitions and that the person was basicly presenting their theory to a new generation (think Steve or Rita-not that it was one of them, but that type of thing where they have been around since Moses was a kid and when a discussion comes up again, they put forth their theories to new posters, sometimes with added info). 
   
  Another reason I uncoded was that someone else responded to the post and quoted it in its entirety with added worthy thoughts, so I dropped the original so there would be less to read through for the people perusing our finished product.
   
  If you find one that's earthshattering in its brilliance, send me the post number, and I'll see if it is just something that wasn't originally coded there and add it if it is something new.
   
  As to what's in the category, I tried to stick pretty much with the medical end of things, since that was where the category was, but not many posts focused on just that without getting into other things, so I was pretty liberal on that, which is one reason I wasn't up to my usual hacking numbers.  
   
  There were, of course, a few that I noted were already coded to werewolves, and I thought they belonged there more than in lycanthropy, but these were more of how werewolves are treated in society, how to kill them, whether or not killing them constitutes murder... things like that which were more about the wolf individually than about the illness.  I also got rid of some that were just about Lupin particularly (ie how lycanthropy may have effected his personality development, friendships, MWPP dynamics, etc).  Since I had reviewed him and MWPP, I felt pretty comfortable leaving those to just those categories.
   
  Feel free to send any more thoughts my way, 
  Ginger

		
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC for low, low rates.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20060324/3b05ca39/attachment.html>

From annemehr at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 15:35:51 2006
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:35:51 -0000
Subject: Werewolves and Lycanthropy/Thanks to Debbie/More Snape
In-Reply-To: <20060324144445.85217.qmail@web30208.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <e013kn+jsku@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, Ginger <quigonginger at ...> wrote:
>   Ginger, who has no idea what AFK means,

It means "away from keyboard."  It means she has a life! :)

I also see Deb has divvied up the Snape posts.  Thanks, Deb -- it
feels like something's been accomplished already!

Now as for the Snape categories -- the more I think about it, I really
don't see the harm in having Pro and Anti categories, as a kind of
overlay among all the other Snape categories.  In fact, now I think
it's actually a good idea.

I'm thinking, establish whatever Snape categories seem warranted for
sorting his posts into.  Then, *besides* all those, we have Pro and
Anti categories which we code the posts of people who are very
obviously arguing from a, well, Pro or Anti standpoint.  Very likely,
many posts coded into these will also carry another Snape code.

After all, Snape has been *the* most polarizing character, and it
would seem to make sense that the catalogue reflect that.  I realise
there will be lots of overlap, but in this case I don't see the harm,
and I can well imagine many more people besides Talisman wanting to
take a dip into these.  I don't think it would make life particularly
more difficult for us, either.  On the other hand, if we *don't* do
this, life will indeed be difficult for anyone who might wish to
sort/search/read posts in this way.

Whaddya say?

Anne







From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 24 16:38:09 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (Ginger)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:38:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPFGU-Catalogue] Re:Thanks to Debbie and Anne/More Snape
In-Reply-To: <e013kn+jsku@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060324163809.2266.qmail@web30202.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



    >   Ginger, who has no idea what AFK means,

It means "away from keyboard."  It means she has a life! :)

  Thanks, Anne.  I had no idea.  I knew what AFAIK meant and was trying to go from there.  
    Debbie has a life?  What are those coded under?  I'd like info on how to get one.  Or are they only in the Potterverse?
   
  Anne:
I also see Deb has divvied up the Snape posts.  Thanks, Deb -- it
feels like something's been accomplished already!

  Ginger concurs.
   
  Anne:
Now as for the Snape categories -- the more I think about it, I really
don't see the harm in having Pro and Anti categories, as a kind of
overlay among all the other Snape categories.  (snip)
  
I'm thinking, establish whatever Snape categories seem warranted for
sorting his posts into.  Then, *besides* all those, we have Pro and
Anti categories which we code the posts of people who are very
obviously arguing from a, well, Pro or Anti standpoint.  Very likely,
many posts coded into these will also carry another Snape code.

  Ginger:  
  I was opposed to pro/anti sorting because of the overlap, but this seems like a good compromise.  If they are sorted into other categories with Pro and Anti available for posts which are *seriously* polarized, then we could have both continuity and a section for those who want a particular point of view.
   
  Anne:
After all, Snape has been *the* most polarizing character, (snip)
   
  Ginger:
   
  Ya don't say!
   
  Ginger, taking a couple of days AFK to go to South Dakota for Dad's 65th b-day, but will have access to her e-mail during that time.

		
---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1/min. Make  PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-catalogue/attachments/20060324/cf5600f9/attachment.html>

From kakearney at gmail.com  Sun Mar 26 18:03:01 2006
From: kakearney at gmail.com (corinthum)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:03:01 -0000
Subject: Review of 3.8.4.1 Memory Charms
Message-ID: <e06l0l+s0af@eGroups.com>

Question:  When is 169 posts not 169 posts?
Answer: When half of them are written by Elkiins.

Sheesh, that woman can write.

Anyway, I finally finished reviewing 3.8.4.1 Memory Charms.  I made
the decision, with the input of the group, that all the posts under
3.8.4 Spells, potions & incantations will be ones focusing on the
magical process itself, not the resulting characterizations and
plotlines associated with them.  In this particular case, that means
that MemoryCharmed!Neville and all its variants shall remain under
Neville, Longbottom torture, a few dozen acronyms, and whatever other
character codes are deemed necessary, but for my purposes they went in
the trash.

Must admit, though, it was slightly traumatic for me to place the
Still Life with Memory Charm and Memory Charm Symposium posts in my
discard pile.  :-)  That conversation was one of the first ones I ever
read on this list (and one of the resons why it took me so long to
finish this review; it's so easy to be distracted by an Elkins thesis). 
 

3.8.4.1 Memory Charms
---------------------
Originally: 169
Now: 38

Mechanism, process, regulations, morality, etc. of memory charms. 
Only put character-specific posts (e.g. Neville, Harry, Bertha
Jorkins) here if the discussion is centering on the specific mechanism
of the memory charm.  So, for example, a discussion of whether Neville
has been memory charmed (or any variant thereof) and why and by who
does not belong here, but a discussion of whether a memory charm could
produce the specific symptoms that Neville shows can stay.

-Kelly








From kakearney at gmail.com  Sun Mar 26 18:07:07 2006
From: kakearney at gmail.com (corinthum)
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:07:07 -0000
Subject: Review of 3.8.4.1 Memory Charms
In-Reply-To: <e06l0l+s0af@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <e06l8b+m4l4@eGroups.com>

I just went to update this category description in the database, and
saw that KathyK is listed as the reviewer for all the 3.8.4
subcategories, although she isn't listed there in the allocation
database.  Kathy, have you done anything with these categories
already?  If not, should I go ahead and change those to me?  

-Kelly