Snape, Trolls, etc.

[Debbie]

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