<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1491" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>
<DIV><TT>Carolyn:<BR>As you notice later, the general Weasley category is
1.4.7.1 under <BR>Family dynamics. I have just de-cluttered the Gred & Forge
category <BR>on the same principle - ie, only code to the twins where it really
is <BR>a detailed discussion about them, rather than their family
<BR>relationships.</TT></DIV>
<DIV><TT></TT></DIV>
<DIV><TT>Debbie:</TT></DIV>
<DIV><TT></TT>;</DIV>
<DIV><TT><FONT face=Arial size=2>But if you think about it from the perspective
of the reader searching for posts, does this make sense? If I were
searching F&G, I would expect to find posts about their impact on the family
dynamic, as many of these posts are very much about them. If I had to
search family dynamics, I'd have to wade through lots of posts about Molly's
impact on Percy, Ginny, etc. that have nothing to do with F&G. This is
a case where many of the posts *are* about the characters and not just the
dynamic.</FONT></TT></DIV>
<DIV><TT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></TT><TT></DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT>
<DIV></TT><TT>Potioncat has questions:<BR><BR>Posts on McGonagall are either OK
or they aren't. [snip] A few question her age prior to JKR's revealing it. Do we
need to<BR>keep a few of those for posterity?<BR><BR>Carolyn:<BR>Yes to your
first question, only have stuff that is mainly about <BR>McGonagall under her
code.<BR><BR>I would also say generally no to your second question if they are
<BR>seriously wrong in their guesses, but I know that Debbie and Kelly <BR>were
keen to keep some of these old arguments for posterity.</TT></DIV>
<DIV><TT></TT></DIV>
<DIV><TT>Debbie:</TT></DIV>
<DIV><TT></TT></DIV>
<DIV><TT>I don't see any need to retainhistory on age speculation, though
maybe it's just because it's a subject I'm not interestedin except to spin
yarns about her relationship with Riddle</TT></DIV>
<DIV><TT></TT></DIV>
<DIV><TT>Carolyn:<BR>There are quite regular attempts at ESE!McGonagall. I will
add it as <BR>a sub-category, if people don't mind.<BR></TT></DIV>
<DIV><TT>Debbie:</TT></DIV><TT></TT></DIV>
<DIV><TT>Yes, and I'd vote to add Imperious!Arthur, too, which has been
discussed many times.</TT></DIV>
<DIV><TT></TT></DIV>
<DIV><TT><FONT face=Arial size=2>I see no one has claimed Authorial
Intent/Reader Response. Talisman, are you interested, or are you leaving
it to me?</FONT></TT></DIV>
<DIV><TT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></TT></DIV>
<DIV><TT><FONT face=Arial size=2>Debbie</FONT></TT></DIV>
<DIV><TT><FONT face=Arial size=2>running behind due to the 50+ hours billed this
week on her allegedly part time job</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR></TT></DIV><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| --></BODY></HTML>