From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Thu Nov 1 00:19:56 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:19:56 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Del: > Nobody ever thinks of themselves as prejudiced or bigoted. > Those people who don't think of homosexuality (or anything > else) as good or neutral, certainly don't see themselves as > prejudiced or bigoted. Instead, it is most likely people > like you that they see as prejudiced and bigoted. Problem is: > who gets to decide who will impose their definition of Right > and Wrong on the other? Who gets to decide which side will > be officially called "prejudiced" or not? There is NO such > ultimate authority, so that in the end, judgements of > "prejudice" or "bigotry" are not so much statements about > the other, as they are instead statements about ourselves IMO. Celoneth: I'm sure people who are freaked out about gay DD don't see themselves as prejudiced - but people's perceptions of themselves are often as inaccurate as outsiders perceptions. We're all prejudiced to some extent, often unconsciously but that is not a reasoned basis for opposing/favouring something. What I was asking was for a legitimate reason that it's such a big deal that DD is gay and I've heard none. Perhaps you can elucidate because it really doesn't make sense to me. Del: >She should, IMO, have given them the choice to read or not > to read, instead of waiting until *after* they had read to > reveal that there's something in the books that they > would normally choose not to read. Celoneth: So what, books should come with warning labels. "Warning: Author sees nothing wrong with gay characters, interracial dating, etc." She couldn't reveal the DD-GG relationship before DH or it could have spoiled the end of the series. The comment isn't even in the books - and is easily ignorable if it doesn't coincide w/ the reader's perception of DD, and if someone is so petty that they wouldn't read books because an author wrote a gay character then frankly its their loss and not the author's obligation to pander to them. Del: > I agree, but I think that this applies to anyone > and everyone: for example, IMO, it applies to both > those who despise gays, and those who despise those > who don't think homosexuality is good or neutral. To > be very blunt: whether it's "Faggot!" or "Bigot!", > it's an opinion turned into hate speech all the > same. Celoneth: No, because a bigot is a definition, the other word is a slur and its only purpose is to act as a slur. I included the words prejudiced and bigoted - they are different things. Prejudice, imo, is when a person has a conscious or not opinion about a group not rooted in fact and reason and may be acted on or not, bigoted, imo, is when a person has an irrational fear/hatred of a group and and that is acted on. Del: If she wanted all her readers to be > OK with a gay DD, then she should have WRITTEN a gay DD, > so that all people reading the books would know that DD > was gay. If you don't tell people what you expect from > them, and they do differently than what you hoped for, > it's all your fault, not theirs. They can't read your > mind. Celoneth: But she did apparently write a gay DD - with the nature of the story it would have been inappropriate for her to mention DD's sexuality throughout the books - perhaps in Rita Skeeter's interviews but normally headmasters and similar figures do not share their personal lives with students not to mention that it had very little to do with the plot. Authors typically plan characters in very detailed ways - many details are never mentioned in the story but influence the way an author writes the character. Del: > I disagree. It wasn't universal morality, it was simply > the Constitution. Celoneth: Actually it wasn't the Constitution - it had to be amended for blacks and women to be able to vote. The original Constitution viewed blacks and women to some extent as property. Not going to get into the entire Bible thing except to mention that religion has been used for millenia to justify all sorts of horrid things (slavery, oppression, persecution, war, etc.) as well as opposition to those things. Most religious texts can argue pretty much any point the reader wants to affirm. Celoneth From va32h at comcast.net Thu Nov 1 00:21:21 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:21:21 -0000 Subject: JKR Sues Steve Van Der Ark (Lexicon Steve) Message-ID: Rowling, Bloomsbury and Warner Brothers are suing Lexicon Steve and his publishers to prevent the release of a printed version of the Lexicon. JKR says this will interfere with her future publication of the encyclopedia. Hmmm, I thought the encyclopedia was supposed to be full of NEW material that we hadn't seen before. How is this different from the Mugglenet book which used JKR's characters, place names, etc. Why object to the book but not the Lexicon itself (which JKR has oft praised and claimed she looked to when writing?) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Nov 1 02:33:12 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:33:12 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Del replies: > The problem as I see it now, is that JKR did write all > the HP books, but she did NOT include any gay character. > In fact, she even described a WW in which only heterosexuality > seems to exist. That's what is in the books. And then > now, she turns around and says "oh, by the way, there's > a gay character in there". Well, I just don't see this > as fair to those who don't want to read books with > gay characters. Instead of being upfront and giving those > readers a choice, she made the choice for them. I mean, > this is what it all ends up looking like: "come, > come and read my books, there aren't any gay characters > in them... OK, you're finished reading? Well now let > me tell you: there IS a gay character. Aha, tricked you!" > Of course, I'm not saying that this was her *intent*, > but I can understand why those readers are upset. Magpie: But why would anyone think they had any actual right to read a book with gay characters in them? That's a bit of an irrational idea, isn't it? Nobody has a right to have warnings on the books about whether it has a certain kind of character. There's a lot of things in HP I wish I'd been warned about beforehand. Maybe I wouldn't have read them if I'd heard them. But I don't think she did anything strong by not warning about that. I mean, she didn't actually change the character in the book at all, so it's hard for me to think of somebody saying "But you made me read a gay character when I didn't want to--and I didn't realize it!" by thinking maybe it's the reader who ought to be rethinking their position. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Nov 1 03:17:50 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 03:17:50 -0000 Subject: JKR Sues Steve Van Der Ark (Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "va32h" wrote: > > Rowling, Bloomsbury and Warner Brothers are suing Lexicon Steve and > his publishers to prevent the release of a printed version of the > Lexicon. > Potioncat: Wow! Where did you find that piece of news? I saw a statement that she would not approve of companion books because she was planning one herself, but I didn't know she was actually taking someone to court. Heck I was hoping she'd ask Lexicon Steve to write the encyclopedia for/with her. But Merlin knows, if the Lexicon was ever published, I'd do my darnedest to buy a copy. From muellem at bc.edu Thu Nov 1 03:28:21 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 03:28:21 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > > However, in the case of JKR, it is her opinion - > > and since DD is her brainchild(or brainwizard), > > she has every right to be angry or disappointed > > that the fans would take this to an extreme level. > > I don't understand why? She created DD, she put him > on paper, and she didn't present him as gay. And then > she's disappointed because some readers don't want him > to be gay. I'm sorry, but the way I see it, it's > entirely her fault. If she wanted all her readers to be > OK with a gay DD, then she should have WRITTEN a gay DD, > so that all people reading the books would know that DD > was gay. If you don't tell people what you expect from > them, and they do differently than what you hoped for, > it's all your fault, not theirs. They can't read your > mind. > colebiancardi: What is gay? what is the difference between a gay person and a straight person in their character, their beliefs, their lives? As far as I can tell, nothing. A gay person acts just like a straight person. JKR wrote DD as a wizard who is man. Since DD's sex life was not explored in the HP series, there is nothing to state whether he preferred women instead of men. How do you write a gay DD? Really? By a sterotype? By DD having a boyfriend? There was no indication in the books that DD was straight either, if you go by that. > > > However, universal morality dictated that our gov't > > intervene and make it a federal law that allowed > > blacks to vote. > > I disagree. It wasn't universal morality, it was simply > the Constitution. > colebiancardi: The Constitution also stated that blacks were lesser than whites when it was written. Thank goodness, it got changed. > I must say I wonder at the phrase "universal morality". > What do you mean by that? colebiancardi: some things transcend age, race, religion, sexuality, gender. We are humans, first and foremost. > > > I never understood the argument "hate the sin, > > but love the sinner". I have always viewed that as > > a cop-out to tackle the real reasons why someone > > could "hate" a "sin". > > Well, that's an example of why I believe it is so > incredibly important that people try and UNDERSTAND each > other: for many Christians, "hate the sin and love the > sinner" is a very deep, real and meaningful concept. colebiancardi: as a person raised in the Catholic faith, I understand the concept and I reject it as to me, it is a cop-out for not understanding and trying to relate to people who are different. > > > Adultery, stealing, lying are all in the 10 > > commandments; being gay is not - you'd think if it > > was such a moral sin, God would have made Moses > > write that one out on the top 10 > > Since God ordered marriage between man and woman only, > and then forbade all sexual relationships outside of > marriage, homosexuality was automatically condemned. > Condemning it specifically would have been redundant. colebiancardi: not in the 10 commandments He didn't. There is nothing in the 10 commandments that state marriage is between a man & woman only. Also, the Bible is full of relationships that are questionable. Hand maidens who aren't married to the man, who is married to another woman who is too old to give birth, but God gave the OK for the man to have sex with her. Or Lot and his daughters. Incest isn't mentioned in the 10 commandments either - is that redundant? Or is it ok by the Bible's standards? > > > Out of all of the passages in the Bible, there are > > only a couple that deal with homosexuality and that > > really was just a reflection and a backlash against > > the Greek & Roman cultures at the time. > > Many Christians understand a couple of verses in Leviticus > and Deuteronomy to be directly about homosexuality. > That would make them (the verses) part of the Mosaic Law, > which is older than the Greek and Roman cultures if > I'm not mistaken. > colebiancardi: nope. it isn't older. Greeks were very much around - look at the historical timeframe that those chapters were written in, by man. > Many other Christians hold other positions which allow them > to embrace homosexuality. > > But who is to say which groups of Christians have got it > right, and which ones have got it wrong? Who is to say that > "these ones are interpreting the Bible correctly but those > ones are misinterpreting it" ? There is no ultimate human > authority on how to interpret the Bible. colebiancardi: which is why some things need to evolve with time. The Bible is an interesting read, but I view it in a historical context - with the social, ecomonic, cultural emphasis. A lot of it is stories written by man to understand the world around them. Of course, that is my opinion, but I do not take the Bible literally, nor do many others. Otherwise, people wouldn't love football as much (there is a reference to pigskins in the Bible as being verboten). And women in Western cultures no longer have to hide from their men during that time of the month, nor do men considered them unclean. > And if people are sincerely convinced that they are > interpreting the Bible correctly, then how can they > be expected NOT to act on their beliefs? colebiancardi: and that is part of the continuing educational process. The Church took a hard line against Jews prior to WWII - a lot of the Nazi rhetoric was taken straight from the pulpit - many of those Nazi laws had been, at one time or another in the Church's history, decrees against Jews. That is why the Vatican II came out in the 1960's - to try to make Catholism more accepting of different beliefs and to break apart the old myths and hatred. The way I look at it is to try to put myself in the minority group in question. Then I ask if this is morally fair and just. Do I like how I am being treated? Do I like how others perceive me? Do I feel that I am given the same opportunities that the majority group has? if any of those answers is no, then I, as the majority group, is wrong in my treatment of the minority group. And in case you were going to ask, Christianity is not a minority group - it is a majority group in the US and probably in the Western World. And that is another thing about the US. The minority groups are protected from the will of the majority groups - otherwise, only white, male property owners would be able to vote and dictate our country's path. thank goodness that has changed. colebiancardi From va32h at comcast.net Thu Nov 1 03:28:37 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 03:28:37 -0000 Subject: JKR Sues Steve Van Der Ark (Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Potioncat: > Wow! Where did you find that piece of news? I saw a statement that she > would not approve of companion books because she was planning one > herself, but I didn't know she was actually taking someone to court. > Heck I was hoping she'd ask Lexicon Steve to write the encyclopedia > for/with her. > > But Merlin knows, if the Lexicon was ever published, I'd do my > darnedest to buy a copy. > TLC has the link to the Reuters article. There is another author being sued, whom I've never heard of, that was also writing an encyclopedia-type book. The article says that JKR is concerned that Steve's book would compete with her book (to be published "eventually") and thus the charities would be losing out. Steve's book is due out Nov. 28. By Rowling's own admission, she hasn't even begun to think about her encyclopedia. I don't see that as direct competition, if that's her argument. And you aren't the only one by far that had no idea Steve was publishing a book. I'd say he really isn't going all out to advertise it! His would be information already written, hers is supposed to be new stuff that only she knows. Makes me wonder how much new info there really will be. Of course the characters are hers, copyright, blah blah blah. But Mugglenet published a book, the folks at TLC are planning to write a book, and both of those sites take in advertising revenue. If the issue is no one but JKR profiting off HP, a lot of people need to cease and desist. va32h From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 04:40:24 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 04:40:24 -0000 Subject: JKR Sues Steve Van Der Ark (Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > > Rowling, Bloomsbury and Warner Brothers are suing Lexicon Steve and > his publishers to prevent the release of a printed version of the > Lexicon. > > JKR says this will interfere with her future publication of the > encyclopedia. > > Hmmm, I thought the encyclopedia was supposed to be full of NEW > material that we hadn't seen before. How is this different from the > Mugglenet book which used JKR's characters, place names, etc. > > Why object to the book but not the Lexicon itself (which JKR has oft > praised and claimed she looked to when writing?) > Tonks: Just one more indication that Rowling is not in her right mind. Actually, in all fairness to her, I bet it was the publishers. As far as WB goes they sue everyone! I once lost my account on E-bay for selling something and putting in the ad "your Harry Potter fan would love this". They told me that I can't use the HP name unless it is an HP item. I wrote them back and said that this put the term "he who must not be named" in a new light. And you know when we go to conventions, I remember the one in Canada a couple of years ago, we were told we can say "Happy Birthday Harry", but NOT "Happy Birthday Harry Potter". I understand that it is about saveguarding a trademark, but even so... it doesn't seem fair to Steve. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 05:28:24 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 05:28:24 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Del replies: > The problem as I see it now, is that JKR did write all > the HP books, but she did NOT include any gay character. > In fact, she even described a WW in which only heterosexuality > seems to exist. That's what is in the books. And then > now, she turns around and says "oh, by the way, there's > a gay character in there". Well, I just don't see this > as fair to those who don't want to read books with > gay characters. Instead of being upfront and giving those > readers a choice, she made the choice for them. I mean, > this is what it all ends up looking like: "come, > come and read my books, there aren't any gay characters > in them... OK, you're finished reading? Well now let > me tell you: there IS a gay character. Aha, tricked you!" > Of course, I'm not saying that this was her *intent*, > but I can understand why those readers are upset. Tonks: "Aha, tricked you". Yes she has on many levels. I have been wondering now for some time what would happen when people discovered what she has done on another point. She has written a story with hidden Christian themes and symbols imbedded in the story. I have been saying this since book 1. Some others see it too. But many have been as upset about this as others have about DD being gay. And I think is all boils down to the subversive ways in which the books have been written. People who read the books seeing only a world without religion are upset that in effect 'Christ is on every page' and while that doesn???t upset me, I can understand why it upsets others. I knew that she was going to kill Harry and bring him back in some sort of resurrection and I held my breath for the backlash that would come from that. And some on this list were upset when she said the books did have a Christian theme after all. Now others, like myself, are upset with her because we came to see DD one way and now are told that the man we thought we knew (or fell in love with) is not what we thought he was. So you see, she has been hidding a lot of things from us, which perhaps should have remained hidden and only speculated about. If she wanted a gay person in the story, she should have written it in. I wouldn???t care. In fact I wouldn???t even care that the person was DD, if she had made it clear from the BEGINNING. It is the fact that it is being told NOW that I find it most upsetting from a personal POV. If I had known he was gay from the get go, I would not have fallen in love with him. I sometimes wonder just what type of a woman Rowlings is. She seems at times to get a pleasure in torturing her fans. Maybe she is really a death eater herself. She killed off all of those people in book 7; why? What pleasure did she get from it? I have a bumper sticker that says ???Chaos, Panic and Disorder, my work here is done???. Maybe she has one of those too. Tonks_op From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 06:31:19 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 06:31:19 -0000 Subject: The Final Cut: "Dumbledore - A Lovely Outing" Message-ID: As long as we are on the subject, here is another positive take on Dumbledore's outing by Mark Harris of Entertainment Weekly in his 'Final Cut' Column. A sample quote - "She didn't reveal his sexuality in order to unlock a new way of reading the books, or as a provocation. She simply told the world that a main character in the best-loved books of the last 10 years is homosexual, and asked her audience to contend with it ? and with the fact that it shouldn't matter." http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20154416,00.html Thought you might like to know. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 1 10:01:16 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:01:16 -0000 Subject: JKR on BBC1 01/11/07 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: You may be interested to know that JKR appeared briefly on BBC1's "BBC Breakfast" this morning talking about the handwritten copies of "The Tales Beedle the Bard" which she has produced. Details about them and one or two things she said about Dumbledore can be found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7072086.stm From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 12:26:12 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:26:12 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: <<>> If I had known he was gay from the get go, I would not have fallen in love with him. <<>> ***Katie: Why? Is he a different person now that he is gay? No. He's the same DD we've always known, except he'd rather date a boy than a girl. How does this change him in any way? Is he less funny? Less caring? Less kind? Is he less intelligent? Less insightful? Is he less powerful? Less magical? No, he is exactly the same as he always was, except now people's own prejudices are making them dislike him. I'm sorry, but IMO, this whole thing has gotten completely ridiculous. Dumbledore is the same character!! Whether you loved him or hated him, there is no reason to feel any differently about his personality now that we know his sexual preference, IMO. Katie From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 12:39:25 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 07:39:25 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40711010539w5b4b1c19vc6d3f6e02aa4ff02@mail.gmail.com> > > Del: > I'm sorry, but the way I see it, it's > entirely her fault. If she wanted all her readers to be > OK with a gay DD, then she should have WRITTEN a gay DD, > so that all people reading the books would know that DD > was gay. montims: but she DID write a gay DD - she told us so - she always imagined DD as gay, and that governed his actions with GG. Just because we don't see him kissing anybody, it doesn't stop him being gay. His orientation was only revealed by implication in the last book. We don't know that Sirius was not gay, or Peter, or any of the other characters not specifically mentioned as being in heterosexual relationships, but that's not important to the story as we have it. DD being revealed to be gay explains the DD/GG situation in the books further, in the same way as other backstories explain other things further. How could James and Lily leave Harry so much money? We learn that through interviews - it is not in the books. Details of other characters in the tapestry are not in the books, but revealed outside of them. And many other examples that we all used to pore over. DD is gay. He does not have sex with anyone in the books. Where is the offence? Why should people know the sexual orientation of every character before reading a story? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at fastmail.us Thu Nov 1 13:56:54 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:56:54 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1193925414.8867.1219013789@webmail.messagingengine.com> > colebiancardi: > > In the US, it under how we define freedom and rights: "Your rights end > where mine begin". So, if your view of defending the truth or sound > moral judgement is trampling on my rights, > then it is bigotry and prejudice. And no matter how poisonous one's beliefs might be, if the manner in which they are expressed does not harm anyone, their exercise of their right to free speech is far from that limit. There is no right against being offended, at all. Honestly, even the concept is flawed - when two people's beliefs - or actions, are in contradiction of each other, saying "your rights end where mine begin" isn't enough - because, a bigot could just as easily say that _YOUR_ right to, for example, have a non-straight orientation, ends where _HIS_ claimed "right" to not have to see or hear about it begins. If there is an objective definition of who has what rights, this is not it. A view cannot trample on rights, only an action can do that. Now, that doesn't mean that views cannot be considered bigotry/prejudice, either, in any case - just the whole idea that it's trampling on your rights, or that they don't have a right to hold those beliefs, is false. --Random832 -- Random832 From random832 at fastmail.us Thu Nov 1 14:05:01 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (random832 at fastmail.us) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:05:01 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1193925901.10215.1219015679@webmail.messagingengine.com> delwynmarch: > Since God ordered marriage between man and woman only, > and then forbade all sexual relationships outside of > marriage, homosexuality was automatically condemned. > Condemning it specifically would have been redundant. Well, if that was what happened, you would be right. Except, Homosexuality was (supposedly) specifically condemned. But, not really. The verse in question actually says, basically, that you must not lie with another man as you would with your wife. Which isn't really the same thing, when you think about it - after all, you're also not allowed to lie with another *woman* as you would with your wife. So, read that way, it's basically God saying "yes, *smartass*, it still counts as adultery if it's a dude". -- Random832 From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 15:35:04 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:35:04 -0000 Subject: Fwd: Re: JKR finished first post Harry Potter book - "The Tales of Beedle the Bard." Message-ID: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Tabares" wrote: > > Here's the link to the story. I just hope that she will put it online > somewhere for those of us that don't have $62,000+ to buy it. > > While I understand and agree with her idea of publishing it for charity, > those true fans that have been with her for many years will be greatly > disappointed at not getting a chance to see this snippet of Harry's world. > > > http://www.ydr.com/livingfull/ci_7338879 > va32h: For $16 you can buy the auction catalog which shows each page. No word on whether the $16 goes to charity or to Sotheby's. Not sure why this auction is necessary...surely JKR has $62K to donate of her own? Or could raise more money by selling the book at $16 a pop? Annemehr: Do you have a source saying the catalogue will show *each* page? The most specific information I can find is on the Sotheby's page, which says: ------------------------------------------ A special commemorative catalogue for this unique item is being produced and will be available to purchase from Sotheby's. The 48 page commemorative catalogue contains a message from the author about the creative inception of 'The Tales of Beedle the Bard' plus images from the manuscript itself. Also included is information about The Children's Voice charity, images showing the making of the manuscript and auction information for prospective buyers. Profits from the sale of the catalogue will be donated to The Children's Voice." ------------------------------------------- http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/pub/PubCatDetail.jsp?event_id=28411 Since the book itself is about 160 pages, it seems like they'd have to cram about 5 - 6 pages of manuscript onto each Sotheby's catalogue page to fit them all in. It looks to me like they'll only be publishing a sampling of pages -- maybe not even a complete story. Annemehr From va32h at comcast.net Thu Nov 1 15:37:58 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:37:58 -0000 Subject: Fwd: Re: JKR finished first post Harry Potter book - "The Tales of Beedle the B In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Annemehr" wrote: > > Since the book itself is about 160 pages, it seems like they'd have > to cram about 5 - 6 pages of manuscript onto each Sotheby's catalogue > page to fit them all in. It looks to me like they'll only be > publishing a sampling of pages -- maybe not even a complete story. > > Annemehr > va32h: Sorry, my mistake. I obviously misread the article, since I missed the part about the auction proceeds being for charity as well. From muellem at bc.edu Thu Nov 1 16:04:33 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:04:33 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: <1193925414.8867.1219013789@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, random832 at ... wrote: > > > colebiancardi: > > > > In the US, it under how we define freedom and rights: "Your rights end > > where mine begin". So, if your view of defending the truth or sound > > moral judgement is trampling on my rights, > > then it is bigotry and prejudice. > > And no matter how poisonous one's beliefs might be, if the manner in > which they are expressed does not harm anyone, their exercise of their > right to free speech is far from that limit. There is no right against > being offended, at all. > > Honestly, even the concept is flawed - when two people's beliefs - or > actions, are in contradiction of each other, saying "your rights end > where mine begin" isn't enough - because, a bigot could just as easily > say that _YOUR_ right to, for example, have a non-straight orientation, > ends where _HIS_ claimed "right" to not have to see or hear about it > begins. If there is an objective definition of who has what rights, this > is not it. > > A view cannot trample on rights, only an action can do that. Now, that > doesn't mean that views cannot be considered bigotry/prejudice, either, > in any case - just the whole idea that it's trampling on your rights, or > that they don't have a right to hold those beliefs, is false. > > --Random832 > -- > Random832 > hate speech: In the United States, government is broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. Jurists generally understand this to mean that the government cannot regulate the content of speech, but that it can address the harmful effects of speech through laws such as those against defamation or incitement to riot. it is a fine line. Many countries have laws dealing with hate speech. >> A view cannot trample on rights, only an action can do that Views can and have lead to actions. History has proven that. colebiancardi From va32h at comcast.net Thu Nov 1 18:19:13 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:19:13 -0000 Subject: JKR Sues Steve Van Der Ark (Lexicon Steve) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: the-leaky-cauldron.org has an update on the suit, including substantial quotes. In the absence of a preview copy, WB/Bloomsbury et al have had to critique the site itself (going on the theory that the book is a printed version of the site). They are being quite harsh. Also accusing RDR (the publisher of the Lexicon book) of lying in order to buy time to sell the rights overseas. Looks to be quite a mess. va32h From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 19:29:42 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:29:42 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > > > (Do you see DD differently now that she's made that announcement? I suspect that you do. I don't see how any adult could read her answer to the DD in love question and not rethink both DD himself and the DD/GG relationship, both of which we previously interpreted solely based on what's in the books--unless we factored in "the epitome of goodness" and accepted or rejected it, as we can't so easily reject information that she presents as "fact.") > > Carol earlier: > > Does JKR mean that readers should question authority unless *she's* the authority, in which case, we should regard the characters as hers instead of the general public's or the world's? Or does she mean question authority, period, in which case her own pronouncements are also subject to question? > > Pippin responded: > > This reminds me of a Talmudic debate, The Law has been given to man, man must interpret it, and God's opinion is no longer binding. That has been the position of Jewish law ever since, but you know, no one has gone so far as to tell God to stop expressing His opinions, though there are those that wish people would stop asking Him. Carol again: Exactly. JKR created the characters and has the right to express her *opinions* about them. What she doesn't have the right (or the ability) to do is to force others to see them as she does or to accept her interpretation just because she's the author. (See my previous posts on the problems involved in using authorial intention, to the extent that it has been stated or can be determined, to interpret a text.) And the "he's my character" (read, "I'm right about DD or any given character because this is how I, the author, imagined him or her even though I didn't put it into the books") attitude doesn't help. I find it alienating, myself. She simply doesn't understand either the writing process or the process of reading and interpretation. Doesn't she realize that movie!Dumbledore or videogame!Harry or fanfic!Snape are not the way she visualized them? Or an Umbridge who dresses like a Muggle and doesn't look at all toadlike? Why deny literary critics and readers the same freedom that she granted the filmmakers and videogame manufacturers? I'm surprised that she didn't suppress the publication of "The Great Snape Debate," frankly--except that the publicity generated by that book probably helped to drum up sales and keep the pre-DH excitement at fever pitch. > Susan wrote: > Folks, the problem with this is that many, many gay men have sired children and many, many lesbian women have borne children....Sir Ian may experience regret about never having had children..but in these days he could have adopted children. Many of us have adopted children. And many lesbians have done artificial insemination. Carol responds: I don't see the relevance of this comment to this discussion. Neither Pippin nor I was talking about DD's ability to sire children, which certainly has nothing to do with the canonical Dumbledore, who stands in loco parentis to every student at Hogwarts. The point is not whether DD is gay or not, it's whether JKR has the right to impose after-the-fact, noncanonical information on the reader (the "he's my character" idea). And now she's suing the Lexicon for copyright infringement for a book version of the site that she formerly praised. It reminds me of a kid's football game: "It's my ball and we play by my rules or I'll take my ball and go home." And my response is exactly what it would be to a teenager who behaved in that childish manner: Grow up, JKR. The question is not the revelation itself as her idea that her imagined Dumbledore (or Harry or Snape or Hermione or even Nagini) is the definitive interpretation of that character. She may *want* to impose her reading on us, and she has certainly influenced the reading of every person who read the article whether that reader wants to be influenced or not, but she seems not to understand that each reader envisions and interprets the characters and incidents differently and not to respect the right of readers to imagine them differently than she does. This is not about homosexuality. It's about the readers' right to interpret canon differently from the author, especially when her imagined view of a character never makes it into the books. Let's take the case of Dean Thomas. Canonically, he doesn't know whether he's Muggle-born or not. In her website, however, she gives a backstory that never made it into the books: his father was a wizard who was killed by DEs (IIRC). We're free to accept that story or not; it doesn't contradict canon, but we certainly would not have inferred it from what's on the page if she hadn't revealed the story on her website. But she also revealed characters who never made it into the story or were written out. Is Mafalda Weasley, the Slytherin cousin, canonical or not? I'd say not. The same with Hermione's little sister, whose existence is never mentioned or hinted at in the books. Still, if fanfic writers want to believe in them and write about them, they're free to do so. OTOH, Hermione's father witnessing the events in Godric's Hollow was firmly rejected and is not canonical, even though JKR once imagined it. Just because a character or incident or a particular view of a character or incident occurred to JKR, or just because she imagines them a certain way, does not mean that she is "right" and anyone who disagrees with her is "wrong." JKR has said that the books are a plea for "tolerance," a point that a number of posters are now disputing. I see a number of elements in the books that she has not directly talked about, and I am certainly not waiting for her pronouncement on those elements to see whether I'm "right" or not. Once the Potterverse encyclopedia comes out, I suppose it will have to be regarded as canonical. But her notes and drafts, such as those that have already appeared on her website, are really only evidence of the writing process, which is a process of discovery during which many ideas are discarded and many unplanned incidents, conversations, and even characters appear. As for an intended *message,* does she think she's Aesop writing a fable, in which the moral is the message? Why not let the reader discover themes and motifs, some of which she intended and some of which appeared from her subconscious memory of what she has read and a cultural heritage (the Arthurian legends, the Bible, Greek mythology, folklore, etc.) shared by many of her readers, for himself or herself? JKR is, IMO, hiding her own insecurity under her stated desire to write the encyclopedia of the Potterverse for posterity. What she seems really to want is to stifle interpretations of her books and characters that differ from her own. If she wanted some "fact" to be canon, whether it's Ron's job or the new, improved MoM or DD's sexuality or Dean's father's history or Neville's wife (or, for heaven's sake, Harry becoming Head of the Auror office at twenty-seven!!), she ought to have included it in the books. As for her opinions, they are only opinions, and sometimes they're self-contradictory or inconsistent with the books themselves. At any rate, since she didn't include these "facts" in the books themselves, she really has no right to force us to accept that after-the-fact information as canonical, or to see the same message that she sees in the books. I am simply saying that any statement made by JKR that reshapes our thinking of the books ought to have been made in the books themselves or not at all. Carol, who is not talking about sexuality here, only about JKR's attitude toward her "author"ity and her attempt to claim ownership of characters that now belong to the world From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 19:41:57 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:41:57 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan: > > Did we hear ANYthing like this when Christopher Tolkien published a > book based on his father's notes? Did we hear problems with J.R.R. > Tolkien publishing the history and back story of Middle Earth in the > Silmarillion? Nada... Carol responds: Maybe we didn't hear any complaints when Christopher tolkien published his books (though some people did object to his blending of materials from different drafts of "the Silmarillion" to create a coherent whole) because he was trying to meticulously recreate his father's writing process--notes, drafts, and revisions--without imposing any sort of interpretation on the reader. I would have no objection at all to a similar work by JKR as long as she realized that it reflected the writing process and that a rejected draft or her imagined view of a character is not canonical. JRRT never tried to control the interpretation of his works. In fact, as I've stated elsewhere, he went so far as to state that his books had no message, that they were neither allegorical nor topical, and that "applicability" to, say, WWII (or WWI, which Tolkien actually experienced, and which surely shaped his views on war and male friendship) lay in the freedom of the reader. that concept, "the freedom of the reader," appears to be foreign to JKR, who fails to understand that her books and characters now exist in a great many imaginations other than her own, and not one reader, however sympathetic to her politics and willing to accept her intentions as actualized (forgive the word) in the books themselves, sees the characters and incidents exactly as she does, simply because no two people have exactly the same experiences (not even identical twins, as Fred and George aptly demonstrate) and consequently, no two people interpret a literary work in exactly the same way. Carol, wishing that JKR would learn to respect her readers but afraid that she (JKR) is too attached to the idea of herself as their creator ever to let them go From muellem at bc.edu Thu Nov 1 19:52:27 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:52:27 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > I would have no objection at all > to a similar work by JKR as long as she realized that it reflected the > writing process and that a rejected draft or her imagined view of a > character is not canonical. > colebiancardi: huh? JKR's imagined view of a character is what brought that character to life and to us. I know that George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars, has made all of the comics & novels written about the Star Wars universe canonical, even though they are the movies or stories he has written himself. I would think that any of JKR's works or viewpoints are canonical, even if some of her views contradict each other. Who gets to decide what is canonical? I would think the author does. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Nov 1 20:05:29 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:05:29 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > colebiancardi: > > huh? JKR's imagined view of a character is what brought that > character to life and to us. I know that George Lucas, the creator > of Star Wars, has made all of the comics & novels written about the > Star Wars universe canonical, even though they are the movies or > stories he has written himself. > > I would think that any of JKR's works or viewpoints are canonical, > even if some of her views contradict each other. > > Who gets to decide what is canonical? I would think the author does. Magpie: Only in so far as she decides what to put in the books, imo. Otherwise she may want to say she gets to say what's canonical, but she doesn't. To take something random I know she said, "Harry and Ginny are soulmates and have an intense connection" or whatever she said may make clear what she would like me to think about the couple, but that doesn't make it canon. And there are other authors who see it that way. I remember reading an interview with some author who mentioned in passing that she intended the last scene of one book to show somebody committing suicide but she apparently didn't write it clearly enough that most people got it. She wasn't correcting them, iirc she was giving what they got a bit more weight than what she intended. They woudl be wrong to say she intended it to be read their way, but she wasn't claiming that the suicide was more correct because it was what she intended or had in her head. -m -m From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com Thu Nov 1 20:14:52 2007 From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:14:52 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: colebiancardi: huh? JKR's imagined view of a character is what brought that character to life and to us. I know that George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars, has made all of the comics & novels written about the Star Wars universe canonical, even though they are the movies or stories he has written himself. I would think that any of JKR's works or viewpoints are canonical, even if some of her views contradict each other. Who gets to decide what is canonical? I would think the author does. Tiffany: I would say the author/creator decides what is truly canonical because they breathe life into the work itself, but the fandom is also open to deciding if just the actual work created is canonical, in this case the novels or the interviews qualify as canonical also. I consider JKR's interviews to be canonical, even though I've found a lot about them that I don't agree with. JKR may not always get her facts straight, but as long as the overall themes & elements remain unchanged it's not a big deal because I'm not one to be hung up on details. Heck, I've laughed myself silly at some of the errors in both DH & her interviews, but overall it's not a bone to pick of mine. There's a similar debate among the Trek fans I know about if just the shows & movies are canonical or if the reference books qualify also. I have a cousin who's huge on Trek & Rodenberry was quoted as saying that the only Trek canon is what's on either a movie or TV screen. However, some folks consider the reference books on Trek to be canonical also. I don't have any take on it one way or the other, so I won't speculate on which way I lean with Trek canon. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 20:24:31 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 20:24:31 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > Del replies: > > Thanks for the clear answer! > > > > I guess my next question would then be along the lines of: > > "what do you call "trampling on my rights?"" > > > > Let's take the example of homosexuality, since it is the > > one creating so many waves in the HP fandom lately: how > > does saying "I think homosexuality is wrong and I don't > > like the idea of DD being gay" trample on anybody's rights? > > Magpie: > I would guess what was being said wasn't that it was trampling on > rights to say that, but that the reason you were saying it is > bigotry because you don't want gay people to be represented in > literature the way straight people are, or portrayed positively. > they ought to not be allowed in books that you want to read. > > That's if your objection is bigoted, of course. If your objection > is, for instance, that you liked to imagine marrying DD and now you > feel like he wouldn't be attracted to you, then it's no different > than being upset at learning Neville married Hannah Abbott instead > of you! Carol responds: There's also, of course, the question of whether sexuality of any kind belongs in books for young readers at all. (It isn't in the books themselves, except for snogging in hallways, only in the post-DH interview.) Setting aside the 115-year-old DD, some parents are concerned about the behavior of the younger characters. (JKR herself said that she didn't want Hermione to become pregnant as a teenager.) I'm pretty sure that those parents were happy to see sixteen-year-old Ginny left behind to attend school (at least until it became too dangerous) and Ron and Hermione holding hands and hugging but saving their first kiss until the end of the book. Note that all of the characters who have children, even Tom Riddle's parents, are married. It may be a conservative view of sexuality, but it's a safe one for parents who don't want their children to engage in sexual activity, and particularly not to become pregnant or impregnate another teenager, until they're emotionally mature and out of school. And suddenly, into this apparently safe model world, comes the suggestion that the aged mentor may have had sex with another teenage boy, one who was sixteen at the time. It isn't in the books, but many parents may now have a different view of the books and wonder whether they're safe for their children to read after all. (The level of violence in HBP and, especially, DH, may be a more legitimate concern.) My own concern, however, is with JKR's confusion between the characters who exist in her imagination and the characters who appear on the pages and her lack of respect for the reader's freedom to imagine them on his or her own, without after-the-fact pronouncements by the author. Suppose that, when confronted with the question about DD ever loving anyone, JKR had said, "Well, as you discover in Deathly Hallows, he once had an intense intellectual and emotional fascination with another brilliant and arrogant boy, whose faults he refused to see because he idealized him. That's as close as Dumbledore ever came to loving anyone. After that, he shut himself off from intimate relationships of any kind." The questioner might then ask, "You mean he was in love with Grindelwald?" And JKR might answer, "Well, he was infatuated with him, anyway. But the blinders came off after Ariana's death." And the questioner might say, "Are you saying that Dumbledore is, or was, gay?" And JKR might say, "That's how I imagine him, yes. But it's up to the reader to imagine the relationship for him or herself." (She did say that children would imagine it as a friendship. Apparently, she didn't realize that many adults would also see it as a friendship, in my case, as an intense intellectual friendship in which each saw the other as a mirror of himself.) IOW, she should have left the door open for other canon-based interpretations, including those in which sexual attraction plays no part or only a small, unconscious part. FWIW, I don't like adult books that bring in a lot of sex, especially detailed sex, either. Some things are best left to the reader's imagination, or the reader's discretion. And JKR did that part well, keeping the DD/GG relationship off-page where each reader can imagine it for him or herself, or not imagine anything beyond what's on the page. Personally, I'm a lot more interested in what made Grindelwald go bad (and what exactly he did that got him kicked out of Durmstrang, another detail that JKR kept off the page, perhaps wisely). It's not about prejudice; it's about people's comfort levels and their expectations for a particular book. And it's about the author not knowing where her "authority" ends and not respecting canon-based interpretaions that don't incorporate her post-publication remarks. Carol, really wishing that people would not assume that a person who disagrees with them is a bigot and would consider the possibility that the other person might actually have legitimate concerns From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Nov 1 21:30:23 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:30:23 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > There's also, of course, the question of whether sexuality of any kind > belongs in books for young readers at all. (It isn't in the books > themselves, except for snogging in hallways, only in the post-DH > interview.) Magpie: Sexuality of any kind isn't the HP books? It's actually in the books a lot when it comes to straight characters. Off the top of my head, characters who have openly displayed or hinted at/made reference to attraction towards a person of the opposite sex in canon, with the attraction either being returned or not (and sometimes with references to actual physical stuff) include: Ron/Hermione, Harry/Ginny, Vernon/Petunia, Ron/Lavender, Harry/Cho, Cho/Cedric, Cho/Michael Corner, Ginny/Michael Corner, Ginny/Dean, Tonks/Remus, Sirius/random girls in magazines, Hephzibah Smith/Tom Riddle, Viktor/Hermione, Viktor/Ginny, Myrtle/Harry, Myrtle/Draco, Myrtle/Cedric, Arthur/Molly, Merope/Tom Riddle Sr., Tom Riddle Sr./Cecilia, Bloody Baron/Grey Lady, Pansy/Draco, Hagrid/Maxime, Ron/Fleur, Bill/Fleur, Harry and Ron/Veela cheerleaders, James/Lily, Many girls/Harry, Many girls/Viktor, Many girls/Cedric, Cormac/Hermione, Ron/Rosemerta, Romilda/Harry, Arthur/Molly, Lucius/Narcissa, Ted/Andromeda, Teddy/Victoire. (I'm being charitable by leaving out the obvious Aberforth/goat joke that goes over kids' heads, but not the heads of older readers.) That's all sexuality. Dumbledore crushing on Grindelwald isn't any more sexuality than any of these. It's not more sexually explicit as these either, and less sexually explicit than some. Somebody not wanting sexuality in YA books is welcome to that opinion (and is probably very dissatisfied with the state of YA books at the moment), but anybody arguing that sexuality has no place in HP lost that battle years ago. This stuff not being sexuality because it's straight sexuality seems like straight privilege to me. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 1 21:45:47 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:45:47 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > I would have no objection at all to a similar work by JKR as long as she realized that it reflected the writing process and that a rejected draft or her imagined view of a character is not canonical. > > > > colebiancardi: > > huh? JKR's imagined view of a character is what brought that > character to life and to us. I know that George Lucas, the creator > of Star Wars, has made all of the comics & novels written about the > Star Wars universe canonical, even though they are the movies or > stories he has written himself. > > I would think that any of JKR's works or viewpoints are canonical, > even if some of her views contradict each other. > > Who gets to decide what is canonical? I would think the author does. > Carol responds: No. "Canonical" means "according to or withing canon," IOW, within the authentic published works of a writer. That author's statements about his or her own works are what's called "secondary sources," in the same category as published works or literary criticism or biographies of the author. (Lexicon Steve's published book would also be an uncanonical secondary source if she allowed him to publish it). If what she imagined or intended didn't make it into the books, how can readers or critics possibly be expected to interpret that imagined trait? Her imagined view of the character is only relevant to the extent that it shaped the character as he or she appears on the page, which is all that we, as readers, can draw upon in our interpretations. The same is true for themes and motifs (e.g., "tolerance" or Christianity). We have her stated intention, but we're free to dispute her success in conveying that intention to readers. If, for example, I want to discuss Christian imagery in the books, I can certainly use her statements that she deliberately used Christian elements in the books as support for the main point, but I don't need her statements about Christianity or the after life to explore those elements as they appear in the books or their possible significance. Frankly, the less she says, the better, in my view. Just because she hasn't talked about it doesn't mean it isn't there, and just because she has talked about what exists in her imagination doesn't mean that her imagined character or theme has made its way onto the page. I don't want to sound rude or provocative, so I'll word this question impersonally: Does a reader, any reader, really need to rely on the author to tell him or her what to think? If so, perhaps we'd better wait for further revelations on Harry and Hermione and Lupin and so forth and base our judgments on what she thinks about them rather than examining her published works and thinking for ourselves. She did create the characters, but she does not *own* them (except as far as copyright laws extend), simply because they are not real and exist only on paper and in the imaginations of her readers. Nor can she control how they are interpreted by readers of all ages and backgrounds and both sexes. Each reader will interpret them differently. Not all will hear her pronouncement on DD's sexuality and not all who do will accept it. Others will dismiss it as irrelevant. Still others are annoyed by her after-the-fact announcement, which interferes with their own canon-based interpretations. If you want to accept her pronouncements as definitive, that's your right. By all means, allow them to alter your interpretation. I prefer to base my assessment on what's in the books. And that's a right that JKR, for all her posturing, cannot take away. Carol, wondering how JKR went from awarding the Lexicon a Site of the Month Award to suing the publisher of the book version (though I don't dispute her right to request that certain errors, such as Snape's birth date, be corrected before publication). At one point, I would have been thrilled to read her notes and drafts for the light that they threw on her writing process and, perhaps, on certain characters that I'm particularly interested in (Theo Nott, for example). But I wouldn't consider that information canonical any more than I would consider the rejected early draft of the first chapter of PS, in which Hermione's father witnessed the Potters' deaths, as canonical. The character Pyrites isn't canonical, either. He's a rejected idea. He existed, perhaps still exists, in JKR's imagination, but he never made it to the printed page, so for the purposes of literary analysis, he doesn't exist. An author's intentions may or may not be considered by a literary critic, depending on the school of criticism to which he or she belongs. But those intentions are never definitive. The words on the printed page are the primary source. All other sources of information, even the words of the author in an interview or chat or letter, are secondary sources. Carol, whose 637-page dissertation examined sources of all varieties, including photocopies of nearly 200-year-old letters (which, for me, were primary sources because I was writing about a biography that included altered versions of those letters) From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 2 00:13:47 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:13:47 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Celoneth wrote: > > I'm not denying it - I just, for the life of me don't > > understand it - unless its tied to bigotry or prejudice > > (which is the only thing I can think of) and in that > > case I have no sympathy at all, and nor do I > > think an author should pander to prejudices. > > Del muses: > But who gets to decide that it's prejudice/bigotry? > One person's bigotry is another person's defending of > the truth. One person's prejudice is another person's > sound moral judgement. > > Nobody ever thinks of themselves as prejudiced or bigoted. > Those people who don't think of homosexuality (or anything > else) as good or neutral, certainly don't see themselves as > prejudiced or bigoted. Instead, it is most likely people > like you that they see as prejudiced and bigoted. Problem is: > who gets to decide who will impose their definition of Right > and Wrong on the other? Who gets to decide which side will > be officially called "prejudiced" or not? There is NO such > ultimate authority, so that in the end, judgements of > "prejudice" or "bigotry" are not so much statements about > the other, as they are instead statements about ourselves IMO. > > Just my personal musing, > > Del lizzyben: Where would you draw the line? Because it's just as possible for people to make the same argument for any perceived difference. IE if JKR stated that Pavarti Patil is Hindu, & a fan think that Hinduism is wrong and don't like the idea of a Hindu character. Should JKR conform to that person's desire to not read about a Hindu character? But why would JKR have to conform to someone else's belief? I mean, Hindu people exist, just like gay people exist, & it seems to me that JKR is free to make her characters any religion or sexual orientation without worrying about whether that would conform to the morality or religious beliefs of every possible fan. Indeed, there's no way she *could* if she wanted to. Plenty of people think inter-racial relationships are wrong, or witchcraft is wrong, or women having a job is wrong - there's no way JKR should or even could structure the novels so as to avoid depicting anything that anyone could disagree with. Del replies: Thanks for the clear answer! I guess my next question would then be along the lines of: "what do you call "trampling on my rights?"" Let's take the example of homosexuality, since it is the one creating so many waves in the HP fandom lately: how does saying "I think homosexuality is wrong and I don't like the idea of DD being gay" trample on anybody's rights? lizzyben: IMO, that statement doesn't tramp on anyone's right, and you have a First Amendment right to express that opinion (in the US, at least). Where it begins trampling on people's rights is if that opinion is turned into action - i.e. discrimination or censorship. IMO asking an author not to depict a gay character, or banning books that do, is trampling on people's rights to see or read something that does not conform with your own opinion. I guess for me it's that people are free to determine & express their own beliefs, but don't have a right to interfere w/the author's, or other readers, ability to express their own viewpoint on the world. And for me, things like censorship & book bannings cross that line. (not that you personally believe these things, just saying where that lie lies for me) Del: Inversely: when JKR fails to describe DD as gay in the books, and then she says "DD is my character and he is what he is", thus implying "DD is gay whether you like it or not, and even though it's not in the books", isn't she trampling on some fans' right to see DD as not-gay? lizzyben: IMO, no, because she is expressing her own viewpoint on that character. Readers are free to accept or discard that opinion, just like they are free to accept or discard her other pronouncements about the characters. (i.e. Ginny & Harry are soulmates? Please. I discarded that information right away!) She's free to say it, & we're free to believe it - or not. Del: I can understand that she might not *like* the idea that some of her readers would rather DD not be gay, but I find her insisting on defining DD as gay even in the face of the anger or disappointment of some of her fans to be quite, well, intolerant of their opinions and desires. What do you think? Del lizzyben: So, in the interest of tolerating other people's beliefs & opinions, she shouldn't express her own? That starts to seem more like expecting others to self-censor & stop stating an opinion that conflicts with one's own. Continuing the Parvarti analogy, should JKR stop saying that Patil is Hindu because some anti-Hindu fans don't like that idea? Should she not include that information in the encyclopedia for fear of offending somone? The books are what they are. I'd prefer not to think that JKR wrote DH as a Christian novel, but she's totally free to write that, and to later explicitly say that she wrote that. I can't expect her books to conform with my own values or opinions, or demand that she stop expressing her own. IMO tolerance extends to allowing everyone to have & express their own views - JKR is free to express her own opinions & beliefs, & readers are free to express how they disagree w/those beliefs. But neither has the right to silence the other. Just IMO. lizzyben From gwharrison53 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 2 02:19:16 2007 From: gwharrison53 at yahoo.com (gwharrison53 at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 19:19:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 11-1 'FUN' Harry Potter snap's Message-ID: <200711020219.lA22JIjR009530@upsa-web108.ofoto.com> Photo Contest You're invited to view these photos online at KODAK Gallery! Just click on View Photos to get started. http://www.kodakgallery.com/I.jsp?c=brptja83.b5pke85j&x=0&h=1&y=-ze6gvb If you'd like to save this album, just sign in, or if you're new to the Gallery, create a free account. Once you've signed in, you'll be able to view this album whenever you want and order Kodak prints of your favorite photos. Enjoy! Instructions: Click view photos to begin. If you're an existing member you'll be asked to sign in. If not, you can join the Gallery for free. http://www.kodakgallery.com/Register.jsp Questions? Visit http://help.kodakgallery.com. ------------------------------------------------------------ The KODAK Gallery Customer Service Team Phone: 800-360-9098 / 512-651-9770 Outside of the US and Canada ------------------------------------------------------------ If you cannot see the links above, copy and paste the following URL directly into your browser: http://www.kodakgallery.com/I.jsp?c=brptja83.b5pke85j&x=0&h=1&y=-ze6gvb [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Nov 2 03:14:14 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 03:14:14 -0000 Subject: The Tales of Beedle the Bard Message-ID: I wish that she was going to publish it like she did the school books. The profit from those went to charity too. It would have been so cool to have a "copy" of her handwritten book. She could give the orginals away and given us the chance to have a printed copy. I tell you that woman is as mean as "you know who". Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Nov 2 04:26:11 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 04:26:11 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol said: At any rate, since she didn't include these "facts" in the books themselves, she really has no right to force us to accept that after-the-fact information as canonical, or to see the same message that she sees in the books. I am simply saying that any statement made by JKR that reshapes our thinking of the books ought to have been made in the books themselves or not at all. Carol, who is not talking about sexuality here, only about JKR's attitude toward her "author"ity and her attempt to claim ownership of characters that now belong to the world. Tonks: Amen, Sister!! The characters are ???their own men??? now. It is like a parent - child relationship. Yes the parents create the child, but the parent does not own the child. The child is his/her own person. The child forms relationships with other people who see and experience aspects of the child's personality that the parent may never know or understand. And so it is with the characters of the books. > Carol: > There's also, of course, the question of whether sexuality of any kind belongs in books for young readers at all. ((snip)> Tonks: I don't think it has any place in a children's book. And even if adults are reading it and the reading level has changed since book 3, it is still a book read by children of age 8 and up. Carol: > And JKR might say, "That's how I imagine him, yes. But it's up to the reader to imagine the relationship for him or herself." (She did say that children would imagine it as a friendship. Apparently, she didn't realize that many adults would also see it as a friendship, in my case, as an intense intellectual friendship in which each saw the other as a mirror of himself.) > Snip) > It's not about prejudice; it's about people's comfort levels and their expectations for a particular book. And it's about the author not knowing where her "authority" ends and not respecting canon-based > interpretaions that don't incorporate her post-publication remarks. > > Carol, really wishing that people would not assume that a person who disagrees with them is a bigot and would consider the possibility that > the other person might actually have legitimate concerns > Tonks: THANK YOU >>> THANK YOU >>> THANK YOU!! I don???t know why everyone wants to label anyone who is against the idea of DD being gay as a bigot. I like the way you would have had her handle the question. I think that she was very tired by the end of her trip here and just not thinking carefully. At least I would like to give her that out. Otherwise it seems like self defeating behavior or disrespect for the readers, many of whom have almost as much psychic energy and years invested in Harry and his world as she does. I was grateful at the end of book 7 that Hogwarts was left standing. I would have liked DD to still be alive so I could rest assured every night that ???DD was at Hogwarts and all is well with the world???. But I can at least say 'DD is in his heaven and all is well at Hogwarts'. And that gives me great comfort. Tonks_op From forneus1986 at yahoo.co.nz Fri Nov 2 06:02:55 2007 From: forneus1986 at yahoo.co.nz (forneus1986) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:02:55 -0000 Subject: Actual Wizardry Books Message-ID: I'm having difficulty in finding books on ACTUAL wizardry and what it entails. I did a trawl on Amazon and found this: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1905297130?tag=avalonia&camp=15309&creative=331449&linkCode=st1&creativeASIN=1905297130&adid=0T6GS04BNMNGFF20K552& Do people know of any other books that might help - I'd rather avoid the new-age tat thats out there and deal with well written material, that is well referenced and researched. Thanks in advance. Forneus. From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Nov 2 11:46:58 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 06:46:58 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Actual Wizardry Books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40711020446r71936fecod7877c63bf048306@mail.gmail.com> On 11/2/07, forneus1986 wrote: > I'm having difficulty in finding books on ACTUAL > wizardry and what it entails. I did a trawl on Amazon > and found this: > > > http://www.amazon.com/dp/1905297130?tag=avalonia&camp=15309&creative=331449&linkCode=st1&creativeASIN=1905297130&adid=0T6GS04BNMNGFF20K552& > > Do people know of any other books that might help - > I'd rather avoid the new-age tat thats out there and > deal with well written material, that is well > referenced and researched. Thanks in advance. montims: I do not know this book, but the publisher is very good, with good authors, so I would trust it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From phil at pcsgames.net Fri Nov 2 12:31:20 2007 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 07:31:20 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Fwd: Re: JKR finished first post Harry Potter book - "The Tales of Beedle the Bard." References: Message-ID: <023d01c81d4c$4c5afad0$6600a8c0@phil> Text from the video: "THE WIZARD AND THE HOPPING POT: There was once a kindly old wizard who used his magic generously and wisely for the benefit of his neighbours. Rather than reveal the source of the. [text ends here] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Nov 2 13:40:08 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:40:08 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Tonks: > > I don't think [sexuality] has any place in a children's book. And even if > adults are reading it and the reading level has changed since book > 3, it is still a book read by children of age 8 and up. Magpie: Well, HP is pretty obviously YA at this point and not a children's book, whether 8 year olds are reading it or not, but I assume this part doesn't have to do with DD being gay and instead you're disapproving of all the sexuality that's actually in the books? -m From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Nov 2 19:14:45 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:14:45 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > Del replies: > > > The problem as I see it now, is that JKR did write all > > the HP books, but she did NOT include any gay character. > > In fact, she even described a WW in which only heterosexuality > > seems to exist. That's what is in the books. And then > > now, she turns around and says "oh, by the way, there's > > a gay character in there". Well, I just don't see this > > as fair to those who don't want to read books with > > gay characters. Instead of being upfront and giving those > > readers a choice, she made the choice for them. I mean, > > this is what it all ends up looking like: "come, > > come and read my books, there aren't any gay characters > > in them... OK, you're finished reading? Well now let > > me tell you: there IS a gay character. Aha, tricked you!" > > Of course, I'm not saying that this was her *intent*, > > but I can understand why those readers are upset. > > > Magpie: > But why would anyone think they had any actual right to read a book > with gay characters in them? That's a bit of an irrational idea, > isn't it? Nobody has a right to have warnings on the books about > whether it has a certain kind of character. There's a lot of things > in HP I wish I'd been warned about beforehand. Maybe I wouldn't have > read them if I'd heard them. But I don't think she did anything > strong by not warning about that. I mean, she didn't actually change > the character in the book at all, so it's hard for me to think of > somebody saying "But you made me read a gay character when I didn't > want to--and I didn't realize it!" by thinking maybe it's the reader > who ought to be rethinking their position. > > > -m > No Magpie, you are wrong... There should be stickers... WARNING: Gay or lesbian character within! WARNING: References to the strange notion that lesbians and gays have existed forever, and deserve civil rights... Kind of like the Surgeon General's warning about cigarettes and alcohol here in the United States. Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Nov 2 19:19:58 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:19:58 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Del muses: > But who gets to decide that it's prejudice/bigotry? > One person's bigotry is another person's defending of > the truth. One person's prejudice is another person's > sound moral judgement. > Well, here's the deal...it's prejudice when people are thrown out of their families, disowned, fired from jobs, called names, harassed, beaten, lose their housing, or are murdered because of their sexual orientation. My personal sound moral judgment is that it's wrong to be a bigot, and it's illustrative of people's prejudice and bigotry that their image of DD has "diminished". Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Nov 2 19:23:58 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:23:58 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40710311056j429809f0mfd27d74797dad1b1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > > > > Tonks: > > >big snip< > > > > > > But I am upset > > that the vision that I have of DD is being tampered with. It is a > > type of betrayal. It is as if DD were living a lie in the books. And > > this is not the way for her to treat the epitome of goodness. She > > makes him look like a liar and a fake. She is telling us that our > > deep intuitive sense of our most beloved person is wrong. She is > > messing with the subconscious mind, and whatever a person feels > > about gay people in the real world, it is upsetting to challenge our > > inter vision of a character we thought we knew. The subconscious > > mind is not rational. This is why there is such a strong reaction > > from so many people. > > > montims: > so that is why I'm not so upset aout it. Quite apart from the fact that I > don't care who or what DD fancies, I have no "deep intuitive sense of our > most beloved person" - DD is a character in a fictional series of books that > I enjoy reading. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > There's such a strong reaction from some people because they haven't examined their prejudices...haven't realized that they have such bigoted and hateful ideas deep within them..it's very upsetting... What's interesting to me is this idea that homophobia (or racism) is unusual or only happens now and then. It's a daily fact in the lives of lesbians/gay men (and people of color). It's not unusual. It's also a prejudice that can be rooted out and mitigated. Everyone has been brainwashed in the U.S. that lesbians and gay men are immoral and evil..it's in our literature, our language, our culture, our schools...but you can unlearn bigotry...I'm still working on unlearning the racism that I imbibed through our culture. And to the ethnocentric idea that the U.S. is tolerant towards lesbians, and gay men..well perhaps compared to Iran or Africa where people are put to death but not compared to Europe or other parts of the world. People in Europe are laughing at some Americans about this... Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 2 19:38:59 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:38:59 -0000 Subject: Question about British boarding schools Message-ID: I have a qestion about British coed boarding schools with a Hogwartslike house system. Do the boys and girls from a particular house share a common room but have separate dormitories, as in the HP books? Could a couple of teenagers like Ron and Lavender publicly "snog" in a real British school common room, with no adult supervision (only the prefects, who in this case say nothing since Ron himself is a prefect)? I realize there's nothing morally wrong with their behavior, but whatever happened to discretion and respect for the wishes of people who don't want to witness public displays of affection? Then again, matters might become even more, erm, complicated, if they found some privacy. (In the HP books, boys can't enter the girls' dormitiories, but there's nothing to keep girls from entering the boys' rooms, as Hermione does on several occasions.) Without passing moral judgments of any kind, this strikes me as a potentially dangerous situation (the possibility of teenage pregnancy). Just wondering how these arrangements and conditions compare with real British coed boarding schools with house systems and what kinds of precautions are taken in such schools, magical staircases being out of the question. Carol, hoping that no one will judge her for considering teenage pregnancy undesirable and just asking for information regarding real schools From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 2 20:03:21 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 20:03:21 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan: > And to the ethnocentric idea that the U.S. is tolerant towards > lesbians, and gay men..well perhaps compared to Iran or Africa where > people are put to death but not compared to Europe or other parts of > the world. People in Europe are laughing at some Americans about > this... Alla: Sure, I think we have a lot to work on yet. Although improvements are happening as well IMO. I will say one thing. I come from the country that till maybe ten years ago (cannot give you the exact date, am afraid) sent people to jail for being gay. No, not for pedophilia, but for two consenting adults being caught by someone else having sex, even if in their house. As I mentioned somewhere else, I am pretty sure it is changed now, now it is only for pedophilia, I think. Again, I had not been back for ten years and I do not follow it that much, I just heard that on the news few years ago as a big deal, etc. Guess how shocked I was when I was in law school to learn that there were similar laws in the USA till few years ago, that you can go to jail just for that. I was literally staring at the page of the book and thinking, NO, it cannot be, it just cannot be. The country who has such amasing laws and who literally made my dreams true in so many aspects cannot send people to jail if they are falling in love with the person of the same gender. They just cannot take a page of the laws in Soviet Union, no way. Oh, oh and before I get questions, NO I am not gay, absolutely straight female, I do not have best gay friends or gay friends at all, LOL. Or I guess I should say that I do not have friends whom I am aware of being gays, because I am not privy to the details of their love life. I am not in touch with gay community at all, I had couple acquintances in law school who were openly gays, but I do not even keep in touch with them now, just we went separate ways. Just the idea that people can be discriminated so horribly because of whom they are falling in love with, well makes me very upset. Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 2 20:07:49 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 20:07:49 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "susanmcgee48176" wrote: >> Well, here's the deal...it's prejudice when people are thrown out of > their families, disowned, fired from jobs, called names, harassed, > beaten, lose their housing, or are murdered because of their sexual > orientation. Alla: YES, agreed. I remember one of my friends who used to be a teacher was telling me of the seventeen year old in her class who killed herself because her family disowned her when she came out. I mean, you are going to love your kid any less now? I mean, really? That she wants to love girls not boys and is the same person otherwise. Horrifying IMO. Alla. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Nov 2 23:11:13 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:11:13 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > Tonks: > > > > I don't think [sexuality] has any place in a children's book. > > And even if adults are reading it and the reading level has > > changed since book 3, it is still a book read by children of > > age 8 and up. > > Magpie: > Well, HP is pretty obviously YA at this point ..., but I > assume this part doesn't have to do with DD being gay and > instead you're disapproving of all the sexuality that's > actually in the books? > > -m > bboyminn: Certainly Dumbledore's sexuality has no place in the books because it's not really part of the story. The only thing that matters in the story is the Dumbledore and Grindlewald had an intense personal friendship that somewhat blinded Dumbledore to Grindlewald's true nature. The details are irrelevant. And that is precisely why it is NOT in the books. You see no references to Dumbledore's sexuality in these books; because it doesn't matter; it doesn't in anyway move the story forward. For that matter, no sexuality really appears anywhere in the books. Oh yes, attractions and potential relationships to appear vaguely in the books, but not in any depth and not in anyway other than comic relief. So Tonks, you seem to have gotten your wish, Sexuality is not part of these books. Sexuality only came up because a fan specifically asked JKR about Dumbledore's love life. Some one asked, JKR answer. This isn't a fact that she hid, no one every asked her before. Though in all fairness, she might have had to fudge the answer a bit if she was asked before Deathly Hallows came out. Certain details would have spoiled an important plot point. So while I suspect she would have answer, I suspect, to protect her plot, her answer would have been vague. Once again, JKR is not spontaneously revealing anything. Some one asked specifically, and she answered. That seems fair enough to me. Steve/bboyminn From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Nov 3 00:33:24 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 00:33:24 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > Tonks: > > > > > > I don't think [sexuality] has any place in a children's book. > > > And even if adults are reading it and the reading level has > > > changed since book 3, it is still a book read by children of > > > age 8 and up. > > > > Magpie: > > Well, HP is pretty obviously YA at this point ..., but I > > assume this part doesn't have to do with DD being gay and > > instead you're disapproving of all the sexuality that's > > actually in the books? > bboyminn: > > Certainly Dumbledore's sexuality has no place in the books > because it's not really part of the story. The only thing > that matters in the story is the Dumbledore and Grindlewald > had an intense personal friendship that somewhat blinded > Dumbledore to Grindlewald's true nature. The details are > irrelevant. > > And that is precisely why it is NOT in the books. You see > no references to Dumbledore's sexuality in these books; > because it doesn't matter; it doesn't in anyway move the > story forward. Magpie: It doesn't move the story forward *because* it isn't there. It certainly does have something to do with the plot. As much as plenty of other romantic relationships. His relationship with Grindelwald was romantic, at least on his part, and that affected his motivations. Or would have, if it were part of the story and therefore canon. Just like Merope's feelings towards Tom Riddle and Hagrid's towards Maxime affect the plot. Because they're there. Dumbledore's love of Grindelwald isn't any less important than any other romantic relationship in canon, and considerably more so than many of them. Or would be, if it were included. As it is now it's about as important as Harry's romantic relationship with Luna--iow, non-existant afawk. Harry's attraction to Cho affects his behavior for two books. I can't say for sure, but it's very hard for me to imagine, if Grindelwald was a woman, that it wouldn't have been presented as romantic with no protest whatsoever. Steve: > > For that matter, no sexuality really appears anywhere in > the books. Oh yes, attractions and potential relationships > to appear vaguely in the books, but not in any depth and > not in anyway other than comic relief. Magpie: Um...WHAT? Attractions and potential relationships aren't sexuality? And they're only "potential?" (Wonder where all those kids come from!) They only "appear vaguely?" The appear quite clearly ALL OVER the place and not only as relationships, sometimes just as expressions of purely physical attraction--good old fashion heterosexuality at work. And they are not always comic relief. And why would Dumbledore's sexuality need to appear in any more depth than the other ones are presented in? What do you mean by depth, exactly? Steve:> > So Tonks, you seem to have gotten your wish, Sexuality is > not part of these books. Magpie: Only if she has a very odd view of sexuality that somehow doesn't include, you know, sex and sexual attraction. Heterosexuals have a sexuality too. As do married people. Steve:> > Sexuality only came up because a fan specifically asked JKR > about Dumbledore's love life. Some one asked, JKR answer. > This isn't a fact that she hid, no one every asked her > before. Though in all fairness, she might have had to > fudge the answer a bit if she was asked before Deathly > Hallows came out. Certain details would have spoiled an > important plot point. So while I suspect she would have > answer, I suspect, to protect her plot, her answer would > have been vague. Magpie: Actually, sexuality came up when JKR wrote people who had babies in her books, and people who fell in love and got crushes on other people, and had relationships and on and on. I gave a big list in my earlier post and that wasn't even everybody. People have been asking JKR shipping questions for *years.* How come it's only when the answer is m/m that sexuality has come up? She's been pretty broadly hinting about R/Hr for a long time, and happily talked about Neville potentially marrying Hannah Abbott and Luna marrying some guy and Harry and Ginny being soulmates. She's not saying they're golfing buddies here. How is she not introducing Neville's sexuality in saying he marries Hannah as much as Dumbledore's in saying he liked Grindelwald? -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 01:16:54 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 01:16:54 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > > > Tonks: > > > > > > > > I don't think [sexuality] has any place in a children's book. > > > > And even if adults are reading it and the reading level has > > > > changed since book 3, it is still a book read by children of > > > > age 8 and up. > > > > > > Magpie: > > > Well, HP is pretty obviously YA at this point ..., but I > > > assume this part doesn't have to do with DD being gay and > > > instead you're disapproving of all the sexuality that's > > > actually in the books? > > > bboyminn: > > > > Certainly Dumbledore's sexuality has no place in the books > > because it's not really part of the story. The only thing > > that matters in the story is the Dumbledore and Grindlewald > > had an intense personal friendship that somewhat blinded > > Dumbledore to Grindlewald's true nature. The details are > > irrelevant. > > > > And that is precisely why it is NOT in the books. You see > > no references to Dumbledore's sexuality in these books; > > because it doesn't matter; it doesn't in anyway move the > > story forward. > > Magpie: > It doesn't move the story forward *because* it isn't there. It > certainly does have something to do with the plot. As much as plenty > of other romantic relationships. His relationship with Grindelwald > was romantic, at least on his part, and that affected his > motivations. Or would have, if it were part of the story and > therefore canon. Just like Merope's feelings towards Tom Riddle and > Hagrid's towards Maxime affect the plot. Because they're there. > Dumbledore's love of Grindelwald isn't any less important than any > other romantic relationship in canon, and considerably more so than > many of them. Or would be, if it were included. As it is now it's > about as important as Harry's romantic relationship with Luna--iow, > non-existant afawk. Harry's attraction to Cho affects his behavior > for two books. I can't say for sure, but it's very hard for me to > imagine, if Grindelwald was a woman, that it wouldn't have been > presented as romantic with no protest whatsoever. > > Steve: > > > > For that matter, no sexuality really appears anywhere in > > the books. Oh yes, attractions and potential relationships > > to appear vaguely in the books, but not in any depth and > > not in anyway other than comic relief. > > Magpie: > Um...WHAT? Attractions and potential relationships aren't sexuality? > And they're only "potential?" (Wonder where all those kids come > from!) They only "appear vaguely?" The appear quite clearly ALL OVER > the place and not only as relationships, sometimes just as > expressions of purely physical attraction--good old fashion > heterosexuality at work. And they are not always comic relief. And > why would Dumbledore's sexuality need to appear in any more depth > than the other ones are presented in? What do you mean by depth, > exactly? > > Steve:> > > So Tonks, you seem to have gotten your wish, Sexuality is > > not part of these books. > > Magpie: > Only if she has a very odd view of sexuality that somehow doesn't > include, you know, sex and sexual attraction. Heterosexuals have a > sexuality too. As do married people. > > Steve:> > > Sexuality only came up because a fan specifically asked JKR > > about Dumbledore's love life. Some one asked, JKR answer. > > This isn't a fact that she hid, no one every asked her > > before. Though in all fairness, she might have had to > > fudge the answer a bit if she was asked before Deathly > > Hallows came out. Certain details would have spoiled an > > important plot point. So while I suspect she would have > > answer, I suspect, to protect her plot, her answer would > > have been vague. > > Magpie: > Actually, sexuality came up when JKR wrote people who had babies in > her books, and people who fell in love and got crushes on other > people, and had relationships and on and on. I gave a big list in my > earlier post and that wasn't even everybody. > > People have been asking JKR shipping questions for *years.* How come > it's only when the answer is m/m that sexuality has come up? She's > been pretty broadly hinting about R/Hr for a long time, and happily > talked about Neville potentially marrying Hannah Abbott and Luna > marrying some guy and Harry and Ginny being soulmates. She's not > saying they're golfing buddies here. How is she not introducing > Neville's sexuality in saying he marries Hannah as much as > Dumbledore's in saying he liked Grindelwald? > -m > Carol responds: Not even the Victorian objected to the implicit sexuality involved in marriages that produced children (though they used euphemisms to get around the word "pregnant") and even Dickens' characters engaged in flirtation and an occasional chaste kiss. You seem to be using "sexuality" to mean "sexual attraction" (and, occasionally, sexual preference). Others are apparently using it to mean the depiction of sex itself (or anything beyond "snogging" and fully clothed groping). FWIW, here's the Merriam-Webster definition of the term: sex?u?al?i?ty Function: noun Date: circa 1800 the quality or state of being sexual: a: the condition of having sex b: sexual activity c: expression of sexual receptivity or interest especially when excessive It seems to me, though I could easily be mistaken, that the use of the term by bboyminn, Tonks, and others is closer to the dictionary definition than your use of it, or at any rate, certainly equally correct. We're just having a problem with semantics here. *Of course* pregnancy, "snogging," and sexual attraction are depicted in the books, especially the later ones, and even childbirth is referred to in relation to Merope and her son, Tom. But that's not the same thing as having sex on page (the Hogwarts students don't even have it off-page, as far as we know. Hermione and Ron spend most of the school year together (with Harry as a chaperone of sorts, or at least an uncomfortable third party on occasion) and don't get beyond hugging or holding hands until the end of the book. Any sex in the HP books is off-page and implied, for example, in the case of Merope and Tom Riddle Sr. No one in the books actually refers directly to sexual intercourse in any form (though, of course, the association between passionate kissing and sex is present in the mind of any adult reader. Ten-year-olds, OTOH, probably want to get past the kissing scenes as quickly as possible and don't identify with them at all.) And I, for one, think that most young readers and their parents prefer not knowing about the teachers' or the students' sex lives. (Did Remus agree to marry Tonks because she talked him into having premarital sex and then told him she was pregnant? I don't want to know, and I'm sure most parents don't want their kids to know. The relationship between love and sex, which don't always go hand in hand, is too complex for a child's immature understanding, IMO.) Obviously, we can't hide the existence of sexual attraction from kids. They know about it already. But most kids fourteen and under (I wish I could say sixteen and under) aren't ready for sexual relationships of their own and really don't want to read about it, in my experience. They may wonder when Ron is going to figure out that he loves Hermione and when they're going to kiss, but they're mostly worried about other things--like whether Harry's going to survive (or, in the earlier books, what kind of detention Harry is going to get from Snape) and most of all, in what happens next. Sexual innuendoes (including the sly reference to "Equus" in "King's Cross" and the possibility of a romantic relationship between DD and GG) go right over their heads. Or, at least, that's my experience with regard to young readers (fourteen and under). Carol, interested in learning the reactions of various posters' children to the "snogging" and occasional sexual innuendoes in the books From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 01:39:03 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 01:39:03 -0000 Subject: Archived Wizards of the Month Message-ID: I notice that no one is talking about JKR's website even though she's put up a few new gadgets. I confess that I wasted hours trying to work through the, erm, second task. (I won't say any more for fear of spoilers, but I certainly wouldn't have known what to do, even with the instructions at Leaky, without the comments of others who had succeeded where I failed.) Here's a link to the hints if you want them http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/31/new-clues-and-secrets-revealed-on-jk-rowling-com though I must say it's probably not worth the effort unless you really want your scrapbook to be complete. (It feels anticlimactic and a bit silly to me at this point; which is not to say that I wasn't determined to do it and did ultimately succeed!) But I wanted to comment on JKR's archiving everything, both the surprises behind the door (accessible via the Time Turner, though I don't think you can still work the puzzles or do the Wombats) and the Wizards of the Month, culminating with Harry Potter. Sigh. I guess that means there won't be any more Wizards of the Month and that Severus isn't going to have his turn. Carol, wondering what else to expect from the woman who would sue Lexicon Steve after all his tireless devotion and hard work From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 01:52:17 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 01:52:17 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry for the delay, guys, I've been badly sick (the area is swarming with viruses of all kinds, so badly that parents have even been warned on TV not to take their kids to public places o_O ) And sorry for the number of posts I'm going to post at once. I thought about making a combined post, but it hurts my still-not-so-well head to think of it, and I think it would end up creating a monster of a post in the end :-P Celoneth wrote: > I'm sure people who are freaked out about gay DD > don't see themselves as prejudiced - but people's > perceptions of themselves are often as inaccurate > as outsiders perceptions. Del replies: And vice versa ;-) So again: who gets to make the final judgement? > What I was asking was for a legitimate reason > that it's such a big deal that DD is gay and I've > heard none. Are you asking for a general reason, or a personal reason? When it comes to personal reason, shouldn't it be enough that, for example, some people simply don't *want* to read (or to have their children read) books with gay characters in it? > So what, books should come with warning labels. > "Warning: Author sees nothing wrong with gay > characters, interracial dating, etc." JKR made it clear that she saw nothing wrong with interracial relationships right from the first book, when kids of all colours are mixed together at Hogwarts without any character complaining, and without the author using tainted language of any kind to describe the non-white kids. And later on, JKR very simply and effectively made the point that she sees nothing wrong with interracial relationships by having Harry date Cho and go to the Yule Ball with Parvati, and by having Fred ask Angelina in a very matter-of-factly way to the Yule Ball, for example. Clean, simple, to the point. Right from the beginning, and throughout the books, people are "warned": non-white people are equal to white people in those books, take it or leave it. However, there is simply NOTHING of the sort where gay characters are concerned. First, AT NO POINT in the books is any sexuality other than heterosexuality even MENTIONED. No same-sex-couples kissing in the corridors or even holding hands, no pictures of same-sex-couples, not even a mention in passing that two girls or two boys are dating, no NOTHING. From the beginning of the first book to the end of the last book, only ONE sexuality is EVER mentioned, and that's heterosexuality. Blatant heterosexuality. Obvious heterosexuality. Period. So I don't see it as a stretch to argue that people who don't like homosexuality were perfectly justified in thinking that they would NEVER be confronted to homosexuality in the HP world. I mean, heck, the last book was finally out and STILL there was NO mention of homosexuality!! And then JKR comes and says that not only she's always seen DD as gay, but that one relationship that happened on-page was actually a gay one at least on one side, and to top it off she insists that DD is her character and so she gets to decide how and what he is. Well, that's incredibly disrespectful IMO. > She couldn't reveal the DD-GG relationship before > DH or it could have spoiled the end of the series. True, but she could have written DD as gay. Or even just ANYONE as gay, so people would have actually known that homosexuality exists in the WW and that they might discover one day that a character they love is actually gay. You know, like in Real Life? What she did instead is pretend for 7 books that all her characters, that the entire WW in fact, is straight, only to drop, AFTER the last book was over, the gay bomb. That's devious and cowardly, IMO. > if someone is so petty that they wouldn't read > books because an author wrote a gay character > then frankly its their loss and not the author's > obligation to pander to them. I agree. However, this doesn't apply in this case, since JKR did NOT write DD as gay: she *revealed* him as gay *after* people were done reading the books. IOW: she let people buy her books even while withholding a piece of information that she knew would cause some of them to not buy the books in the first place. Again, I find this devious, even despicable: making money on the back of people who you know would not buy your books if you actually wrote the truth about your characters in those books. > No, because a bigot is a definition, the other > word is a slur and its only purpose is to act as > a slur. The word bigot is often used as a slur, and very often in circumstances where it doesn't even apply. > But she did apparently write a gay DD Then you should be able to give me undisputable canon proving it. > - with the nature of the story it would have been > inappropriate for her to mention DD's sexuality > throughout the books - Why go to the extremes immediately? I'm not talking of "throughout the books", I'm only talking of a couple of references in passing. Exactly as was done with racial interrelationships: there was never any big mention of it, just little hints here and there. > normally headmasters and similar figures do not > share their personal lives with students Excuses excuses! JKR has done more complicated things before. If she wanted to tell us, the readers, something, even with Harry being around but without him noticing, she could have done it. > not to mention that it had very little to do > with the plot. I flatly disagree. > Not going to get into the entire Bible thing > except to mention that religion has been used for > millenia to justify all sorts of horrid things > (slavery, oppression, persecution, war, etc.) as > well as opposition to those things. Aren't you the one who started quoting the Bible ;-) ? Del From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Nov 3 01:58:36 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 01:58:36 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > Not even the Victorian objected to the implicit sexuality involved in > marriages that produced children (though they used euphemisms to get > around the word "pregnant") and even Dickens' characters engaged in > flirtation and an occasional chaste kiss. > > You seem to be using "sexuality" to mean "sexual attraction" (and, > occasionally, sexual preference). Others are apparently using it to > mean the depiction of sex itself (or anything beyond "snogging" and > fully clothed groping). FWIW, here's the Merriam-Webster definition of > the term: > > sex?u?al?i?ty > Function: > noun > Date: > circa 1800 > > the quality or state of being sexual: a: the condition of having sex > b: sexual activity c: expression of sexual receptivity or interest > especially when excessive > > It seems to me, though I could easily be mistaken, that the use of the > term by bboyminn, Tonks, and others is closer to the dictionary > definition than your use of it, or at any rate, certainly equally > correct. We're just having a problem with semantics here. *Of course* > pregnancy, "snogging," and sexual attraction are depicted in the > books, especially the later ones, and even childbirth is referred to > in relation to Merope and her son, Tom. But that's not the same thing > as having sex on page (the Hogwarts students don't even have it > off-page, as far as we know. Magpie: No, it isn't the same as having sex on page. But what on earth does that have to do with Dumbledore being in love with Grindelwald? That's exactly what I'm challenging in what they're saying, that Ron liking Hermione or Lavender, or Molly and Arthur having 7 children is one thing, but Dumbledore being in love with Grindelwald is "having sex," as if you can't have a gay attraction without following them into the bedroom and watching them have intercourse even if Dumbledore and Grindelwald never did. I don't undersatnd that. If you don't want actual descriptions of sexual intercourse in YA books, well, you're still not going to be happy with YA at the moment. But not wanting explicit sex and not wanting Dumbledore (or anyone) to be gay are two entirely unrelated things. Since both Steve and Tonks were referring to JKR describing Dumbledore as "gay" and "in love with" Grindelwald or "infatuated" with him when they said sexuality had no place in the books, they seemed to be saying that "sexuality" actually didn't mean graphic sex. There was no graphic sex anywhere in JKR's answer. So where did she add sexuality? Carol: Hermione and Ron spend most of the school > year together (with Harry as a chaperone of sorts, or at least an > uncomfortable third party on occasion) and don't get beyond hugging or > holding hands until the end of the book. > > Any sex in the HP books is off-page and implied, for example, in the > case of Merope and Tom Riddle Sr. No one in the books actually refers > directly to sexual intercourse in any form (though, of course, the > association between passionate kissing and sex is present in the mind > of any adult reader. Ten-year-olds, OTOH, probably want to get past > the kissing scenes as quickly as possible and don't identify with them > at all.) And I, for one, think that most young readers and their > parents prefer not knowing about the teachers' or the students' sex > lives. (Did Remus agree to marry Tonks because she talked him into > having premarital sex and then told him she was pregnant? I don't want > to know, and I'm sure most parents don't want their kids to know. The > relationship between love and sex, which don't always go hand in hand, > is too complex for a child's immature understanding, IMO.) Magpie: And none of that is any different with us knowing that Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald. So it's not adding any sexuality to the books that wasn't there to begin with. Carol: > > Obviously, we can't hide the existence of sexual attraction from kids. > They know about it already. But most kids fourteen and under (I wish I > could say sixteen and under) aren't ready for sexual relationships of > their own and really don't want to read about it, in my experience. > They may wonder when Ron is going to figure out that he loves Hermione > and when they're going to kiss, but they're mostly worried about other > things--like whether Harry's going to survive (or, in the earlier > books, what kind of detention Harry is going to get from Snape) and > most of all, in what happens next. Sexual innuendoes (including the > sly reference to "Equus" in "King's Cross" and the possibility of a > romantic relationship between DD and GG) go right over their heads. > Or, at least, that's my experience with regard to young readers > (fourteen and under). Magpie: Wait. I'm following you about how kids don't want to read about sexual relationships, but can wonder when Ron is going to figure out that he loves Hermione, or when they're going to kiss. But then Dumbledore being in love with Grindelwald--which is *exactly* the same as Ron being in love with Hermione or, perhaps more accurately since it was in the past, exactly the same as Merope in love with Tom or the Bloody Baron in love with the Grey Lady--must be sexual innuendo that goes over their heads (as people missed a lot signs for H/G and R/Hr anyway) or an explicit sexual relationship they're not interested in reading about? There still seems to be a premise here that Dumbledore/Grindelwald is about the mechanics of sex or dirtier or more graphic instead of just being the same but with two men. If sexuality=having sex on page, then Dumbledore and Grindelwald still aren't more about sexuality than any other people in canon. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Nov 3 02:08:18 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 02:08:18 -0000 Subject: Archived Wizards of the Month In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Carol" > But I wanted to comment on JKR's archiving everything, both the > surprises behind the door (accessible via the Time Turner, though I > don't think you can still work the puzzles or do the Wombats) Potioncat: Heck, I heard there was a TimeTurner, and I was hoping it would take us back to the halcyon days before DH. Carol: and the > Wizards of the Month, culminating with Harry Potter. Sigh. I guess > that means there won't be any more Wizards of the Month and that > Severus isn't going to have his turn. Potioncat: She's done with Wizards of the Month? No Snape? Is the site going to close down soon, do you think? > Carol, wondering what else to expect from the woman who would sue > Lexicon Steve after all his tireless devotion and hard work Potioncat: And she even admitted that she used the Lexicon for her own research while writing! I don't really understand how she can stop him from publishing when there are other books about HP out there. From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 02:16:07 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 02:16:07 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" > wrote: > > > > > > > Tonks: > > > > > > > > > > I don't think [sexuality] has any place in a children's book. > > > > > And even if adults are reading it and the reading level has > > > > > changed since book 3, it is still a book read by children of > > > > > age 8 and up. > > > > > > > > Magpie: > > > > Well, HP is pretty obviously YA at this point ..., but I > > > > assume this part doesn't have to do with DD being gay and > > > > instead you're disapproving of all the sexuality that's > > > > actually in the books? > Carol responds: > Not even the Victorian objected to the implicit sexuality involved in > marriages that produced children (though they used euphemisms to get > around the word "pregnant") and even Dickens' characters engaged in > flirtation and an occasional chaste kiss. > > You seem to be using "sexuality" to mean "sexual attraction" (and, > occasionally, sexual preference). Others are apparently using it to > mean the depiction of sex itself (or anything beyond "snogging" and > fully clothed groping). FWIW, here's the Merriam-Webster definition of > the term: > > sex?u?al?i?ty > Function: > noun > Date: > circa 1800 > > the quality or state of being sexual: a: the condition of having sex > b: sexual activity c: expression of sexual receptivity or interest > especially when excessive > > It seems to me, though I could easily be mistaken, that the use of the > term by bboyminn, Tonks, and others is closer to the dictionary > definition than your use of it, or at any rate, certainly equally > correct. We're just having a problem with semantics here. Annemehr: Yes... but it seems to me that Magpie is the one who's being consistent. Tonks's response to the idea of having a gay DD in the books (if I read her correctly) is to say there shouldn't be sexuality in the books. But *no one* has ever suggested that DD ought to have been portrayed as having any actual sex in the books. So, if by Tonks' usage of the word, there's no sexuality in the books as they are now, there still needn't be any even if DD, or anyone else, had been revealed in the text to be gay. I mean, just have Snape blast a rosebush at the Yule Ball, and there's Anthony Goldstein and Justin Finch-Fletchly. Now the existence of gays is established in the WW. Then, slip in something subtle but clear about DD and Grindewald in DH, and there you go. Whatever definition you use for "sexuality," now we're applying it evenly to everyone. Annemehr From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 02:25:34 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 02:25:34 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: lizzyben wrote: > if JKR stated that Pavarti Patil is Hindu, & a > fan think that Hinduism is wrong and don't like > the idea of a Hindu character. Should JKR conform > to that person's desire to not read about a Hindu > character? Del replies: With a name like Parvati Patil, would it be surprising that Parvati would turn out to be Hindu? No it wouldn't. Someone reading the name "Parvati Patil" would necessarily be aware that she might very well be Hindu. No such thing about DD being gay though: not only is he never hinted at as being gay, but *nobody else* in the entire WW is either! Until JKR said otherwise in an interview, there was simply NO gay characters in her books. None whatsoever. And thus no reason to expect DD to be gay. > But why would JKR have to conform to someone else's > belief? I mean, Hindu people exist, just like gay > people exist, & it seems to me that JKR is free to > make her characters any religion or sexual > orientation without worrying about whether that > would conform to the morality or religious beliefs > of every possible fan. Then why didn't she actually DO that? Why didn't she *write* DD as gay? Why didn't she have him SAY, in the books, "I was in love with GG"? Instead, what she did, is that she DID "conform to the morality" of a large number of fans, by not mentioning homosexuality at all. She HID her true beliefs and instead deliberately presented DD in a view that she knew would make him more acceptable to a lot of people. And then once those people had BOUGHT and READ the books, she came out and said "oh yeah, he's gay, what's wrong with that?" That's just not right, IMO. > Indeed, there's no way she *could* if she wanted > to. Plenty of people think inter-racial > relationships are wrong, or witchcraft is wrong, > or women having a job is wrong - there's no way > JKR should or even could structure the novels so > as to avoid depicting anything that anyone could > disagree with. Indeed. And in the case of inter-racial relationships, and witchcraft, and women having a job, she put her quill where her mouth is: she wrote *in the books* about inter-racial relationships and withcraft and women having a job. It was then up to people who don't like those things to choose whether or not they would read the books. But with homosexuality, JKR didn't do that at all. Instead, she pretended, for 7 entire books, to not want to tackle the issue of homosexuality, thus pandering to the wishes of a whole category of readers, and then once those readers had bought and read the books, she introduced homosexuality out of the blue. That's manipulative. > IMO asking an author not to depict a gay character, > or banning books that do, is trampling on people's > rights to see or read something that does not > conform with your own opinion. Nobody is asking JKR to not depict DD as gay. In fact, it's precisely because she didn't do exactly that, that there's now a problem. > IMO, no, because she is expressing her own > viewpoint on that character. Readers are free to > accept or discard that opinion, just like they > are free to accept or discard her other > pronouncements about the characters. Except that this doesn't seem to be how *she* sees things, judging from her interviews. When she says "he's my character", it's clear that she doesn't consider her words as just another "viewpoint", but as truth. And when she says things like (paraphrase) "I never doubted that a great wizard could be gay", how can this not be construed as a direct moral attack on those of her fans who don't want DD to be gay? > So, in the interest of tolerating other people's > beliefs & opinions, she shouldn't express her own? Not after pandering to those people's beliefs and opinions for 7 books, no, not IMO. I see this as totally despicable. > The books are what they are. Precisely. And in the books, NOBODY is gay and homosexuality doesn't even exist. That's the way JKR wrote those books, and she needs to deal with that now. > IMO tolerance extends to allowing everyone to > have & express their own views - JKR is free to > express her own opinions & beliefs, & readers are > free to express how they disagree w/those beliefs. > But neither has the right to silence the other. Except that she's trying to do just that: silence those fans who are outraged at her revelation that DD is gay. "He's my character" and "I never doubted that great wizards can be gay" are both ways to tell those outraged readers to get lost. Hence my protest. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 02:40:32 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 02:40:32 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: susanmcgee wrote: > There's such a strong reaction from some people > because they haven't examined their prejudices... > haven't realized that they have such bigoted and > hateful ideas deep within them..it's very > upsetting... Del replies: Yeah, when people are upset at something you approve of, it's necessarily because they are prejudiced and bigoted. Sheesh! Don't you realise just how prejudiced YOU sound when you say things like that!? > What's interesting to me is this idea that > homophobia (or racism) is unusual or only happens > now and then. Huh?? Where did you see that one on this thread?? > It's also a prejudice that can be rooted out and > mitigated. Everyone has been brainwashed in the > U.S. that lesbians and gay men are immoral and > evil..it's in our literature, our language, our > culture, our schools...but you can unlearn > bigotry... You mean, brainwash the opposite way? Yeah, that's soooooo much more moral *roll eyes* > And to the ethnocentric idea that the U.S. is > tolerant towards lesbians, and gay men..well > perhaps compared to Iran or Africa where people > are put to death but not compared to Europe or > other parts of the world. People in Europe are > laughing at some Americans about this... I'm European. People in Europe are not "laughing": they just don't care. And why don't they care? Because they've been brainwashed (and yes, I mean brainwashed: I know, I went through it) into thinking that sexuality is an exclusively private matter and homosexuality-isn't-an-issue-it's-totally-normal (say it very quickly, repeat until subject has fully integrated it, and make sure subject NEVER has time to even THINK about it!! If subject is religious, then accompany this treatment with the "Religion is the Root of All Evils" program.) Note that what I'm objecting to isn't actually the content of those programs, but their shape: brainwashing is brainwashing is brainwashing, no matter which purposes it serves. Brainwashing even for the side of Good is still wrong. Del From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 02:42:09 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 02:42:09 -0000 Subject: Archived Wizards of the Month In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > But I wanted to comment on JKR's archiving everything, both the > surprises behind the door (accessible via the Time Turner, though I > don't think you can still work the puzzles or do the Wombats) > Oh, yes you can -- and there seems to be no time limit on the WOMBAT, and when you hit "Submit" you are graded instantly (I just tried the 3rd WOMBAT twice -- it's at 21/12/06 on the time turner). Annemehr From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Sat Nov 3 02:42:55 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 02:42:55 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Del: > Are you asking for a general reason, or a personal > reason? When it comes to personal reason, shouldn't > it be enough that, for example, some people simply > don't *want* to read (or to have their children > read) books with gay characters in it? Celoneth: What I was asking for was a legitimate reason based on why its bad for there to be gay character in a book not one based on fear/prejudice/ignorance. You say that there are reason for people being in a tiff about DD being gay that aren't related to prejudice or ignorance - I've yet to hear one of those reasons. I understand people not wanting to read books w/ graphic sex in them (gay or hetero), but to single out one sexual orientation when the books are as sexualy mild as they are seems irrational to me. Del: > JKR made it clear that she saw nothing wrong with > interracial relationships right from the first book, > when kids of all colours are mixed together at > Hogwarts without any character complaining, and > without the author using tainted language of any > kind to describe the non-white kids. Celoneth: But what about the racist who picks up the first book and doesn't know that there will be race mixing - shouldn't they be warned that such a thing is in the books so they can avoid reading it? Won't they be horribly offended and upset that they picked up a book and it had a viewpoint they disagree with? Del: > So I don't see it as a stretch to argue that people > who don't like homosexuality were perfectly > justified in thinking that they would NEVER be > confronted to homosexuality in the HP world. I mean, > heck, the last book was finally out and STILL there > was NO mention of homosexuality!! > > And then JKR comes and says that not only she's > always seen DD as gay, but that one relationship > that happened on-page was actually a gay one at > least on one side, and to top it off she insists > that DD is her character and so she gets to decide > how and what he is. Celoneth: I don't like the comment that DD is her character and she gets to decide either - all the characters are ours once we read them but that goes for DD's sexuality as it does for the nature of Slytherins or for who Neville marries. But if she wrote him as a gay character then that's how she wrote him, just as she wrote James to be a good person even though we see him acting like a jerk in every scene he's in. Once we read the characters we have a right to see them how we want to see them - but she has a right to say what she thought when she created the character. & I don't think readers have a right not to be confronted with an issue they don't like when they pick up a book. > Well, that's incredibly disrespectful IMO. > > > She couldn't reveal the DD-GG relationship before > > DH or it could have spoiled the end of the series. > > True, but she could have written DD as gay. Or even > just ANYONE as gay, so people would have actually > known that homosexuality exists in the WW and that > they might discover one day that a character they > love is actually gay. You know, like in Real Life? > What she did instead is pretend for 7 books that all > her characters, that the entire WW in fact, is > straight, only to drop, AFTER the last book was over, > the gay bomb. That's devious and cowardly, IMO. Celoneth: Why would she have to show that gay people exist? Witches and wizards are humans, some humans are gay therefore logically some witches and wizards are gay. DD being gay is relevant to his character and if she revealed it before DH it could have spoiled things, she never said he was straight either. Del: > The word bigot is often used as a slur, and very > often in circumstances where it doesn't even apply. Celoneth: That's why I used the terms bigot and prejudiced to make a distinction. And in some cases the word does apply and is not a slur. > > But she did apparently write a gay DD Del: > Then you should be able to give me undisputable > canon proving it. Celoneth: I meant that when she wrote DD she had him in mind as gay - it didn't make it on the page b/c either she was cowardly or she didn't feel it necessary for the plot. I'm writing a story right now and creating characters for it - I have their entire lives written out in as much detail as I can get, some of which will never be in the story - but its still the way I wrote the character and it will probably influence how the character comes across. Of course anyone who reads the story is free to interpret it how they want - just like anyone is free to interpret DD any way they want regardless of how JKR created him. Del: > I'm only talking of a > couple of references in passing. Exactly as was > done with racial interrelationships: there was > never any big mention of it, just little hints here > and there. Celoneth: But given the plot - why would there be any mention of it? We see DD only as a headmaster in his role as headmaster/professor - we have no mention of his personal life until DH. It serves no purpose to reveal it, except as you seem to argue to warn readers that gay people exist in which case my earlier suggestion of a big warning label on the books would be more apt. Del: > Aren't you the one who started quoting the Bible ;-) ? Celoneth: I never quoted the Bible, someone else must have - I haven't read a passage of the Bible since high school lit class so I wouldn't presume to quote something I know so little about except in the historical sense. Celoneth From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Sat Nov 3 02:47:26 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 02:47:26 -0000 Subject: The Tales of Beedle the Bard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Celoneth: I wish she did that too. I really enjoyed the Quiddich and Fantastic Beasts books and it would be cool to read the stories (plus it would be a lot more money for her charities imo). I'd rather she do stuff like that than the encyclopedia - give more background on the WW's existance (kind of like Silmarillion) or maybe make little versions of the school textbooks w/ all the spells explained (or the Prince's book w/ all the notes). Celoneth Tonks: > I wish that she was going to publish it like she did the school books. > The profit from those went to charity too. It would have been so cool > to have a "copy" of her handwritten book. She could give the orginals > away and given us the chance to have a printed copy. I tell you that > woman is as mean as "you know who". From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 02:54:28 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 02:54:28 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Annemehr wrote: > I mean, just have Snape blast a rosebush at the > Yule Ball, and there's Anthony Goldstein and > Justin Finch-Fletchly. Now the existence of gays > is established in the WW. Then, slip in something > subtle but clear about DD and Grindewald in DH, > and there you go. Whatever definition you use for > "sexuality," now we're applying it evenly to > everyone. Del replies: Amen! Funny you should mention the rosebushes at the Yule Ball, since I've been toying with the idea of writing a post on MAIN about how the whole Yule Ball episode pretty much demonstrates that there are no gay characters at all in the Potterverse. And those rosebushes are indeed one of the arguments I've been thinking of. They were one of those perfect opportunites to discreetly inject some homosexuality into the books, and yet, just like all other such opportunities, JKR didn't make any use of it. Some may call it coincidence, I call it manipulation and deceit, in the light of her "DD is gay" comment. Del From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Sat Nov 3 03:02:17 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 03:02:17 -0000 Subject: Archived Wizards of the Month In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > But I wanted to comment on JKR's archiving everything, both the > > surprises behind the door (accessible via the Time Turner, though I > > don't think you can still work the puzzles or do the Wombats) > > > > > Oh, yes you can -- and there seems to be no time limit on the WOMBAT, > and when you hit "Submit" you are graded instantly (I just tried the > 3rd WOMBAT twice -- it's at 21/12/06 on the time turner). > > Annemehr Sorry if this is a stupid question but how do you work the timeturner? Celoneth From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 03:18:08 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 03:18:08 -0000 Subject: Archived Wizards of the Month In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "slytherin_jenn" wrote: > > > > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > > > But I wanted to comment on JKR's archiving everything, both the > > > surprises behind the door (accessible via the Time Turner, though I > > > don't think you can still work the puzzles or do the Wombats) > > > > > > > > > Oh, yes you can -- and there seems to be no time limit on the WOMBAT, > > and when you hit "Submit" you are graded instantly (I just tried the > > 3rd WOMBAT twice -- it's at 21/12/06 on the time turner). > > > > Annemehr > > Sorry if this is a stupid question but how do you work the timeturner? > Celoneth > Heh. It took me a while to figure it out, too. First, you click on the "hourglass" part of it, and it whirls you back in time (it flashes back through days and nights outside the window). After that, you click on the little handles beside the date indicator. The bottom handle goes backwards, and the top one forwards. Annemehr From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 03:28:46 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 03:28:46 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Celoneth wrote: > What I was asking for was a legitimate reason > based on why its bad for there to be gay > character in a book not one based on > fear/prejudice/ignorance. Del replies: I don't think I was arguing that there shouldn't be gay characters in books. What I was arguing was more along the lines of: people should be given the choice to read or not a book in which a character is gay. They shouldn't be lured into thinking that no character in a book is gay (and even less so in a 7-book long series of books!), only to be told in an after-book interview that one of the main characters is indeed gay. > You say that there are reason for people being in > a tiff about DD being gay that aren't related to > prejudice or ignorance - I've yet to hear one of > those reasons. Let's take the most basic and common one: because they believe that God condemns homosexuality. Consequently, they don't want a good guy in a book (especially the one called "the epitome of goodness" by the author) to have that "flaw" and not be condemned for it. Isn't that your natural reaction too? Don't you too think that good guys in pieces of fiction shouldn't have deep moral flaws? Please note that I'm not asking you whether you agree or not that homosexuality is a deep moral flaw: what I'm asking you is how you would feel in their place. > But what about the racist who picks up the first > book and doesn't know that there will be race > mixing - shouldn't they be warned that such a > thing is in the books so they can avoid reading > it? Won't they be horribly offended and upset that > they picked up a book and it had a viewpoint they > disagree with? You are not being reasonable, as the two situations don't even come close to comparing. On the one hand: a racist who picks up the first book, and quickly discovers that that book doesn't support racism. Cost of the whole operation: one book bought, a few dozen pages read, very little time spent, very little emotional involvement. On the other hand: someone who doesn't like homosexuality. They go through the whole 7 books, and no mention of any other sexuality but heterosexuality is ever made. And then the author reveals that one major character is gay. Cost of the operation: 7 books bought, thousands of pages read, loads of time spent, high emotional involvement. That's just not comparable. If you prefer: JKR has always been upfront, right from the first book, that she's against racism. But she has NEVER shown, in any way or shape, that she supported homosexuality - never until that interview. That's honesty vs dishonesty, quite simply, IMO. > I don't think readers have a right not to be > confronted with an issue they don't like when > they pick up a book. Except that they were NOT confronted with it *when they picked up the book*. It's JKR who directly confronted them with it in an interview. Big difference. > Why would she have to show that gay people exist? > Witches and wizards are humans, some humans are > gay therefore logically some witches and wizards > are gay. Faulty logic, sorry. Orange cats are animals, some animals are grey, therefore some orange cats are grey. Doesn't compute. Yes wizards and witches are human beings, but nowhere does it say that they can also be gay. For all we know, the wizard gene prevents the gay gene (if you believe in a gay gene) from expressing itself or vice versa. And the WW presented in the Potterverse is STRICTLY heterosexual. > DD being gay is relevant to his character and if > she revealed it before DH it could have spoiled > things, Then why not reveal it right there in DH? Plenty of opportunities for that. All that was missing was the will. > she never said he was straight either. No, but by making *everyone else* straight, she implied that DD was either straight or asexual. > But given the plot - why would there be any > mention of it? We see DD only as a headmaster in > his role as headmaster/professor - we have no > mention of his personal life until DH. DH, in which this part of his life is STILL not mentioned... And what about other characters? Why not have some classmates of Harry's turn out to be gay? Not necessarily anything big or in-your-face, just something Harry notices in passing. Something to say "there ARE gay wizards, even though all the main characters so far have appeared to be straight". > I never quoted the Bible, someone else must have Oops, sorry about that! *blush* Del From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 04:50:48 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 04:50:48 -0000 Subject: Actual Wizardry Books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "forneus1986" wrote: > > I'm having difficulty in finding books on ACTUAL > wizardry and what it entails. I did a trawl on Amazon > and found this: > > http://www.amazon.com/dp/1905297130? tag=avalonia&camp=15309&creative=331449&linkCode=st1&creativeASIN=190 5297130&adid=0T6GS04BNMNGFF20K552& > > Do people know of any other books that might help - > I'd rather avoid the new-age tat thats out there and > deal with well written material, that is well > referenced and researched. Thanks in advance. Tonks: It depends on what you are looking for. Do you want a history of the practice or something else? There are many good books that will give you a factual history of magic, not stage magic, but real magic. Also you must understand that what people today call magick was not called that in the beginning. Look to the history and practice of Shamanism. They were the first to practice what is called magick. Also the study of Wicca. There are some good books that I have seen on that. Here is one that I would recommend: http://www.amazon.com/Awakening-Spirits-Religion-Spirituality- Brown/dp/0425141403/ref=pd_bbs_10/104-1295386-2595915? ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194064666&sr=8-10 This is an interesting read: http://www.amazon.com/Grimoire-Apprentice-Wizard-Oberon-Zell- Ravenheart/dp/1564147118/ref=sr_1_43/104-1295386-2595915? ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194064911&sr=1-43 If you are looking for History, you might want to read about some of the Alchemist, many of them were also wizards. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 05:56:27 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 05:56:27 -0000 Subject: Archived Wizards of the Month In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Carol, wondering what else to expect from the woman who would sue > Lexicon Steve after all his tireless devotion and hard work > I just had a wick thought. Do you think that with all that happened in DH, that somehow a bit of LV's soul accidently slipped into Rowling. That might explain a lot about her behavior lately. She seems to like to torment her readers. Anyone notice any new scars on her forhead lately? ;-) Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 06:31:13 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 06:31:13 -0000 Subject: Archived Wizards of the Month In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I clicked the timeturner. How do I open the door? Tonks. From catlady at wicca.net Sat Nov 3 08:01:35 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 08:01:35 -0000 Subject: a few one-line replies Message-ID: Tonks_op wrote in : << If I had known he was gay from the get go, I would not have fallen in love with him. >> Really? Lucky you. I've never been able to avoid falling in love with a man just because I knew from the get-go that he was totally unavailable. Annemehr wrote in : << Since the book itself is about 160 pages >> 160 pages! tTimes 7 copies. By hand. *My* hand is hurting at the *thought*. Carol wrote in : << She simply doesn't understand either the writing process >> Proof that one doesn't need to understand a thing to be able to do it! Carol wrote in : << this strikes me as a potentially dangerous situation (the possibility of teenage pregnancy) >> They have *magic*. There could be an anti-human-conception spell on all the castle and all the grounds. Anyway, if preventing pregnancy was people's main concern, they would view same-sex love affairs as less undesirable than mixed-sex ones. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 13:56:12 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:56:12 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol, wondering how JKR went from awarding the Lexicon a Site of the > Month Award to suing the publisher of the book version (though I don't > dispute her right to request that certain errors, such as Snape's > birth date, be corrected before publication). > Alla: Leaky gives pretty impassioned summaries of what is going on now, so if you are interested in the history from both sides, it is all there. I wish it would not come to that, but if the book will be indeed direct copy of Lexicon, JKR 100% right. There is a big difference between book of essays and book that just restates what is in canon. Like take for example book by John Granger ( just first one that comes to mind) and the guide that describes who is what in the magical world ( Muggle and magic) or something by Fiona Boyle? Book by John Granger of course is not infringement, since it is his COMMENTARY, the other book is now out of print from what I heard and I totally understand why. I do wonder if Steve's book has commentaries, why they did not show the manuscript. If it is a printed copy of Lexicon, well it is quite wrong no matter how you look at it IMO. Again, obviously I do not know the whole story and it is too bad it came to it. Of course I love Lexicon. But they state quite clearly it seems both JKR on her website and WB to Leaky that they have no objection to commentaries book, they have no objections to FREE websites. But IF the book is direct copy of Lexicon, sorry, it is benefiting for profit from JKR's work, and IMO it is just wrong. JMO, Alla From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Nov 3 13:59:09 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:59:09 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Alla: > > Leaky gives pretty impassioned summaries of what is going on now, so > if you are interested in the history from both sides, it is all > there. > > I wish it would not come to that, but if the book will be indeed > direct copy of Lexicon, JKR 100% right. Magpie: Yeah, I'm not a lawyer but from what I read JKR's completely right here. The publishers sound insane. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 15:15:54 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:15:54 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Alla: > > > > Leaky gives pretty impassioned summaries of what is going on now, so > > if you are interested in the history from both sides, it is all > > there. > > > > I wish it would not come to that, but if the book will be indeed > > direct copy of Lexicon, JKR 100% right. > > Magpie: > Yeah, I'm not a lawyer but from what I read JKR's completely right > here. The publishers sound insane. Alla: I am not an IP lawyer either, but I did took copyright for a year in law school and I had a pretty good professor, so the basics stuck with me :) Contrary to the property, where our lovely professor refused to answer questions from people, if he deemed them not to be sophisticated enough. But aparently he deemed himself to be sophisticated enough to come to lectures with smell of alcohol sometimes, snort. I find publisher's position to be mindboggling, frankly from what I read. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 17:00:59 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 17:00:59 -0000 Subject: Canon help please Message-ID: Hmmm, somebody can tell me if after CoS disaster Lucius Malfoy was kicked out of the Board of Governors. Because I am working on the long post about Ministry and I want to know for sure. With page number, please :) So far I do not see that he was and it suits me perfectly, but obviously I want to double check. Thanks guys. Alla From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Nov 3 17:11:51 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 17:11:51 -0000 Subject: Canon help please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: alla: > Hmmm, somebody can tell me if after CoS disaster Lucius Malfoy was > kicked out of the Board of Governors. Because I am working on the long > post about Ministry and I want to know for sure. With page number, > please :) So far I do not see that he was and it suits me perfectly, > but obviously I want to double check. Magpie: I distinctly remember he was kicked off the Board. There's a line about Draco walking around a little less like he owned the school. It shouldn't be too hard to find if you just look towards the very end. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 17:16:38 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 17:16:38 -0000 Subject: Canon help please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > I distinctly remember he was kicked off the Board. There's a line about > Draco walking around a little less like he owned the school. It > shouldn't be too hard to find if you just look towards the very end. > > -m > Alla: LOL. That is why I asked for help. I could not find it and as I said do not want to build something on erroneous information. I will look again or maybe wait for others' help. Thanks anyway. From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 17:21:27 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 17:21:27 -0000 Subject: Canon help please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Magpie: > > I distinctly remember he was kicked off the Board. There's a line > about > > Draco walking around a little less like he owned the school. It > > shouldn't be too hard to find if you just look towards the very end. > > > > -m > > > > > Alla: > > LOL. That is why I asked for help. I could not find it and as I said > do not want to build something on erroneous information. I will look > again or maybe wait for others' help. > > Thanks anyway. > Annemehr: Well, if you have the U.S. paperback, it's on page 340. If you don't, it's in the last chapter, about a page and a half from the end: "The rest of the final term passed in a haze of blazing sunshine. Hogwarts was back to normal with a only a few, small differences -- Defense Against the Dark Arts classes were canceled ("but we've had plenty of practice at that anyway," Ron told a disgruntled Hermione) and Lucius Malfoy had been sacked as a school governor. Draco was no longer strutting around the school as though he owned the place." From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 17:24:04 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 17:24:04 -0000 Subject: Canon help please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Annemehr: > > Well, if you have the U.S. paperback, it's on page 340. If you > don't, it's in the last chapter, about a page and a half from the end: > > "The rest of the final term passed in a haze of blazing sunshine. > Hogwarts was back to normal with a only a few, small differences -- > Defense Against the Dark Arts classes were canceled ("but we've had > plenty of practice at that anyway," Ron told a disgruntled Hermione) > and Lucius Malfoy had been sacked as a school governor. Draco was no > longer strutting around the school as though he owned the place." > Alla: Thank you very much :) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 17:53:17 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 17:53:17 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol: > > > > Obviously, we can't hide the existence of sexual attraction from kids. They know about it already. But most kids fourteen and under (I wish I could say sixteen and under) aren't ready for sexual relationships of their own and really don't want to read about it, in my experience. They may wonder when Ron is going to figure out that he loves Hermione and when they're going to kiss, but they're mostly worried about other things--like whether Harry's going to survive (or, in the earlier books, what kind of detention Harry is going to get from Snape) and most of all, in what happens next. Sexual innuendoes (including the sly reference to "Equus" in "King's Cross" and the possibility of a romantic relationship between DD and GG) go right over their heads. Or, at least, that's my experience with regard to young readers (fourteen and under). > Magpie: > Wait. I'm following you about how kids don't want to read about sexual relationships, but can wonder when Ron is going to figure out that he loves Hermione, or when they're going to kiss. But then Dumbledore being in love with Grindelwald--which is *exactly* the same as Ron being in love with Hermione or, perhaps more accurately since it was in the past, exactly the same as Merope in love with Tom or the Bloody Baron in love with the Grey Lady--must be sexual innuendo that goes over their heads (as people missed a lot signs for H/G and R/Hr anyway) or an explicit sexual relationship they're not interested in reading about? > > There still seems to be a premise here that Dumbledore/Grindelwald is about the mechanics of sex or dirtier or more graphic instead of just being the same but with two men. If sexuality=having sex on page, then Dumbledore and Grindelwald still aren't more about sexuality than any other people in canon. > Carol responds: DD's infatuation with GG or love for him or whatever it was is sexual innuendo because it's not on the page (or, actually, just innuendo because love doesn't necessarily imply sex and GG's feelings may have been different from Albus's) and kids, unlike politically oriented adults, aren't going to pick up any hints of a sexual or romantic attraction between two teenage boys, one of them underage. DD and GG aren't shown or referred to as "snogging" or holding hands, which is how what you're calling "sexuality" (a definition I questioned) is depicted on the page for heterosexual couples (with implied sex in the case of pregnancy and childbirth). Since DD and GG aren't shown or referred to as doing anything to indicate either love or sexual attraction, only an infatuation based on shared ideas and ambitions and a failure on Albus's part to see (or perhaps acknowledge to himself) Gellert's sinister side until it was too late, children (as JKR herself said) will see only a friendship--especially since JKR withheld even the slightest hint that DD was or had ever been a sexual being, homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual, for fear that it would spoil her plot. So, yes, the veiled hints of a sexual relationship, or rather, a romantic attraction, between the boys or on Albus's side alone (my sense is that Grindelwald cared for him enough not to kill him in the duel and not to want Voldemort to violate his grave, but that could as easily be friendship as love) will go over child readers' heads just as the references to "Equus" do. And for that matter, the references to pregnancy and childbirth will not automatically conjure up images of sexual intercourse in children's heads. And, IMO, that's all to the good. As for so-called YA literature depicting explicit sex, maybe the book sellers should employ the same sort of labeling system that's used in films, something along the lines of PG-13 and R, not only for sex but for "language" (profanity, obscenity, and scatology) and violence. I would rate the first three books as PG rather than G, GoF as PG-13 becaause a boy dies and the Voldemort resurrection scene might be terrifying, OoP and HBP as also PG-13 because the level of violence intensifies and a beloved character is killed in each and the level of "language" is getting a bit beyond what's usually seen in children's books (as opposed to "young adult," which is an absurd euphemism--older kids and teenagers are not adults. Young adults are in their twenties and thirties), and DH as bordering on R because of two terrifying scenes with Nagini. (The "language" is still PG-13, e.g., "bitch," as is the "sexuality"--one passionate, interrupted kiss between Harry and Ginny and one enthusiastic but chaste kiss between Ron and Hermione. Lots of sexual innuendo, but as I said, it will go over the heads of readers under sixteen or perhaps even eighteen, depending on the teenager.) But any book with explicit sex (such as the ones you're referring to) should have, IMHO, an R rating. What are these writers doing depicting explicit sex in books for kids? They have enough to worry about with puberty (acne, changes in their bodies, hormones, unstable emotions, peer pressure to use drugs) and homework without adding to their confusion. Most kids fourteen and under, as you've already acknowledged, are not ready to deal with sex on that level and will find it disturbing or disgusting. Or perhaps they'll be secretly and perversely drawn to it as some teenagers, unfortunately for them and their parents and society at large, are drawn to porn sites. (In my day, it was Playboy magazines that they looked at furtively and hid under the covers of their beds.) Anyway, I think that so-called freedom of speech has had some unfortunate consequences, including the level of profanity and obscenity allowed on television, and I fear that our children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences when they become adults. Responsibility, decency, and modesty seem to me to have gone by the wayside, along with courtesy and respect for authority. Just my opinion, and I'm not arguing it here because I have no doubt whatever that three quarters of this list disagrees with me and cannot be convinced even to listen to my outmoded views. To get back to DD/GG vs. Hermione and Ron. It isn't "exactly the same" since kids have been reading about Hermione and Ron since the first book, and if their mutual attraction (hinted at rather obviously in the films) wasn't apparent before the Yule Ball, it was certainly obvious afterwards (if not to Ron himself, at least to many readers, including kids--I'm ignoring H/H Shippers, who were evidently engaged in wishful thinking). But, in contrast to Ron and Hermione, we never see GG and DD together on page, in part because their relationship exists in the past and is revealed gradually only through one letter, a couple of photos, a dead woman's memories distorted by a sensationalist reporter, and finally through Dead!DD's confessions, which say nothing about love or physical attraction. We hear (figuratively speaking) a few reminiscences, read one enthusiastic but wholly intellectual letter, and "see" a photo of two boys laughing at a shared joke (along with another photo of GG alone and Greegorovitch's memory of the young thief, which tells us nothing at all about a DD connection). Even Harry sees that the laughing, merry-faced, golden-haired boy is attractive, but he also notices that Cedric Diggory and Sirius Black are handsome. There's no indication of sexual attraction in that recognition. Harry, as we see from his thoughts and behavior, is heterosexual. He doesn't see a homoerotic attraction in the photograph or the relationship itself, even after "King's Cross," even though some adult readers (or homosexual teenagers?) might speculate that one exists. *It's not on the page* except, perhaps, through innuendo that some adult readers picked up before the interview and others now see because JKR said it was there, or rather, that DD is gay in her imagination. So children, as JKR herself says, will see a friendship, and many adults will see, in addition to the friendship, the intellectual attraction that DD himself acknowledges. (In contrast to Elphias Doge or Aberforth, Gellert is DD's intellectual equal, the first friend he's ever had with whom he can discuss his heady ideas about the Deathly Hallows and world domination.) And, really, that's all they need to see to understand the plot, regardless of what exists in JKR's imagination. JKR has depicted the relationship in a way that would be perfectly appropriate (physically) in a G-rated film. (The ideas, of course--world domination and controlling Muggles through magic for their own good--are another matter.) Ron's and Hermione's or Ginny's and Harry's relationships are, perhaps, PG (as is Ron's and Lavender's winding around each other. Or would that be PG-13?). (I sense a double standard on Ron's part, though, and a marked difference in his treatment of Lavender, whom he doesn't love or respect or perhaps even like, and Hermione, whom he nevertheless treats rather badly in other ways because of jealousy, though she treats him badly, too, on occasion. Sorry. Sidetracked here.) JKR, unlike those "YA" authors you're speaking of, apparently doesn't believe that explicit sex belongs on the pages of kids' books, and I agree with her in that respect. Explicit violence is, in DH especially, another matter altogether. Let's think about kids' feelings and sensibilities and what is appropriate for their age level rather than about politics here. I'm not happy with JKR at the moment (the suit against the Lexicon book is the last straw, though I do think she should have been allowed to read the manuscript and correct errors, such as Snape's birthdate), but I think she handled "sexuality" well within the books, with young readers seeing nothing beyond kissing and hand-holding and adults spotting sexual innuendo where kids will overlook it. As for DD and GG, it's not on the page at all, and perhaps if it were, many parents would object, like it or not. And let's be realistic. Many kids, conditioned to heterosexual attraction but not to homosexual attraction by their own families (same-sex parents being a small minority), movies, and TV, might find it disturbing as well. I'm not saying that's the right way to think, only that it happens. And JKR, knowing that many readers would find such a relationship distasteful, kept it off the page. For me, that was a wise decision, leaving the interpretation up to the individual reader. But I can see why others would regard it as intellectually dishonest, hiding a characters' sexual orientation until the last book--or, really, until that interview--to avoid losing readers who would object to a gay authority figure. (I'm not saying that's what she did, only that I understand that view of the matter.) Either way, as it stands, what's on the page and not what she says in interviews is what matters, IMO, both for child readers merely enjoying the books and for adult readers who want to analyze and interpret them. DD's sexual orientation is a matter of interpretation. His early desire to dominate Muggles through magic is a canon "fact." Which should we be more concerned with? Why aren't we exploring his Machiavellian tactics and the changing concept of "the greater good"? A lot of readers were disturbed by the revelations about DD in DH itself, but now, instead of discussing the book(s), we're hung up on a detail from an interview. And what about the level of violence in the books, which is right there on the page? How do the parents on this list feel about that? I don't know about anyone else, but Bathilda!Nagini really creeped me out. (Granted, I began reading at sometime after one in the morning and didn't stop reading, except for a one-hour break to rave and cry over Snape, till I finished the book some twenty-four hours later, so I'm not sure that my mental state was that of the average reader.) Carol, wondering how the DH film can possibly earn a PG 13 rating given the horrific nature of certain scenes and the number of violent deaths (and, yes, I think what's *in* the books is more important than what's in JKR's imagination but not on the page) From n2fgc at arrl.net Sat Nov 3 18:11:19 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 14:11:19 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Canon help please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0JQX00AHMZV73SN0@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> I can't give you the page number, but I guess it was within the last 25 pages. The text of the paragraph reads: "The rest of the final term passed in a haze of blazing sunshine. Hogwarts was back to normal with only a few, small differences--Defense Against the Dark Arts classes were canceled ("but we've had plenty of practice at that anyway," Ron told a disgruntled Hermione) and Lucius Malfoy had been sacked as a school governor. Draco was no longer strutting around the school as though he owned the place. On the contrary, he looked resentful and sulky. On the other hand, Ginny Weasley was perfectly happy again." Hope this helps you out. Cheers, Lee :-) | -----Original Message----- | From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com | [mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dumbledore11214 | Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 13:01 | To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com | Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Canon help please | | Hmmm, somebody can tell me if after CoS disaster Lucius Malfoy was | kicked out of the Board of Governors. Because I am working on | the long | post about Ministry and I want to know for sure. With page number, | please :) So far I do not see that he was and it suits me perfectly, | but obviously I want to double check. | | Thanks guys. | | Alla | | | | ________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________ | | The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them! | http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2 | | Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary | material from posts to which you're replying! | | Yahoo! Groups Links | | | | From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 3 18:46:19 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:46:19 -0000 Subject: Opening the doors (Was: Archived Wizards of the Month ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tonks wrote: > > I clicked the timeturner. How do I open the door? Carol responds: I think it depends on which date you click. The Acknowledgements door opens right away just by clicking on the handle, as do a few others. The Christmas door opens by clicking on the Christmas tree in the mirror. Another door opens to reveal darkness, and I guess you have to figure out how to turn on the lights. (I know I did it once upon a time, with help.) Also, I'm not sure whether you can redo the puzzles (though Annemehr says she could so maybe she's just better at puzzles than I am. :-p). I *couldn't* retake the Wombat, either because I've already taken it or because I couldn't figure out how to do it. I think your best bet is to go to Leaky and find the archived instructions on how to work the puzzles, assuming that they're still there. I don't know how anyone figures out these puzzles on their own, including the new one with the egg and the lacewing fly. Where do they find the time and patience and ingenuity? Maybe they're young people with a "lifetime" (read ten years) of figuring out clues in video games. Carol, who has completely forgotten how she got through those doors before but didn't spot any hidden keys and can't repour the red and green drops because the lily is already a lily From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Nov 3 18:55:07 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:55:07 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > > DD's infatuation with GG or love for him or whatever it was is sexual > innuendo because it's not on the page (or, actually, just innuendo > because love doesn't necessarily imply sex and GG's feelings may have > been different from Albus's) and kids, unlike politically oriented > adults, aren't going to pick up any hints of a sexual or romantic > attraction between two teenage boys, one of them underage. DD and GG > aren't shown or referred to as "snogging" or holding hands, which is > how what you're calling "sexuality" (a definition I questioned) is > depicted on the page for heterosexual couples (with implied sex in the > case of pregnancy and childbirth). Since DD and GG aren't shown or > referred to as doing anything to indicate either love or sexual > attraction, only an infatuation based on shared ideas and ambitions > and a failure on Albus's part to see (or perhaps acknowledge to > himself) Gellert's sinister side until it was too late, children (as > JKR herself said) will see only a friendship--especially since JKR > withheld even the slightest hint that DD was or had ever been a sexual > being, homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual, for fear that it would > spoil her plot. So, yes, the veiled hints of a sexual relationship, or > rather, a romantic attraction, between the boys or on Albus's side > alone (my sense is that Grindelwald cared for him enough not to kill > him in the duel and not to want Voldemort to violate his grave, but > that could as easily be friendship as love) will go over child > readers' heads just as the references to "Equus" do. And for that > matter, the references to pregnancy and childbirth will not > automatically conjure up images of sexual intercourse in children's > heads. And, IMO, that's all to the good. Magpie: That's the way it is now because it's not in the books. If it were in the books it wouldn't be innuendo. We don't see lots of couples snogging or holding hands and they're still presented as couples. The Grey Lady and the Baron, for instance. If it were just said outright that. Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald it wouldn't be innuendo. Or at least soemthing more specific in canon which isn't there now. We're talking about something that was quite possibly a completely chaste relationship, so I don't see how it can add more sex to the book. Carol: > > As for so-called YA literature depicting explicit sex, maybe the book > sellers should employ the same sort of labeling system that's used in > films, something along the lines of PG-13 and R, not only for sex but > for "language" (profanity, obscenity, and scatology) and violence. Magpie: If you want books to have ratings okay--I don't. But it's not "so- called" YA literature depicting explicit sex, it's actual YA books. What you still haven't explained is why making Dumbledore and Grindelwald any more explicit than not having it in the books at all as text is suddenly NC-17-rated. If lots of characters can be shown as interested in each other that way without explicit sex, so can they. You may find "young adult" an absurd euphamism, but I'm using it to refer to a division of publishing where it's pretty straightforward. Carol: What are > these writers doing depicting explicit sex in books for kids? They > have enough to worry about with puberty (acne, changes in their > bodies, hormones, unstable emotions, peer pressure to use drugs) and > homework without adding to their confusion. Most kids fourteen and > under, as you've already acknowledged, are not ready to deal with sex > on that level and will find it disturbing or disgusting. Or perhaps > they'll be secretly and perversely drawn to it as some teenagers, > unfortunately for them and their parents and society at large, are > drawn to porn sites. (In my day, it was Playboy magazines that they > looked at furtively and hid under the covers of their beds.) Magpie: They're showing teenagers dealing with having sex, usually, or being interested in it in a way not presented as secretive or perverse. Since sexual feelings mostly begin in adolescence, it's a topic in many books for that age group. But none of this has anything to do with DH, because you still haven't explained why DD's romantic feeilngs towards Grindelwald being put into canon is showing explicit sex. They may never have had sex AT ALL. Why is every single canon couple of any level okay but DD/GG explicit sex? Whatever I agree or disagree with your views on sex being the subject of books for teenagers, this is a totally different issue than DD's crush on Grindelwald being put into canon. You can have a G-rated gay couple as easily as you can have a G-rated straight couple. Carol: > To get back to DD/GG vs. Hermione and Ron. It isn't "exactly the same" > since kids have been reading about Hermione and Ron since the first > book, and if their mutual attraction (hinted at rather obviously in > the films) wasn't apparent before the Yule Ball, it was certainly > obvious afterwards (if not to Ron himself, at least to many readers, > including kids--I'm ignoring H/H Shippers, who were evidently engaged > in wishful thinking). But, in contrast to Ron and Hermione, we never > see GG and DD together on page, Magpie: So you just have somebody tell us Dumbledore was in love with him or whatever. There's any number of ways to do it if you're putting that information in canon. They don't all require...whatever it is you are imagining with the references to explicit sex. Carol: Even Harry sees that the laughing, > merry-faced, golden-haired boy is attractive, but he also notices that > Cedric Diggory and Sirius Black are handsome. There's no indication of > sexual attraction in that recognition. Harry, as we see from his > thoughts and behavior, is heterosexual. He doesn't see a homoerotic > attraction in the photograph or the relationship itself, even after > "King's Cross," even though some adult readers (or homosexual > teenagers?) Magpie: Or straight teenagers who happen to see it that way, or younger readers who do. That doesn't change the fact that somebody making it clear to Harry that Dumbledore was quite possibly in love with Grindelwald does not make anything more sexually explicit than it was before. Carol:> > *It's not on the page* except, perhaps, through innuendo that some > adult readers picked up before the interview and others now see > because JKR said it was there, or rather, that DD is gay in her > imagination. Magpie: No, it's not on the page as anything as something some readers might or might not imagine. But that doesn't mean it *couldn't* be on the page as more than that without the books becoming porn. Carol: And, really, that's > all they need to see to understand the plot, regardless of what exists > in JKR's imagination. Magpie: Yes, that is all they have to understand for the plot. It's written as a friendship. He doesn't need to be in love with him for the plot to work; it's written to work without that. But if she had written it as part of the plot it would be part of the plot and that would be part of his motivation. I don't need R/Hr or H/G to understand the plot either. JKR could have written the story without that and just given the characters different motivations. Of course the plot works perfectly fine without DD/GG being explicit in canon. That doesn't mean it *couldn't* have been canon just as any other romance. Carol: JKR has depicted the relationship in a way that > would be perfectly appropriate (physically) in a G-rated film. Magpie: And she could have kept it exactly the same rating if she'd introduced DD being in love with Grindelwald if the rating is refering to depictions of sexual intercourse. It does not require full-frontal nudity and graphic sex to say one character is in love with or crushing on another, especially since it's quite possible that even in the way she imagined the story the two never had any physical contact of that nature whatsoever. Carol: Ron's and Hermione's or > Ginny's and Harry's relationships are, perhaps, PG (as is Ron's and > Lavender's winding around each other. Or would that be PG-13?). (I > sense a double standard on Ron's part, though, and a marked difference > in his treatment of Lavender, whom he doesn't love or respect or > perhaps even like, and Hermione, whom he nevertheless treats rather > badly in other ways because of jealousy, though she treats him badly, > too, on occasion. Sorry. Sidetracked here.) Magpie: But DD/GG is somehow NC-17. Why is that? Carol: > > JKR, unlike those "YA" authors you're speaking of, Magpie: It's just YA, not "YA." It's a division of juvenile publishing. Gay characters are not unusual in it. (Of course they appear in books for younger readers as well.) Carol: apparently doesn't > believe that explicit sex belongs on the pages of kids' books, and I > agree with her in that respect. Explicit violence is, in DH > especially, another matter altogether. Magpie: At least she doesn't think it has a place in this series, which is fine. This says nothing about why Dumbledore's romantic feelings towards Grindelwald don't have a place in this series, because they are not any more sexually explicit than Harry's or Ginny's or Ron's or Hermione's. Carol: > > Let's think about kids' feelings and sensibilities and what is > appropriate for their age level rather than about politics here. Magpie: If you're suggesting that gay people are harmful to the feelings and sensibilities and what is appropriate for children, then you're already bringing in politics, I think. Because I don't see what's harmful to a child's sensibilities about one man being in love with another. I imagine Arthur Levine's child, for instance, would be puzzled as to why it should be hurtful. Carol: I'm > not happy with JKR at the moment (the suit against the Lexicon book is > the last straw, though I do think she should have been allowed to read > the manuscript and correct errors, such as Snape's birthdate), Magpie: I'm with JKR on that one. The book takes her work and repackages it and tries to profit off of it. It crossed a line she'd made clear. Carol: but I > think she handled "sexuality" well within the books, with young > readers seeing nothing beyond kissing and hand-holding and adults > spotting sexual innuendo where kids will overlook it. Magpie: And Dumbledore being in love with Grindelwald fits well within those parameters if she'd wanted to put it in. Carol: As for DD and > GG, it's not on the page at all, and perhaps if it were, many parents > would object, like it or not. And let's be realistic. Many kids, > conditioned to heterosexual attraction but not to homosexual > attraction by their own families (same-sex parents being a small > minority), movies, and TV, might find it disturbing as well. Magpie: So this part, at least, has nothing to do with graphic sex since they're finding the idea homosexual attraction disturbing, period, even when it's G-rated. Carol: And JKR, > knowing that many readers would find such a relationship distasteful, > kept it off the page. Magpie: Quite possibly she did--I can't know her reasons for sure. But that would mean she kept the gay relationship off the page because people find gay relationships or gay people or gay attraction distasteful, not because she was keeping explicit sex out of the books. There's no explicit sex one way or the other. Carol: For me, that was a wise decision, leaving the > interpretation up to the individual reader. But I can see why others > would regard it as intellectually dishonest, hiding a characters' > sexual orientation until the last book--or, really, until that > interview--to avoid losing readers who would object to a gay authority > figure. (I'm not saying that's what she did, only that I understand > that view of the matter.) Magpie: Yes, I can see why people consider that hypocritical in their view. Carol: > > Either way, as it stands, what's on the page and not what she says in > interviews is what matters, IMO, both for child readers merely > enjoying the books and for adult readers who want to analyze and > interpret them. DD's sexual orientation is a matter of interpretation. > His early desire to dominate Muggles through magic is a canon "fact." > Which should we be more concerned with? Why aren't we exploring his > Machiavellian tactics and the changing concept of "the greater good"? > A lot of readers were disturbed by the revelations about DD in DH > itself, but now, instead of discussing the book(s), we're hung up on a > detail from an interview. Magpie: I agree the only thing that's the fact on the page is that he wanted to dominate Muggles. I object to the question of "what should we be more concerned with" because while I think his wanting to dominate Muggles is far more shocking and important, we don't automatically have to choose. Either way his feelings towards Grindelwald are part of that. Canonically these feelings aren't given a specifically romantic character and that works just fine, but if they were given that character that would be part of the story too. -m From miamibarb at comcast.net Sat Nov 3 21:52:29 2007 From: miamibarb at comcast.net (Barbara) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 21:52:29 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > She has written a story with hidden Christian themes and symbols > imbedded in the story. I have been saying this since book 1. Some > others see it too. But many have been as upset about this as others > have about DD being gay. Personally I am not upset about with either the generic Christian themes and symbols or with DD being gay. I saw the Christian symbolism right away, and was a bit surprised by the number of people who didn't see it or didn't want to see it. Of course, I am a Christian, so I would get it. As far as DD being gay, I didn't see it when I was reading the books. It does makes sense though...unmarried, lover of chamber music, and good taste with clothes (by wizarding standards.) I think that DD's gayness helps of those things that may explain DD behavior, especially his dramatic flair. Much of what he did was a little over the top, especially his cozy drink with the Dursleys, his escape from Fudge and the aurors in his office, his death, and his earlier duel with Voldemort. It is not an attribute that one usually comes out of the closet with in a children's book though. Other authors of books often read by older children have characters that must be gay (Hercule Poirot and Sherlock Holmes.) Like DD,the gayness in the books is only implied and not stated. Isn't it almost a stereotype for an unmarried teacher in a public school to be gay or "sexually ambivalent? "(the later is a phrase used by Peter Wimsey when discussing the faculty of a woman's college. This is why I can't get to upset about DD. It seems real or meshes what is often true in our world. From n2fgc at arrl.net Sat Nov 3 20:07:23 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 16:07:23 -0400 Subject: Need Toy Help--Can't Remember Message-ID: <0JQY003MT58PREN0@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Okay Folks, Knowing that I have a huge font of knowledge here, I will appeal to all the toy lovers to give me a name for this thing. Please, Please do not respond with pictures, links to pictures, etc., since they are totally useless to the totally blind. The toy I'm trying to find the name of looks like a cylintrical can with holes on the top and a picture of an animal on it. When the can is turned over so the holes are facing down, a sort of bellows inside fills with air; when the can is turned right-side up, the air is pushed through some sort of diaphragm and the sound that comes out approximates the animal on the picture. They were popular in the early to middle 1960's, possibly before that. I got a collection of sound effects which I'm trying to label, and one of the sounds is this toy that sounds like a cow. How should I label it? Thanks, thanks, thanks! I used to love these thingies and haven't seen one in garsh knows how long. Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Nov 3 22:39:41 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 22:39:41 -0000 Subject: Need Toy Help--Can't Remember In-Reply-To: <0JQY003MT58PREN0@mta4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: Lee: > Okay Folks, > > Knowing that I have a huge font of knowledge here, I will appeal to all the > toy lovers to give me a name for this thing. Please, Please do not respond > with pictures, links to pictures, etc., since they are totally useless to > the totally blind. > > The toy I'm trying to find the name of looks like a cylintrical can with > holes on the top and a picture of an animal on it. When the can is turned > over so the holes are facing down, a sort of bellows inside fills with air; > when the can is turned right-side up, the air is pushed through some sort of > diaphragm and the sound that comes out approximates the animal on the > picture. They were popular in the early to middle 1960's, possibly before > that. > > I got a collection of sound effects which I'm trying to label, and one of > the sounds is this toy that sounds like a cow. How should I label it? > > Thanks, thanks, thanks! I used to love these thingies and haven't seen one > in garsh knows how long. Magpie: I've heard it called a Moo-Cow Toy and a Cow in a Box. -m From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Nov 3 23:24:17 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:24:17 -0000 Subject: Canon help please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Annemehr" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > wrote: > > > > > Magpie: > > > I distinctly remember he was kicked off the Board. There's a line > > about > > > Draco walking around a little less like he owned the school. It > > > shouldn't be too hard to find if you just look towards the very > end. Alla: > > LOL. That is why I asked for help. I could not find it and as I > said > > do not want to build something on erroneous information. I will > look > > again or maybe wait for others' help. > > > > Thanks anyway. > Annemehr: > > Well, if you have the U.S. paperback, it's on page 340. If you > don't, it's in the last chapter, about a page and a half from the end: > > "The rest of the final term passed in a haze of blazing sunshine. > Hogwarts was back to normal with a only a few, small differences -- > Defense Against the Dark Arts classes were canceled ("but we've had > plenty of practice at that anyway," Ron told a disgruntled Hermione) > and Lucius Malfoy had been sacked as a school governor. Draco was no > longer strutting around the school as though he owned the place." Geoff: And the book /is/ actually COS. For we UK readers with better eyesight and less pages, it's "Dobby's reward" p.250 UK edition. Interestingly, in the UK edition, it's "The rest of the summer term...", a colon after "differences" and, of course Defence spelt properly. :-) From n2fgc at arrl.net Sun Nov 4 01:06:32 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 21:06:32 -0400 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Need Toy Help--Can't Remember In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0JQY001PCJ3EUA30@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> | Magpie: | I've heard it called a Moo-Cow Toy and a Cow in a Box. [Lee]: Ah--tankya! That will be easier than what I have written now. I remember when the bottom fell off of one of my boxes and I got to see how the thing worked...So simple, yet so cool. Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From Schlobin at aol.com Sun Nov 4 02:51:09 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 02:51:09 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Carol: > > > > > > Obviously, we can't hide the existence of sexual attraction from > kids. They know about it already. But most kids fourteen and under (I > wish I could say sixteen and under) aren't ready for sexual > relationships of their own and really don't want to read about it, in > my experience. They may wonder when Ron is going to figure out that he > loves Hermione and when they're going to kiss, but they're mostly > worried about other things--like whether Harry's going to survive (or, > in the earlier books, what kind of detention Harry is going to get > from Snape) and most of all, in what happens next. Sexual innuendoes > (including the sly reference to "Equus" in "King's Cross" and the > possibility of a romantic relationship between DD and GG) go right > over their heads. Or, at least, that's my experience with regard to > young readers (fourteen and under). > > > Magpie: > > Wait. I'm following you about how kids don't want to read about > sexual relationships, but can wonder when Ron is going to figure out > that he loves Hermione, or when they're going to kiss. But then > Dumbledore being in love with Grindelwald--which is *exactly* the > same as Ron being in love with Hermione or, perhaps more accurately > since it was in the past, exactly the same as Merope in love with Tom > or the Bloody Baron in love with the Grey Lady--must be sexual > innuendo that goes over their heads (as people missed a lot signs for > H/G and R/Hr anyway) or an explicit sexual relationship they're not > interested in reading about? > > > > There still seems to be a premise here that Dumbledore/Grindelwald > is about the mechanics of sex or dirtier or more graphic instead of > just being the same but with two men. If sexuality=having sex on page, > then Dumbledore and Grindelwald still aren't more about sexuality than > any other people in canon. > > > Carol responds: > > DD's infatuation with GG or love for him or whatever it was is sexual > innuendo because it's not on the page (or, actually, just innuendo > because love doesn't necessarily imply sex and GG's feelings may have > been different from Albus's) and kids, unlike politically oriented > adults, aren't going to pick up any hints of a sexual or romantic > attraction between two teenage boys, one of them underage. >>> Unless of course, the kid in question is 15 and gay. Not all youth are heterosexual. Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Sun Nov 4 02:57:39 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 02:57:39 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > It's also a prejudice that can be rooted out and > > mitigated. Everyone has been brainwashed in the > > U.S. that lesbians and gay men are immoral and > > evil..it's in our literature, our language, our > > culture, our schools...but you can unlearn > > bigotry... > > You mean, brainwash the opposite way? Yeah, that's > soooooo much more moral *roll eyes* > No, Del... What I mean is that I, myself, from reading, experience, and life figure out that what I was taught as a child -- that people with dark skin are inferior in some ways -- is untrue. I start to examine those assumptions, I think about them, I think critically, and I begin to change my mind. So, answer this question..is it okay that lesbians/gays lose jobs, get beat up, get thrown up because of their orientation? Is it or isn't it? That's the bottom line here.. Susan From phil at pcsgames.net Sun Nov 4 03:00:49 2007 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 22:00:49 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Need Toy Help--Can't Remember References: <0JQY001PCJ3EUA30@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Message-ID: <036e01c81e8e$ecddd750$6600a8c0@phil> Hi Lee, ANIMAL NOISE MAKER The classic Cow-in-a-can / Sheep-in-a-can. Tin, about 2 1/8"tall. Here's a chance to be The Grand MooBaa at your family gatherings. Ages 18 months and up. ANM $3.00 from Elderly Instruments http://www.elderly.com/accessories/items/ANM.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: Lee Storm To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 8:06 PM Subject: RE: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Need Toy Help--Can't Remember | Magpie: | I've heard it called a Moo-Cow Toy and a Cow in a Box. [Lee]: Ah--tankya! That will be easier than what I have written now. I remember when the bottom fell off of one of my boxes and I got to see how the thing worked...So simple, yet so cool. Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 04:01:26 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 04:01:26 -0000 Subject: Opening the doors (Was: Archived Wizards of the Month ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Tonks wrote: > > > > I clicked the timeturner. How do I open the door? > > Carol responds: > > I think it depends on which date you click. The Acknowledgements door > opens right away just by clicking on the handle, as do a few others. > The Christmas door opens by clicking on the Christmas tree in the > mirror. Tonk: Thanks I will try that. I missed the 3rd WOMBAT. I only did 2. Didn't know there was a 3rd. She said there was. I will see. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 04:24:24 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 04:24:24 -0000 Subject: Opening the doors (Was: Archived Wizards of the Month ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I went to her office door. turned the time turner back to 12-21-06. The christmas tree is lit, the garland is lit, the weath is on the door and some other weird thing with the spider web, but still the door will not open, even though the sign is off. HELP. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 06:16:19 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 06:16:19 -0000 Subject: Why Rowling should not have outed DD Message-ID: The problem with having a character, any character, but especially DD, gay is multifaceted. (Now I am going to play the devils advocate here so don???t start calling me names. I personally do not think that being gay is a sin, or a personal choice. On the other hand, I don???t think that it is just one more of many ???normal??? ways to live. But if someone is gay and wants to marry in the Church, I am OK with that. I don???t believe in promiscuous sexual activity for either straights or gays.) Here are the reasons why even if Rowling thought of DD as gay, and did not put that fact in the books, that she should have taken that thought to her grave and never told the readers. 1. It is not considered, even in this permissive day and age, as a ???norm??? of our (U.S) society. (The average American is much more conservative than the majority of the people on this list, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is their right to believe what that want to believe.) And in many societies around the world homosexuality is still a very taboo subject. I understand that Rowlings said the books were about tolerance, but they are far more than that. As I have said before, it serves no constructive purpose to introduce such as heated topic into such a popular book that appears to have the purpose to entertain, not educate. It does educate, but in a covert manner. Rowling???s use of a school motto in the ???never tickle a sleeping dragon???, indicates that she is well aware of the covert messages that she has slipped into the books. Problem is she has not listened to her own advice. Now she had ticked the dragon and wonders why it is shooting fire at her. And yes, I am saying that she should not have stirred the waters. It is not going to change the mind of the people who are opposed to homosexuality. That is not the way to go about changing attitudes. And it will blind people who are opposed to homosexuality to receiving any of the other, even more important, teaching in the books which were teaching given by DD. This I think is very tragic. 2. Most people read the books primary to be entertained. Rowling telling the world that there is a gay person in the books, after the fact, changes the story and the nature of the books. This fact alone makes people angry. And then telling them on top of this that the books are about tolerance and this is one more aspect of it, is just over the top for many people who do not share her world view. 3. I always looked at the WW in the book as being about like the 1950. It was a conservative time before a 50% divorce rate, when families were a mother, father and kids unless something tragic happened to a parent as in Neville???s case. I understand that most of the folks on this list are under 30 and don???t remember a time when things were very different than they are today. The WW had it problems, some of which mirrored our own, but still in many ways it was a place to go to escape from the RW. People do not want the place that they go to for escape to suddenly have the same problems and issues that the RW does. And I think that is another reason why some people are upset with the idea of a gay character in the books. In summary: The outing of DD serves no useful purpose. It will not change the minds of those who have opposing views. It will ruin the books for those people and their children and grandchildren who will now probably never be allowed to read it. These people will no longer listen to the wonderful teachings of the world???s greatest wizard because they will be blinded by their shock, anger, hurt and disgust for what DD now represents to them. If Rowlings only mission was to promote tolerance for gays that would be one thing, but she is doing much more and now she has destroyed what I think is her primary mission. The gay issue is a minor one in comparison to the other teachings in the books. And these teachings were give by DD. She has now discredited him to a large segment of the world. This is a serious problem and goes far beyond the gay issue. She should have left that issue for others. It was not the primary mission of her books, and if it was it should have been IN the books. The fact that it wasn???t in the books is proof enough that she had a different purpose in mind when she wrote them. All in all, the outing of DD was a senseless, tragic thing to do. These books are not just for the minority of us who are liberals, it is for the masses and they my friends are mostly conservative. And just when the Religious right could have opened their minds to the books because of the Christian themes, she gave them more reason to ban them. Way to go Rowling!! Tonks_op From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 07:13:33 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 07:13:33 -0000 Subject: Why Rowling should not have outed DD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "Tonks" wrote: > > ...Big Snip... > > In summary: The outing of DD serves no useful purpose. ... > > Tonks_op > bboyminn: While you certainly make a well reasoned argument, you are forgetting one thing that people are probably tired of hearing me say again and again. JKR's statement DOES serve a useful purpose. It is a direct response to a question by a fan. JKR kept this secret for a long time, and probably would have kept it for a lot lot longer, if she hadn't been ask a direct question about Dumbledore's love life. Some one asked, and she answered. That's how this works, fans ask question, JKR gives answers. The fact that some people don't like the answer is irrelevant. People are trying to make this out to be JKR spontaneously making statements about her character; running through the streets shouting things out. And if she were just volunteering this information, in which case, this might be a different situation. But the fact that a fan specifically asked JKR about Dumbledore's love life is highly relevant to the discussion. Further while not necessary to tell the story. That is, not necessarily needing to be included in the book. It is relevant to the backstory and subtext; certainly not necessary, but still relevant. A fan wanted to know, and now he/she knows. I don't see what people are complaining about. If you don't want to know, then I suggest you refrain from reading news articles, and after-the-fact interviews. If I haven't already beaten this point to death, let me say that fans want to know more than is included in the books. They want to know more about the Weasleys, more about the Malfoys, about Sirius, about Theodor Knot, Blaise Zabini, the wizard's government, and about the workings of the wizard world in general. But, you can't both want to know and /not/ want to know. If people are going to ask questions about the extension of the wizard world, then they have to be ready for the answers they get, whether those answers conform to their prior beliefs or not. That is just the way life is. Steve/bboyminn From kempermentor at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 11:04:32 2007 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kemper mentor) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 03:04:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Why Rowling should not have outed DD Message-ID: <572518.91601.qm@web90412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Tonks: Here are the reasons why even if Rowling thought of DD as gay, and did not put that fact in the books, that she should have taken that thought to her grave and never told the readers. 1. It is not considered, even in this permissive day and age, as a ?norm? of our (U.S) society. ... And in many societies around the world homosexuality is still a very taboo subject. 2. Most people read the books primary to be entertained. Rowling telling the world that there is a gay person in the books, after the fact, changes the story and the nature of the books. 3. I always looked at the WW in the book as being about like the 1950. It was a conservative time before a 50% divorce rate, when families were a mother, father and kids unless something tragic happened to a parent as in Neville?s case. ... The WW had it problems, some of which mirrored our own, but still in many ways it was a place to go to escape from the RW. People do not want the place that they go to for escape to suddenly have the same problems and issues that the RW does. Kemper now: What are the additional spiritual enlightenments that you see HP gives to what you believe to be a conservative US population as well as to the societies of the world where homosexuality is taboo? Can these spiritual lessons be learned within tenets of their religion? I speculate that the divorce rate of the 1950's were lower than today, may be due in a large part to the oppression of women of the time. A time when father may have abused mother while the kids watched/heard what was going on, but due to lack of support or resources mother stayed with father. How come the RW issues of child neglect/abuse, death/grief, political corruption, etc. is an ok entertainment in a book meant to escape? Kemper __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 13:02:07 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:02:07 -0000 Subject: Opening the doors (Was: Archived Wizards of the Month ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > I went to her office door. turned the time turner back to 12-21-06. The > christmas tree is lit, the garland is lit, the weath is on the door and > some other weird thing with the spider web, but still the door will not > open, even though the sign is off. HELP. > > Tonks_op > That's the one where you have to wait for the fly to land on the window. Click and hold on it, and it becomes a key which you can drag over to the keyhole to unlock the door. Then you have to assemble the Deathly Hallows symbol in a certain order on top of the Wombat test (it worked for me if I did it just below the picture of the wombat). When you get it right, it will sparkle. Click on it, and the test will rise up off the desk for you to take it. Our own Belinda Hobbs maintains a web page housed at the Lexicon about all the past and present content of JKR.com: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/sources/jkr.com/jkr-com.html If you scroll down to "Past door opening of the Secret Dooor", you can click on a link which will give a description of each past door- opening and how each puzzle worked: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/sources/jkr.com/jkr-com-door.html By the way, Belinda's page also has a link called Tips and Tricks for Collecting the Extras. Potterskeys.com probably also has this stuff (the Lexicon was loading quite slowly for me this morning). Good luck! Annemehr From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 13:13:25 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:13:25 -0000 Subject: Opening the doors (Was: Archived Wizards of the Month ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Okay, well, now I'm all confused. (Shut up, you in the back!) Yesterday, when I got into the RoR, I clicked on the hourglass FIRST (because clicking on the handles first did nothing), and it timeturned, and then I used the handles to go back to 21-12-06, caught the fly/key, and got into the WOMBAT. Today, when I go into the RoR, clicking on the hourglass first does nothing. So I click on the handles and get to 21-12-06, then click on the hourglass to timeturn. Okay, fine, but then when the fly shows up, I can't catch it! So I can't open the door at all. By the way, on *neither* day did I get Christmas decoration inside - only snow outside the window. I dunno. Maybe they are still working out glitches or something... Annemehr From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Nov 4 15:05:08 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:05:08 -0000 Subject: Why Rowling should not have outed DD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tonks: > The problem with having a character, any character, but especially > DD, gay is multifaceted. (Now I am going to play the devils advocate > here so don???t start calling me names. I personally do not think that > being gay is a sin, or a personal choice. On the other hand, I don???t > think that it is just one more of many ???normal??? ways to live. Magpie: Don't get what that means, but I won't call you names. Great that it's not a sin, but it's an abnormal way to live? Tonks: > Here are the reasons why even if Rowling thought of DD as gay, and > did not put that fact in the books, that she should have taken that > thought to her grave and never told the readers. > > 1. It is not considered, even in this permissive day and age, as > a ???norm??? of our (U.S) society. (The average American is much more > conservative than the majority of the people on this list, and there > is nothing wrong with that. It is their right to believe what that > want to believe.) Magpie: Don't get why this is a reason. It's their right to believe what they believe, I don't see how that's any reason that any author has to cater to that belief one way or the other. If Rowling happens to be one of the people who doesn't fall into line with conservative Americans, why would she take their considerations into account when writing her books? She hasn't so far. She's not American and has shown no inclination to want to be. Tonks: And in many societies around the world > homosexuality is still a very taboo subject. I understand that > Rowlings said the books were about tolerance, but they are far more > than that. As I have said before, it serves no constructive purpose > to introduce such as heated topic into such a popular book that > appears to have the purpose to entertain, not educate. Magpie: Who says she would have said it to educate people? Maybe she thinks Dumbledore being gay is no more or less entertaining than whatever he was before. If she doesn't think it's a taboo or heated subject she's naturally not going to relate to it as such. Somebody asked and she answered. There's nothing educational in Rowling's answer at all. If someone says that just saying someone is gay is trying to educate them, that's their projection. Tonks: Now she had > ticked the dragon and wonders why it is shooting fire at her. And > yes, I am saying that she should not have stirred the waters. It is > not going to change the mind of the people who are opposed to > homosexuality. That is not the way to go about changing attitudes. > And it will blind people who are opposed to homosexuality to > receiving any of the other, even more important, teaching in the > books which were teaching given by DD. This I think is very tragic. Magpie: I can't get too worried about her tickling that dragon outside the books, myself. And then also, I don't think the books are full of such good messages that anybody misses out on any sort of great moral instruction not found elsewhere by not reading them. They might miss out on a book they might have enjoyed. Their loss, but no big tragedy. How much catering has to be done to people with this sensitivity? Tonks: > > 2. Most people read the books primary to be entertained. Rowling > telling the world that there is a gay person in the books, after the > fact, changes the story and the nature of the books. This fact alone > makes people angry. Magpie: It might make them angry, but it does not change the nature of the books from something just for entertainment one way or the other. Tonks: And then telling them on top of this that the > books are about tolerance and this is one more aspect of it, is > just over the top for many people who do not share her world view. Magpie: But I thought her worldview was so wonderful that people needed to hear the great messages she put into the books? JKR has been spouting off about her worldview for years and has said things that have annoyed plenty of people by it. I don't like listening to her lecture to me in her interviews either. But if I can survive it so can other people. Tonks:> > 3. I always looked at the WW in the book as being about like the > 1950. It was a conservative time before a 50% divorce rate, when > families were a mother, father and kids unless something tragic > happened to a parent as in Neville???s case. I understand that most of > the folks on this list are under 30 and don???t remember a time when > things were very different than they are today. Magpie: Gay people were alive and well in 1950. Though there's no indication that JKR was ever intending to write 1950 in her books in every way. If she were the interracial dating probably would be there. Of course, if the gay man is only in the subtext and his one almost- affair is a disaster that quite possibly put him off relationships for life then welcome to 1950! Tonks: The WW had it > problems, some of which mirrored our own, but still in many ways it > was a place to go to escape from the RW. People do not want the > place that they go to for escape to suddenly have the same problems > and issues that the RW does. And I think that is another reason why > some people are upset with the idea of a gay character in the books. Magpie: Only if gay characters are "a problem" of the modern world, which JKR may not agree with. I thought JKR was supposed to be being so gritty and realistic dealing with all those big problems like death and bigotry. So Nazis are a "problem" it's okay to show in the books but you can't even talk about gay people outside the books because people need to escape from that kind of horror? tonks: > > In summary: The outing of DD serves no useful purpose. It will not > change the minds of those who have opposing views. Magpie: Who says it has to serve a useful purpose? Neville/Hannah serves no useful purpose and you're not writing about why that was a bad thing to say. It could change the mind of someone with an opposing view for all we know, while not saying it at all will definitely not change the views. It might also be helpful to gay readers, both young people and adults. That group of readers is just as valid as the minority who hate gay characters. Tonks: It will ruin the > books for those people and their children and grandchildren who will > now probably never be allowed to read it. Magpie: If they're not allowed to read it, it's not ruined for it. They'll just have to read something else. They might not have liked the books anyway. And let's not go overboard here. She said this in one Q&A. It's not even in the books. I don't think 20 years from now it's still going to be such front page news that everyone's going to be able to choose the books or not based on that fact. I doubt everybody today watches Spartacus with the knowledge about canon Marcellus/Ben Hur, for instance. Tonks: These people will no > longer listen to the wonderful teachings of the world???s greatest > wizard because they will be blinded by their shock, anger, hurt and > disgust for what DD now represents to them. Magpie: I don't think Dumbledore was too much of a role model, myself, that he can't be done without, so I wouldn't worry about a kid not getting to listen to his teachings. But anyway, they were already perverted teachings. The man apparently would have condoned the breeding of a werewolf with someone because it added a little more love in the world. He's already teaching what they want to hear. JKR's following his teachings by saying positive things she thinks about groups of people some consider "unclean" herself. Dumbledore doesn't spend much time in canon worrying about not openly disagreeing with stuff like this. What else is he supposed to stand for, in your view? Christianity? I think they'll get exposed to that elsewhere. Tonks: The fact that it wasn???t in the books is proof enough that she > had a different purpose in mind when she wrote them. All in all, > the outing of DD was a senseless, tragic thing to do. These books > are not just for the minority of us who are liberals, it is for the > masses and they my friends are mostly conservative. And just when > the Religious right could have opened their minds to the books > because of the Christian themes, she gave them more reason to ban > them. Way to go Rowling!! Magpie: You know, I wasn't very happy about JKR doing this much at all, since I don't like extra-canonical revelations in general, and I didn't see why presenting a gay character the way one would have been presented in your beloved 1950s was some sort of breakthrough. But your explanations for it really push me over to championing what she did. If there are people who honestly believe that gay people should be hidden to keep from offending the sensibilities of others, then maybe it is good that they get even this tiny challenge to their straight privilege. The message that gay people are pretty much just like everyone else is a better message to me than anything Dumbledore supposedly says in canon that's supposed to be changing the world. (Though as I've said, I'm not sure what those messages are supposed to be--I don't see the books as being full of such better messages, period.) Perhaps this marks me as a "liberal" on your scale, but it's very bizarre to be expected to treat people who you know from your ordinary life to be perfectly acceptable as if they're something bad because other people think that. I wouldn't always go around picking fights with people over it everywhere, but there's line you can cross where you go from just not being overly aggressive to giving the message to gay people that you actually think those other people have a point about them and that they once again ought to sacrifice themselves and be not seen and not heard for the greater good. There's plenty of authors where you read their books and then later find out they have views you find vile. It's up to the reader to decide whether or not they can still enjoy the person's stories. If JKR had said that she thought gay people were bad I'd disagree with her position but still only see it reflected in the books in so much as there are no gay people shown in the WW. The books would not suddenly become a treatise against homosexuality to me. If she'd said Dumbledore actually rejected Grindelwald because Grindelwald was gay and that showed Dumbledore he was evil I'd think that was whacked and probably just be grateful it wasn't canon. I wouldn't expect JKR to be catering to the pro-gay-rights section of her readership if she hated gay people. -m From ida3 at planet.nl Sun Nov 4 13:56:54 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:56:54 -0000 Subject: Why Rowling should not have outed DD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tonks: > The gay issue is a minor one in comparison to > the other teachings in the books. And these teachings were give by > DD. She has now discredited him to a large segment of the world. > This is a serious problem and goes far beyond the gay issue. She > should have left that issue for others. It was not the primary > mission of her books, and if it was it should have been IN the > books. The fact that it wasn???t in the books is proof enough that > she had a different purpose in mind when she wrote them. All in all, > the outing of DD was a senseless, tragic thing to do. These books > are not just for the minority of us who are liberals, it is for the > masses and they my friends are mostly conservative. And just when > the Religious right could have opened their minds to the books > because of the Christian themes, she gave them more reason to ban > them. Way to go Rowling!! Dana: Interesting because the same could be said about JKR acknowledging the books were about her faith in God, a Christian faith if I might add. In a lot of countries Christianity is not the predominant religion and to many non-Christian readers this acknowledgment might have ruined the books for them. Also if her mission was tolerance it got right past you because you are displaying an enormous amount of intolerance here. Gay people should not be included in the Harry Potter world because some people might not tolerate the idea of a main character being gay? So what the mainstream of people might or might not think is more important to you so it seems. Isn't that what you are doing, precisely what the book is supposed to be preaching against? Tolerance is not about the exclusion of anyone not fitting within the mainstream ideal but actually about embracing all, with the notion that the mainstream ideal is actually flawed if it has a basis of exclusion to up hold the idealism of how this world should be and how people should act within the perimeters of these idealistic viewpoints. Slytherin house excluded all whose blood wasn't pure enough to be included into their idealistic club of blood supremacy. They start off as being at the top of the social order of things and they end up at the bottom for fighting a cause that is essentially against humanity (WW). Those that thought they could find inclusion into this club by adopting this ideology found themselves paying the hard price for their own ignorance. You are doing the same thing here, you think that exclusion of homosexuality will make it able for the people of the world to unite due to reading the same books but if exclusion is what it takes to unite people, the unity in itself is just an illusion because what unites them has no reflection on RL at all. Gay people read these books too, you know, and you exclude them by default because others might not condone of their way of life. So your unity is actually not a unity at all because it still is based on the exclusion of a group of people who ARE part of our society because others might not except their existence and therefore exclude themselves from having any part in this endeavor of creating equality for all. If you think that the ideals of those not accepting homosexuality are more important then the ideals of those that do accept this as part of life, then you are missing the point about what tolerance is supposed to be about and thus missing the theme JKR was supposed to be writing about. You do not change the world by pretending all have the same values while in reality they actually are not. You accept homosexuality even though you are not gay yourself, for some people that will be enough to exclude you from their mailing list. Are you going to change your values because those people are not willing to accept you because you associate yourself with gay people? Or people of color or specific religious backgrounds or social status or disagreeable life-styles? If you would, then you are actually denying yourself the right to be whomever you want to be and to think whatever you want to think. Acceptance based on a false premise is not acceptance and if you have to change your own outline to be accepted for who you are then you are untrue to yourself. That is what many people have been fighting against their entire life, to have the right to be and not be dictate who they are supposed to be in accordance to the views of others. I have read some of your posts, in which you state you yourself have gay friends, so I am totally lost at the idea that it is more important to you what the rest of the world thinks over the idea to embrace your own friends being acknowledged as part of HP society (regardless how slim this actual acknowledgement might be). If I were gay and you were my friend then this would be reason enough for me to discontinue my friendship with you, because I would no longer be able to trust that you would stick up for me when push comes to shove. If it only takes a book for you to be prepared to deny my existence so the rest of the world can feel comfortable enough within their own illusionary world of self-importance then what would happen if the world was taken over by people similar to Hitler, who actively tried to exterminate people not accepted within his own limited world view of a perfect race? Would you be willing to fight against such views if they are at that time the predominant sentiments of the people living around you? Or would you suggest to your friend to hide his or hers identity (or an essential part of it) so they can blend into society unseen? But what if those sentiments include something that you can't hide because it is part of your physical description? I am not trying to imply that you would not actually be loyal to your friends and fight for them till the bitter end, but it does seem to me that the concept of unity is slightly clouding your judgment of what acceptance is actually about. Omission of that what might upset a person's viewpoint is not acceptance. Prejudice can't be eradicated by removing those elements that cause the prejudice in the first place, that is what humanity has been trying to do for centuries and still don't see that they are fighting a lost cause that will not enrich but actually deprive us from the power we could have as a civilization. If people can no longer accept the Harry Potter books now that JKR has revealed DD's sexual orientation then it is their loss and people who are willing to accept humanity in all its facets are better off without their input to begin with. Changing your view to fit their needs will just empower their prejudice, not diminish it. I think you put far to much weight on the power of brotherhood created among people of the world in relation to the Potter books. There are many people very tolerant of homosexuality who have come to the conclusion that the books have a very negative undercurrent and can't find themselves connected to the books now that the last installment has been released. The books might have triggered millions of people to read them but that surely doesn't mean that the books internal integrity is strong enough to facilitate a unison between the people of the world as you seem to envision. If the unison of readers of the world can be broken by the mere suggestion of something that doesn't fit their life ideology then there was no real unison to begin with, it was just an illusion that people could, based on the premise that in a perfect world things they object to actually don't exist and thus something they don't have to worry about at all. I understand the concept of your post because I too would like to see humanity function as one civilization, instead of one group trying to eradicate another for either being different or having different viewpoints. If we could see that all bleed the same no matter what we might look like, think like or behave like (and all those things that makes us individuals to begin with) then we could accomplish great things together and we have great examples in our history where the unison of people have accomplished tremendously great things. Where we seem to have had the power of magical accomplishments, at times we actually stuck our heads together but this will never be so if we keep embracing prejudice to create the illusion of unity. For example wasn't it great to learn that the people who helped build the pyramids were actually not slaves but laborers devoting their lives to help build humanity's greatest accomplishment of all times, which still mesmerizes the people of our time? My heart bleeds for all those soldiers in WWII, who were willing to give their lives to give us the chance to life in a free world. They didn't care what the personal background was of the person next to them because all dependent upon each other to accomplish the same goal. Most of these war veterans will tell you that the will to go on fighting was no longer just dependent on following orders from higher commands but it was all about fighting for the brother next to them. Giving up would mean giving up on those dependent on you for their survival and many of them still suffer from survivor's guilt and see those that perished as the real hero's of the war. Anyway don't embrace prejudice as a means to create the illusion of unity because it is based on a false premise that people can only unite by means of omission of the things they find unacceptable. People can only unite if they learn to accept that humans are humans regardless of anything else and value the lives and idea of others in the same way they like their own lives and ideas to be accepted. If you value the life of another in equal terms you value your own then you would never do unto others what you do not want others to do upon you. JMHO Dana From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 16:39:48 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 16:39:48 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > Alla: > > > > > > Leaky gives pretty impassioned summaries of what is going on > now, so > > > if you are interested in the history from both sides, it is all > > > there. > > > > > > I wish it would not come to that, but if the book will be indeed > > > direct copy of Lexicon, JKR 100% right. > > > > Magpie: > > Yeah, I'm not a lawyer but from what I read JKR's completely right > > here. The publishers sound insane. > Alla: > I find publisher's position to be mindboggling, frankly from what I > read. zgirnius: An online friend of mine found a blog with an entry on the suit. The blogger, William F. Patry, is an expert in copyright law and the fair use exception, and has written treatises on the subject. He went over to the Lexicon and checked out the first entry online. (Happens to be in the Dictionary of Magic, the entry for the Accio spell). He considers that entry a good example of "fair use", which suggests that even Rowling's legal advisor's assertion that a print copy of the online Lexicon is a violation, is not open-and-shut. Link to full article below: http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/11/harry-potter-lexicon- suit.html From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sun Nov 4 16:40:28 2007 From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com) Date: 4 Nov 2007 16:40:28 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 11/4/2007, 11:00 am Message-ID: <1194194428.11.33075.m42@yahoogroups.com> Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal Weekly Chat Sunday November 4, 2007 11:00 am - 12:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stacygalore at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 17:01:10 2007 From: stacygalore at yahoo.com (stacygalore) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:01:10 -0000 Subject: Saturday Night Live skit Message-ID: Anybody see the Dumbledore skit on Saturday Night Live last night? I laughed so hard I cried! - Stacy From catlady at wicca.net Sun Nov 4 17:47:03 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:47:03 -0000 Subject: Lexicon book (was: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In my not-so-humble opinion, lately a lot of replies don't snip away enough of the message that they're replying to something in. Magpie wrote in : << I'm with JKR on [(the suit against the Lexicon book]. The book takes her work and repackages it and tries to profit off of it. It crossed a line she'd made clear. >> I recall hearing of a case several years ago in which someone took a local telephone book and republished it with a new title and fancy cover to sell for profit. And the phone company which had issued that book sued to stop him. And the court (IIRC it reached the Supreme Court) ruled that the phone book is not protected by copyright or intellectual property because, as a mere list of facts, it was not 'creative'. And I felt morally outraged at that decision, because 'merely' gathering a lot of facts and listing them in an organized way (alphabertical order) is A Lot of Work, and I think it's immoral for someone to steal someone else's hard work. Sometimes people get Ph.Ds for the hard (and valuable) work of reading the literature to find all the words that one scholar or another has suceeded in translating from a lost language and listing all these words in one document. Translating the word is hard work that is given credit by a citation. Assembling all the words is hard work that is given credit in future citations. Okay, nowdays it's not so much work for a phone company to dump data from computer files onto paper, but it was work inputting all that into the computer, and I still think it's immoral for that guy to republish it without putting on the cover that it is a reprint of thus-and-such phone book. And the relevance of this to a Lexicon book (I haven't read any of the articles on Leaky) is that even if the law says such a book belongs to JKR not to the Lexicon website owner(s), we fans should not ignore that assembling in an organized way all the information created by JKR is a lot of work that was not done by JKR. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Nov 4 17:54:53 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:54:53 -0000 Subject: Lexicon book (was: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Catlady: > I recall hearing of a case several years ago in which someone took a > local telephone book and republished it with a new title and fancy > cover to sell for profit. And the phone company which had issued that > book sued to stop him. And the court (IIRC it reached the Supreme > Court) ruled that the phone book is not protected by copyright or > intellectual property because, as a mere list of facts, it was not > 'creative'. And I felt morally outraged at that decision, because > 'merely' gathering a lot of facts and listing them in an organized way > (alphabertical order) is A Lot of Work, and I think it's immoral for > someone to steal someone else's hard work. > > Sometimes people get Ph.Ds for the hard (and valuable) work of reading > the literature to find all the words that one scholar or another has > suceeded in translating from a lost language and listing all these > words in one document. Translating the word is hard work that is given > credit by a citation. Assembling all the words is hard work that is > given credit in future citations. Magpie: Yes, I know about that case. But I think JKR's lawyers know of it too. Steve's publishers have refused to give the book to her lawyers to see it, and if there's creativity involved in some of this stuff it's possibly about the arrangement etc. of the information. JKR has allowed books like this, but they stayed within the parameters they were okay with. They're going by it being a publication of the lexicon, and they don't think that has enough creativity involved-if it were a book of essays that would be okay, but this seems to not be that. I understand that if there are essays included, they may not all be included with permission of those authors. Catlady: > And the relevance of this to a Lexicon book (I haven't read any of the > articles on Leaky) is that even if the law says such a book belongs to > JKR not to the Lexicon website owner(s), we fans should not ignore > that assembling in an organized way all the information created by JKR > is a lot of work that was not done by JKR. Magpie: I don't think anyone, much less JKR, is claiming that it wasn't work to put the information together. But the hard work involved doesn't make it a violation or not. If it's just re-organizing her material she may have a very good case for saying it actually is crossing the line into things she and WB owns. She didn't have a problem with it when putting it on the web, but selling it for profit gets into a different area. Fanfic authors put a lot of work into their stories too, but they can't publish them for profit. -m From random832 at fastmail.us Sun Nov 4 19:40:37 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:40:37 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <472E2035.6070401@fastmail.us> susanmcgee48176 wrote: > Well, here's the deal...it's prejudice when people are thrown out of > their families, disowned, fired from jobs, called names, harassed, > beaten, lose their housing, or are murdered because of their sexual > orientation. And which of the above have been done by the people complaining about the books? There is no moral equivalence between doing any of those things, and anything that has been said here. > My personal sound moral judgment is that it's wrong to be a bigot, and > it's illustrative of people's prejudice and bigotry that their image of > DD has "diminished". It's illustrative of their tendency and history of throwing people out of their families, firing people, harassing, beating, turning people out on the street, and murdering people? That is, after all, how you've defined prejudice and bigotry in the preceding paragraph. Careful what you're accusing fellow list members of. From random832 at fastmail.us Sun Nov 4 19:53:37 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:53:37 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Archived Wizards of the Month In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <472E2341.1020702@fastmail.us> Annemehr wrote: > Oh, yes you can -- and there seems to be no time limit on the WOMBAT, > and when you hit "Submit" you are graded instantly (I just tried the > 3rd WOMBAT twice -- it's at 21/12/06 on the time turner). This behavior could allow one to determine what the correct answers for all the questions. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 19:56:46 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:56:46 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: <472E2035.6070401@fastmail.us> Message-ID: > susanmcgee48176 wrote: > > Well, here's the deal...it's prejudice when people are thrown out of > > their families, disowned, fired from jobs, called names, harassed, > > beaten, lose their housing, or are murdered because of their sexual > > orientation. > Random: > And which of the above have been done by the people complaining about > the books? There is no moral equivalence between doing any of those > things, and anything that has been said here. Alla: I am not Susan of course, but I was under impression that she was defining real life prejudice and accordingly this is obviously has nothing to do with people complaining about the books. She was replying to this paragraph of Del's, no? > Del muses: > But who gets to decide that it's prejudice/bigotry? > One person's bigotry is another person's defending of > the truth. One person's prejudice is another person's > sound moral judgement. > Alla: I thought that Susan was saying that indeed there is a **prejudice** period, not prejudice from one person POV and when people do what she described it is bigotry and prejudice, end of story. You know what I mean? Sometimes in RL it is Okay I think to call horrible thing a horrible thing. Because no matter how you look at it, for example throw a teenager out of the house because this teenager told his parents that he is gay, is just wrong. I am using this example, because as I mentioned upthread this is basically the only RL example I know of and that girl is dead now. I sure read a plenty others, but this is the only one I heard from the reliable witness ( person who used to teach this girl). And if her parents say would say they did it because their religion says their daughter was not worthy of living with them no more, well, I do not care, really. I do not care how right in their minds they think they are. I still say it is wrong, just wrong, that is all. No, I do not know this girl's parents at all, I am just giving you an example. But of course this has nothing to do with people complaining about DD being gay. I thought discussion switched, sort of to RL issues. JMO, Alla From random832 at fastmail.us Sun Nov 4 20:08:31 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:08:31 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <472E26BF.4000508@fastmail.us> sistermagpie wrote: >> Alla: >> >> Leaky gives pretty impassioned summaries of what is going on now, so >> if you are interested in the history from both sides, it is all >> there. >> >> I wish it would not come to that, but if the book will be indeed >> direct copy of Lexicon, JKR 100% right. > > Magpie: > Yeah, I'm not a lawyer but from what I read JKR's completely right > here. The publishers sound insane. Depends on what you mean by "right". Yes, the law is on her side if she wants to stop the book from being published (but, a friendly letter rather than jumping straight to a lawsuit might have been nice) - but, is she "right" in her professed belief that a print version of the lexicon would impair her ability to sell an encyclopedia-type book? Absolutely not. That's a transparent play for sympathy for a move that she _knows_ is going to result in a lot of bad press, especially on the heels of her decision to (apparently) not publish the Beedle the Bard book for a general audience. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 20:12:20 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:12:20 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: <472E26BF.4000508@fastmail.us> Message-ID: random: > Depends on what you mean by "right". Yes, the law is on her side if she > wants to stop the book from being published (but, a friendly letter > rather than jumping straight to a lawsuit might have been nice) - Alla: There had been several letters sent per what is on Leaky before jumping to lawsuit. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Nov 4 20:30:24 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:30:24 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: <472E26BF.4000508@fastmail.us> Message-ID: > > Magpie: > > Yeah, I'm not a lawyer but from what I read JKR's completely right > > here. The publishers sound insane. > > Depends on what you mean by "right". Yes, the law is on her side if she > wants to stop the book from being published (but, a friendly letter > rather than jumping straight to a lawsuit might have been nice) - but, > is she "right" in her professed belief that a print version of the > lexicon would impair her ability to sell an encyclopedia-type book? > Absolutely not. Magpie: I did mean that the law was on her side--and the publishers received several "friendly letters." The lawsuit wasn't jumped to by any timeline that I've heard. Whether or not her own ability to sell her book is being damaged I wouldn't say--I don't think it would be. But I legally it seems like she's in the right here--and she's not being very aggressive about her rights as she could be in that area in general. Random: That's a transparent play for sympathy for a move that > she _knows_ is going to result in a lot of bad press, especially on the > heels of her decision to (apparently) not publish the Beedle the Bard > book for a general audience. Magpie: Are you saying this lawsuit is a play for sympathy? It doesn't really seem like one to me, and WB are doing it too. And the RDR publishers, I believe, also sued WB for using what they claim is their copyrighted material. -m > From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 20:41:51 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:41:51 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > I did mean that the law was on her side--and the publishers received > several "friendly letters." The lawsuit wasn't jumped to by any > timeline that I've heard. Whether or not her own ability to sell her > book is being damaged I wouldn't say--I don't think it would be. But > I legally it seems like she's in the right here--and she's not being > very aggressive about her rights as she could be in that area in > general. Alla: It seemed to me that whether this book will interfere with her encyclopedia sales ( and I do not think it will be either), it is just very irrelevant and I took it on her part as additional explanation, the one she did not even need to go into. I mean, the bottom line to me is that IF the book is direct copy of the Lexicon, that is her work being sold by another person, you know? And it seems to be wrong to me. And it is not like I think all those lawsuits by her lawyers are right. That one in India, when they sued non profit for making castle on the festival, I thought was disgusting and was very happy that they lost. This one I hope they will win and fast. JMO, Alla From oneel at yahoo.com Sun Nov 4 19:27:54 2007 From: oneel at yahoo.com (Tania Canedo) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:27:54 -0000 Subject: Need Volunteers and Help for my University paper on HP! Message-ID: Hello fellow fans, it's been ages since my last post, but I really need your help. I need some volunteers for a discussion group on Harry Potter and Spirituality. I need about 7 people, please answer this post or send me a private message, please ^^. (I think it can be done in Y!groups, if not, well, just reply this post hahahaha) I know it's a bit crazy, but, need some help here. Thanks a lot! Tania Caledo From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 01:14:49 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 01:14:49 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: susanmcgee wrote: > What I mean is that I, myself, from reading, > experience, and life figure out that what I > was taught as a child -- that people with dark > skin are inferior in some ways -- is untrue. > I start to examine those assumptions, I think > about them, I think critically, and I begin to > change my mind. Del replies: And this is all good and fine, but it's also exclusively *personal*: just because YOU go through such changes and growth, doesn't mean anyone else should be expected or forced to do so too, especially not at the same time and in the same way. That's the huge difference between overcoming personal prejudices and erasing social prejudices: we are all free to work on our own prejudices as hard and as early as we want, but we can't hold anyone else to the same calendar. We can and should work toward "enlightening" other people, but when people will actually give up their prejudices is not in our control. > So, answer this question..is it okay that > lesbians/gays lose jobs, get beat up, get > thrown up because of their orientation? Is it > or isn't it? Not in my opinion, no. More generally, I don't think *anyone* should be beaten up or throw on to the street for *any* reason. But what does this have to do with some HP readers not wanting DD to be gay??? Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 01:36:40 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 01:36:40 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla wrote: > I am not Susan of course, but I was under > impression that she was defining real life > prejudice and accordingly this is obviously > has nothing to do with people complaining > about the books. Del replies: Except that the topic was not about real life general prejudice: it was about the use of the words "prejudice" and "bigotry" in a precise context and about precise people: those readers who have a big problem with DD being gay. > I thought that Susan was saying that indeed > there is a **prejudice** period, I don't see where the prejudice is in this case? No gay person is physically or legally harmed by some readers being upset that DD was outed. Emotionally maybe, yes, but that's a whole other can of worms, and I still don't think that this emotional harm could qualify as "prejudice". > But of course this has nothing to do with > people complaining about DD being gay. I > thought discussion switched, sort of to RL > issues. No the discussion didn't switch, hence Random's question (which I also thought when I read Susan's post, but didn't bother posting, though frankly I found her remarks quite insulting: associating, out of the blue, people who have a problem with DD being outed after the books have all been published, with people who physically abuse gay people, that's just not right IMO. And giving examples of *physical* prejudice when asked who gets to decide that a personal *opinion* is prejudiced or bigoted, doesn't help either.) Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 02:44:22 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:44:22 -0000 Subject: Acceptance (was: Why Rowling should not have outed DD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm not picking on you Dana, so please don't take this post personally. It's just that it's a good example of the type of thinking that drives me nuts ;-) Just take it as a rhetoric exercise or something :-P Dana wrote: > Slytherin house excluded all whose blood wasn't > pure enough to be included into their idealistic > club of blood supremacy. Del replies: And Gryffindor house excluded all those who weren't brave enough. And Ravenclaw house excluded all those who weren't smart enough. But *they* weren't "punished" for being intolerant, were they? It's NEVER the prejudice itself that matters: it's WHICH prejudice you hold. > if exclusion is what it takes to unite people, > the unity in itself is just an illusion because > what unites them has no reflection on RL at all. Exclusion IS indeed what it takes to unite people. Don't believe me? Prove me wrong, give me a counter-example. > Are you going to change your values because those > people are not willing to accept you because you > associate yourself with gay people? Or people of > color or specific religious backgrounds or social > status or disagreeable life-styles? If you would, > then you are actually denying yourself the right > to be whomever you want to be and to think > whatever you want to think. What about the right to be wrong in your eyes? What about the right to choose which compromises we'd rather live with? What about the right to choose which communities we'd rather receive approval from? > Acceptance based on a false premise is not > acceptance and if you have to change your own > outline to be accepted for who you are then you > are untrue to yourself. So I'm sure you'll agree that she shouldn't change her mind just because you think she should ;-) ? > That is what many people have been fighting > against their entire life, to have the right to > be and not be dictate who they are supposed to be > in accordance to the views of others. Yep, some people fight for that, but not everybody has to think that way, right? > If I were gay and you were my friend then this > would be reason enough for me to discontinue my > friendship with you, And this would show acceptance... how exactly??? Are you saying that your friends have to conform to some code of behaviour in order for you to accept them as your friends? If so, how does this jive with the concept of "acceptance"? (I know that *I* have such a code of behaviour that I expect my friends to hold to, but then I don't pretend to be very accepting ;-) I'm a "take it or leave it" sort of person.) > what would happen if the world was taken over by > people similar to Hitler, who actively tried to > exterminate people not accepted within his own > limited world view of a perfect race? Would you > be willing to fight against such views if they are > at that time the predominant sentiments of the > people living around you? Or would you suggest to > your friend to hide his or hers identity (or an > essential part of it) so they can blend into > society unseen? But what if those sentiments > include something that you can't hide because it > is part of your physical description? I'm curious: do you think that there are "good" answers and "bad" answers to those questions? If you do, then how do you reconcile this with acceptance? How do you reconcile this with the supposed right to live as one wants to live? > Omission of that what might upset a person's > viewpoint is not acceptance. So I take it that you would not have any problem with someone saying something like "I personally think that homosexuality is an abomination, that Black people are inferior, and that Jews are thieves and immoral"? (Which is NOT my opinion, in case anyone wonders!) > Prejudice can't be eradicated by removing those > elements that cause the prejudice in the first > place, Does that mean you think people should be allowed to say whatever they want, and that political correctness should be done away with? > If people can no longer accept the Harry Potter > books now that JKR has revealed DD's sexual > orientation then it is their loss and people who > are willing to accept humanity in all its facets > are better off without their input to begin with. I see an inherent contradiction here: "people who are willing to accept humanity in all its facets" necessarily includes people who are willing to accept those other people who "can no longer accept the Harry Potter books now that JKR has revealed DD's sexual orientation", so how could such people (the accepting ones) be "better off" without the second group?? > Anyway don't embrace prejudice as a means to > create the illusion of unity because it is based > on a false premise that people can only unite by > means of omission of the things they find > unacceptable. First I don't see this as a "false premise". Quite the contrary: I see it as the only working premise. We are us because they are them. Without "them", there is no "us". Second, how do you reconcile acceptance with the fact that you just counseled someone to change their opinion ;-) ? > People can only unite if they learn to accept > that humans are humans regardless of anything > else Don't you see the "us vs them" here? "We are humans" means that "some of us are not animals, plants or microbes", no more no less. > and value the lives and idea of others in the > same way they like their own lives and ideas to > be accepted. If you value the life of another in > equal terms you value your own then you would > never do unto others what you do not want others > to do upon you. Those are beautiful ideals that I pretty much happen to agree with, but I don't see why anyone else should agree with them? And once again, acceptance would require that we accept people *as they are*, even (or should I say *especially*) if they don't reciprocate the favour! I sincerely hope I didn't offend anyone, because that really wasn't my intention. I just like to present the other side of things. Del From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 03:49:50 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 03:49:50 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > If you want books to have ratings okay--I don't. But it's not "so- > called" YA literature depicting explicit sex, it's actual YA books. Carol responds: I'm not saying that sex isn't being depicted in "YA" books (although i think that's disturbing). I'm objecting to the term "young adult literature" for readers who are actually children or younger teenagers. They're not young adults. The term is a euphemism, as if "adolescent" or "pre-teen" or "teenage" were somehow insulting terms. I remember an old cartoon (ca. 1990) when political correctness was first being recognized and given a label (at a time when ultrafeminists were objecting to the word "women" because it had "men" in it and spelling it "womyn" though they never seemed to realize that "woman" had "man" in it and object to that spelling as well). In the cartoon, little girls were labeled "prewomen" because "girls" was supposedly offensive. Thank goodness the extreme views of the early 90s have disappeared, but the fondness for euphemisms is still prevalent. And, IMO, "young adult" for readers who are actually children is both euphemistic and misleading. They're not adults and they're not ready for adult content in their books. If we have NC17 as a category for movies, surely we ought to have something comparable for books. (Even in the WW, where kids come of age at seventeen, a sixteen-year-old is considered a child.) IMO, a young adult is between about twenty and thirty-five. Eighteen and thirty if you must. But "young adult" for fourteen-year-olds? Not in my experience. Carol, just clarifying her use of "so-called" and noting that "YA" literature is not an accepted literary genre but a category used by bookstores to classify their books From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 04:10:03 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 04:10:03 -0000 Subject: Saturday Night Live skit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "stacygalore" wrote: > > Anybody see the Dumbledore skit on Saturday Night Live last night? I laughed so hard I > cried! > Tonks: Oh, shoot. I missed it. I had it on, but wasn't watching. Can you tell us more about what we missed? Is there any replays on the net? Thanks. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 04:58:17 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 04:58:17 -0000 Subject: Why Rowling should not have outed DD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Dana: > > Also if her mission was tolerance it got right past you because you are displaying an enormous amount of intolerance here. Gay people should not be included in the Harry Potter world because some people might not tolerate the idea of a main character being gay? So what the mainstream of people might or might not think is more important to you so it seems. Tonks: You sound very angry. I will ignore what seems like a personal attack because it is colored by your anger. Dana cont:> (Snipped some good and well written, thought provoking ideas.) > You do not change the world by pretending all have the same values > while in reality they actually are not. (Snip) > If you would, then you are actually denying yourself the right to be whomever you want to be and to think whatever you want to think. > Acceptance based on a false premise is not acceptance and if you have to change your own outline to be accepted for who you are then you are untrue to yourself. Tonks: I agree. Dana: > If I were gay and you were my friend then this would be reason enough for me to discontinue my friendship with you, because I would > no longer be able to trust that you would stick up for me when push comes to shove. Tonks: You brought my friends into this discussion so let???s use that as an example. I have friends that are very different from one another. I have gay friends and friends that think that being gay is kinky or evil. I have friends who are conservative in their social and moral views and those that are very liberal. I even have friends that are Christian Fundamentalist even though I am very opposed to the ideas and political beliefs of this group of people. Some of my friends are poor, others very rich. Some high school drop outs with poor grammar, others PhD???s. I have friends that are atheist and I am very religious, etc. You asked why I don???t stand up for my gay friends when with other groups of people by pushing the gay agenda. I don???t hide who I am or what I believe. I just don???t beat people over the head with it. I accept people for who they are, where they are, and I come with no agenda to change them. In other words I respect the gay and the anti- gay. My Republican friends know that I am a rabid Democrat. My atheist friends know that I am deeply religious. My Fundamentalist friends know that I have friends that are gay and that I do not agree with the Fundamentalist point of view on many things, gay or otherwise. We are all friends because of the things that bind us. I don???t let the things that separate us get in the way of the relationship. I have tried to point out in my post here (and regrettably I have not done it well and many not be doing it well now either) that there needs to be tolerance on both sides of any issue. When many people on this list say that anti-gay people need to be tolerant of gays and all of the ideas that come with that, it seems to me that they are not allowing any room for tolerance of those who do not share their views. I am saying that we need to be tolerant of the people who are not tolerant of our views. It doesn???t matter who is right and who is wrong. No one wins a war. We see that even in HP. Yes, there is a time to stand up and fight, I am not talking about those times. I am talking about people???s thoughts and beliefs. If you do want to change thoughts and beliefs, or as the politicians say ???win the hearts and minds??? of people, you don???t do it by beating the hell out of them first. You don???t do it with a ???I am right and if you don???t agree with me your wrong??? attitude. You find the mutual ground. You look for the things that unite you. We all assume that our view is the right one. This is a win-lose game mentality. No one wins that game either. Tonks_op From gregbaxter7 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 08:37:28 2007 From: gregbaxter7 at yahoo.com (gbxt7) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 08:37:28 -0000 Subject: What defensive spells would you want to cast, if you were in Dumble's army? Message-ID: What creatively witty (serious or humorous) defensive spell/s would you most want to cast against your opponents (in either the Harry Potter world, or in our real one), if you were one of the Dumbledore's army's most senior members, or were its most senior member and please say why, for any spell/s named. It can be any witty spell/s you wish was used in the 7 HP books, but which for some reason never was, or maybe it was, but it was used mediocrely in your view, in the 7 books. gregbaxter7 From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Mon Nov 5 13:22:47 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:22:47 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol responds: I'm not saying that sex isn't being depicted in "YA" books (although i think that's disturbing). I'm objecting to the term "young adult literature" for readers who are actually children or younger teenagers. They're not young adults. The term is a euphemism, as if "adolescent" or "pre-teen" or "teenage" were somehow insulting terms. Celoneth: I don't think it has anything to do with political correctness - I've always thought it was a marketing term. Teenagers want to appear grown-up, having a book section called "young adult" appeals to teenagers and makes them more likely to pick up some of the books. There's nothing sinister about it, teens want to be treated like grown-ups so companies use terms like "young-adult" or "junior" to market to teens (just like they use "misses" and "big and tall" to refer to clothing lines of certain sizes). It probably wouldn't appeal to teens to have a "teenage" book section (and definitely an "older children" or "pre-pubescent" section). Celoneth From drdara at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 13:50:22 2007 From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 05:50:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Saturday Night Live Skit with DD Message-ID: <140249.66776.qm@web60716.mail.yahoo.com> http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/#mea=178704 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Nov 5 15:05:25 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:05:25 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > > I'm not saying that sex isn't being depicted in "YA" books (although i > think that's disturbing). I'm objecting to the term "young adult > literature" for readers who are actually children or younger > teenagers. They're not young adults. The term is a euphemism, as if > "adolescent" or "pre-teen" or "teenage" were somehow insulting terms. Magpie: I know you're objecting to the term, but it's a standard term in publishing so it seems pointless to put it in quotation marks when it's long been the actual term for the books we're talking about. I've never heard anybody refer to actual teenagers as Young Adults, but I've been using the term for books I recognized as such for most of my life. Carol: In the > cartoon, little girls were labeled "prewomen" because "girls" was > supposedly offensive. Thank goodness the extreme views of the early > 90s have disappeared, but the fondness for euphemisms is still > prevalent. Magpie: This was being used before the political correct jokes of the 90s. I remember the term YA when I was a teen. Carol: And, IMO, "young adult" for readers who are actually > children is both euphemistic and misleading. They're not adults and > they're not ready for adult content in their books. If we have NC17 as > a category for movies, surely we ought to have something comparable > for books. (Even in the WW, where kids come of age at seventeen, a > sixteen-year-old is considered a child.) Magpie: It depends on what you mean by adult content. What should be allowed in YA in your opinion is a different issue, that they might disagree with or not. I'm not saying all books in this category are graphically sexual by any means, but certain topics are routinely covered. Sexuality being one of them, of course, since it's often in adolescence that a teen might realize s/he is gay or their friend is. Carol: > Carol, just clarifying her use of "so-called" and noting that "YA" > literature is not an accepted literary genre but a category used by > bookstores to classify their books Magpie: And publishers as well for the same reason. Whether or not one objects to gay characters in books for teenagers (or children, since they also appear in books for younger readers), or teenagers being called young adults JKR would not be the first if she had actually had gay people explicitly in her canon. -m From oneel at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 16:26:50 2007 From: oneel at yahoo.com (Tania Canedo) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:26:50 -0000 Subject: Need Volunteers and Help for my University paper on HP! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ok I think I have to explain a little more, sorry I'm just in a bit of a rush, thought I had more time to do this. Just need around 7 ppl for a discussion group, the main theme is HP and spirituality (cant tell you more cuz it will give you guys time to think your answeres). It's basicly a debate by topics... As a moderator I'll suggest a topic and you'll have to debate about it, then when that topic gets exausted I'll suggest another. If it can be done "live" it would be much better (like mass chat). Greetings everyone! :) From thekrenz at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 19:04:30 2007 From: thekrenz at yahoo.com (thekrenz) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:04:30 -0000 Subject: So totally OT Message-ID: I would like to use the OT aspect of this list to ask for help from list memebers in Ireland. I am trying to locate a telephone number for some distant cousins in Londonderry. My father passed away in September and he has 2 family memebers living in Waterside. My mom wants to call them to share the sad news, but has no phone number. We do have an address but that is it. I have used a website call anywho.com to find phone numbers in the US...is there something similar in Ireland? Thanks in advance to any who can give advice. I will accept off-list emails gladly. Cyndi From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 20:50:27 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:50:27 -0000 Subject: So totally OT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "thekrenz" wrote: > > I would like to use the OT aspect of this list to ask for help from list memebers in Ireland. I am trying to locate a telephone number for some distant cousins in Londonderry. Tonks: I am in the U.S. but if you go to Yahoo in the UK you can find somethings like this link: http://www.ukphonebook.com/public? ses=ndplcigpjieocanlopepmpnokpofoofleljicaclhadgolmebkdfhiabcohmifei&ind ex=1 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 23:42:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:42:20 -0000 Subject: Formatting (Was: Why Rowling should not have outed DD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tonks wrote: > Yes, there is a time to stand up and fight, I am not talking about those times. I am talking about people???s thoughts and beliefs. If you do want to change thoughts and beliefs, or as the politicians say ???win the hearts and minds??? of people, you don???t do it by beating the hell out of them first. You don???t do it with a ???I am right and if you don???t agree with me your wrong??? attitude. You find the mutual ground. You look for the things that unite you. We all assume that our view is the right one. This is a win-lose game mentality. No one wins that game either. Carol responds: I agree with your point completely, but I'm quoting it for a different reason. The post is hard to read because Yahoo has mangled it. The only way I know to prevent Yahoo from treating apostrophes and asterisks as if they were some sort of indecipherable code (??? or whatever) is to post from the list. I vaguely remember, though, a suggestion posted to this list for avoiding this kind of garbling in messages composed in some other program and then e-mailed to the list. I'd appreciate it if anyone who knows how to prevent this problem with e-mailed posts would explain how to do so here. Meanwhile, I just want to agree with Tonks that tolerance doesn't mean not judging other by their skin color or other inborn characteristics. It means granting others the right to express their opinions, especially when we disagree with those opinions. And it also means not preaching at people who disagree with us or labeling them as bigots (or classing them with criminals, as one poster has done). We're not going to change anyone's mind by treating that person's ideas or beliefs as inferior to our own. In fact, it's unlikely that anyone will change anyone else's mind in this particular thread because it relates to deeply held values on all sides, and values are often impervious to logic. We all have the right to be wrong, and right and wrong on moral issues is seldom as clearcut as right and wrong in a math problem. Carol, not calling anyone right or wrong, just asking for tolerance for all points of view, especially those we'd rather not read From stacygalore at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 20:19:20 2007 From: stacygalore at yahoo.com (stacygalore) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:19:20 -0000 Subject: Saturday Night Live skit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "stacygalore" wrote: > > > > Anybody see the Dumbledore skit on Saturday Night Live last night? I > laughed so hard I > > cried! > > > > Tonks: > Oh, shoot. I missed it. I had it on, but wasn't watching. Can you tell > us more about what we missed? Is there any replays on the net? Thanks. I've been searching You Tube for it, but nobody has posted it. There were two Harry Potter references in that episode. First, they mentioned it on the Weekend Update. This is the clip for that short bit: http://youtube.com/watch?v=UYWNbmV29VI As for the skit, here's a rough rundown: JKR is being interviewed on Larry King Live. He asks her about "outing" Dumbledore. She says that there were some scenes cut from OOTP film that would have showed how Dumbledore was obviously gay. They show the cut scenes. The first one is of McGonnagal and DD in his office. DD is forlorn because of his ex-boyfriend. The next scene DD mentions getting a "booty owl" from his ex. The last scene is of DD and McGonnagal at a gay club in Hogsmeade. It was so rediculous that it had me cracking up on the couch. I'm sure it will eventually wind up on You Tube. I also found this on You Tube. it is an old SNL Harry Potter Skit starring Lindsay Lohan: http://youtube.com/watch?v=a-r-z8Pp0F8 Enjoy, Stacy From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 5 23:58:28 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:58:28 -0000 Subject: What defensive spells would you want to cast, if you were in Dumble's army? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "gbxt7" wrote: > > What creatively witty (serious or humorous) defensive spell/s > would you most want to cast against your opponents (in either > the Harry Potter world, or in our real one), if you were one > of the Dumbledore's army's most senior members, or were its > most senior member and please say why, for any spell/s named. > It can be any witty spell/s you wish was used in the 7 HP books, > but which for some reason never was, or maybe it was, but it was > used mediocrely in your view, in the 7 books. > > gregbaxter7 > Carol responds: are you sure that you mean defensive spells? I thought those were pretty much limited to Protego and Expelliarmus. However, (assuming that we're going for humor here and not passing moral judgment on people who give each other boils or antlers or elongate their teeth), I wouldn't have minded a spells in which people turn each other into animals ("Don't turn me into nothin' unnatural!" Oops, wrong book) or something of that sort. (Anyone notice that the duels mostly consist of red and green flashes? Everyone's casting AKs or Stunners? Where is their imagination?) I used to imagine a spell named in honor of Evan Rosier which caused roses to bloom all over the victim's face, thorns and all. Or how about "Umbridgitis!" which would turn the victim into a toad, warts and all. Or how about one that Transfigures the victim into a chair, named after Horace Slughorn? That would pretty much eliminate their ability to fight back. These spells would not necessarily be permanent, but they would be complex enough not to repond to "Finite Incantatem." They would need to be reversed by a specific counterspell known by their inventor (and possibly his or her friends). Carol, who is juat having fun here but did think that the Baby-Headed Death Eater was more effectively dealt with, albeit accidentally, than those who were Stunned or Petrified From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 05:43:27 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 05:43:27 -0000 Subject: What defensive spells would you want to cast, if you were in Dumble's army? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "gbxt7" wrote: > > What creatively witty (serious or humorous) defensive spell/s > would you most want to cast against your opponents (in either > the Harry Potter world, or in our real one), if you were one > of the Dumbledore's army's most senior members, or were its > most senior member and please say why, for any spell/s named. > It can be any witty spell/s you wish was used in the 7 HP books, > but which for some reason never was, or maybe it was, but it was > used mediocrely in your view, in the 7 books. Tonks: I am too old for the DA. Member of OP here. Defensive Spells Chakkaa-Chakkaa spell: Purple light - causes the 7th charka to open and propels the persons spirit out of the body temporary, say for 5 minutes while you run away. They are not able to use their wand or do any non-verbal spells without a wand, when in this state. Agappa spell: Pink light. Hits the heart and causes them to feel love and compassion for you, for the next 10 minutes. Again giving you time to get away. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 06:34:08 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 06:34:08 -0000 Subject: Wombat 3 Message-ID: Oh, I am so happy. I passed the last of 3 Wombat test. I got an outstanding. I don't remember the grading system, but I am just happy to have passed all 3. I see that this test was done on June 13th. I must have been so busy then that I missed it. I am so glad that she put a timeturner there so that we can go back and take the test that we missed. I will have to look around and see if I have a diploma I can print out. I did for the first 2. All of you folks that missed taking any of the Wombats can go and take them now. Sometimes it is a bit of a trick to find out how to get the door open. Hint: Think about looking for something in the window. Tonks From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 07:31:37 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:31:37 -0000 Subject: Formatting (Was: Why Rowling should not have outed DD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "Carol" wrote: > > Tonks wrote: > > > ... I am talking about people???s thoughts and beliefs. > >... the politicians say ???win the hearts and minds??? > > of people, ... You don???t do it with a ???I am right and > > if you don???t agree with me your wrong??? attitude. ... > > Carol responds: > I agree with your point completely, but I'm quoting it for > a different reason. The post is hard to read because Yahoo > has mangled it. > > The only way I know to prevent Yahoo from treating > apostrophes and asterisks as if they were some sort of > indecipherable code is to post from the list. I vaguely > remember, though, a suggestion posted to this list for > avoiding this kind of garbling in messages ... bboyminn: First you can correct Tonks original Post by switching the View of your browser's Character Encoding to Unicode(UTF-8). Using SeaMonkey/Mozilla, from the menu, select [View] [Character Encoding] [Unicode(UTF-8)] So, usually these characters creep in for one of a couple of reasons. First, if you are using MS-Outlook for your email program, it is probably set to use MS-Word to compose messages, further MS-Word is probably set to match single and double quote marks into pair. Your keyboard only has right hand single and double quote ( ' " ), MS-Word has a formating option to automatically switch match pairs of quote from generic marks to matching left leaning and right leaning marks. These left and right quote marks are from a different part of the character set than the standard generic marks. Consequently, they do not display properly. You can avoid this by setting the Options in MS-Word to not automatically format quotes into matching pairs. The other reason, is that the email/post is originating on a non-English computer. That is a computer, browser, or email program that does not use Western(ISO-8859-1) as standard Character Encoding. In the case of Tonks message quoted in part above, I fixed it by switching to Unicode(UTF-8), and once switched, we see the message does have left and right leaning double quote marks. Unicode is sort of a universal font. Though there are various Unicode fonts, they all have the English alphabet combined with characters from foreign language. For example, there is a Unicode font that has English plus Chinese characters. Also, Thai, Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, etc.... When ever you come across a message with characters you can't read try switching the Character Encoding. I've indicated above how to do it in Mozilla browsers. In MS-Internet Explorer, simply select from the menu - [View] [Encoding] and select from the displayed list. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 6 07:31:50 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:31:50 -0000 Subject: So totally OT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "thekrenz" wrote: > > I would like to use the OT aspect of this list to ask for help from > list memebers in Ireland. I am trying to locate a telephone number for > some distant cousins in Londonderry. My father passed away in > September and he has 2 family memebers living in Waterside. My mom > wants to call them to share the sad news, but has no phone number. We > do have an address but that is it. I have used a website call > anywho.com to find phone numbers in the US...is there something similar > in Ireland? > > Thanks in advance to any who can give advice. I will accept off-list > emails gladly. > > Cyndi Geoff: Londonderry is in Northern Ireland so you should be able to locate numbers via British Telecom. I usually find that www.thephonebook.bt.com is pretty good. Try giving that a try and see if it works.... From Schlobin at aol.com Tue Nov 6 07:34:49 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:34:49 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: <472E2035.6070401@fastmail.us> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Random832 wrote: > > susanmcgee48176 wrote: > > Well, here's the deal...it's prejudice when people are thrown out of > > their families, disowned, fired from jobs, called names, harassed, > > beaten, lose their housing, or are murdered because of their sexual > > orientation. > > And which of the above have been done by the people complaining about > the books? There is no moral equivalence between doing any of those > things, and anything that has been said here. > > > My personal sound moral judgment is that it's wrong to be a bigot, and > > it's illustrative of people's prejudice and bigotry that their image of > > DD has "diminished". > > It's illustrative of their tendency and history of throwing people out > of their families, firing people, harassing, beating, turning people out > on the street, and murdering people? That is, after all, how you've > defined prejudice and bigotry in the preceding paragraph. Careful what > you're accusing fellow list members of. > Bigoted actions spring from bigoted beliefs. When people write or imply that lesbians/gays molest children, or are abnormal, or are not really what God intended, or that lesbians or gay men are wildly promiscuous, or are immoral....all of these opinions have been expressed on fan sites....and I imagine that with 27,000 people on it, HP for Grownups has some such people.. these beliefs and actions create an atmosphere in which bigoted actions can flourish. When Fred Phelps pickets the funerals of dead Iraqi soldiers with signs that say "God Hates Fags", it gives credence and credibility to those who believe just that. When suddenly there are a bunch of angry fans who tell us that the books are forever spoiled, they won't let their children read them, that "sexuality" has entered into children's books....the message that well educated, seemingly "nice" people..are shocked and appalled that a good, kind, compassionate, fighter for justice happened to fall in love with someone of the same gender...well, that tells you something about what people really think about me. I'm sure every single person on this list is very nice, and would never assault someone else, or use an anti-gay epithet, or not speak to someone in the workplace because they were gay, or make anti gay jokes in front of the children of lesbians and/or gays....but these bigoted actions DO happen daily, and they are unjust. You may think that someone "chooses" the gay "lifestyle" (whatever the hell that is....I guess it must be how I spent my day, cooking dinner, working, helping the children with their homework, cleaning up cat vomit....but I will tell you with 100% surety that no one chooses the person with whom they fall in love. Susan From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Tue Nov 6 08:33:18 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:33:18 -0000 Subject: eye colour and other queries Message-ID: Hi all, I posted on the main HP list about eye colour and then thought it might be a bit off topic--or could easily GET off topic. basically, I've been reading a lot of fanfiction and am curious about some things that seem to be common to a lot of fics but i don't remember from canon. If anyone can tell me whether they are in canon I would be SOOOOO happy. Here they are: 1. Harry's eye colour is always described as a deep green (or jade or emerald etc). I remember them being described as 'green' but where did this unusual 'absinthe in flames' kind of colour come from? That doesn't even seem like a 'real' eye colour to me. 2. Draco's eyes are always descibed as grey (my favourite is 'full-moon-over-the-water' LOL). I don't remember Draco's eyes ever being described in canon at all, though I possibly wasn't paying attention. 3. Many of the fics talk about 'glamour spells'--are they fanfic-created or in canon? I cannot remember ever reading about a glamour spell.. though they sounds like a brilliant idea of course.s 4. They also talk about 'wards' being around premises -- kind of like protective spells to keep others out. I KNOW there are such spells in canon but where are they described as 'wards'? If anyone can point me to a relevant passages or chapters I would be so grateful. I've read the books SO many times over and can't beleive I've missed these if they ARE in fact, there. It's driving me crazy!!!!! LOL And I thought rather than starting from book 1 again i would put it out there in case anyone knows..... Thanks, Sharon From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 13:36:58 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:36:58 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: susanmcgee wrote: > Bigoted actions spring from bigoted beliefs. > When people write or imply that lesbians/gays > molest children, or are abnormal, or are not > really what God intended, or that lesbians or > gay men are wildly promiscuous, or are > immoral....all of these opinions have been > expressed on fan sites....and I imagine that > with 27,000 people on it, HP for Grownups has > some such people.. these beliefs and actions > create an atmosphere in which bigoted actions > can flourish. Del wonders: And when people are told that the things they *think*, and not the things they *do*, create an atmosphere in which evil things can happen, what do you think this does? IMO, no good at all. > When Fred Phelps pickets the funerals of dead > Iraqi soldiers with signs that say "God Hates > Fags", it gives credence and credibility to > those who believe just that. To those who believe just that, maybe. But most people who have a problem with homosexuality don't believe that God hates homosexuals. > I'm sure every single person on this list is > very nice, and would never assault someone > else, or use an anti-gay epithet, or not speak > to someone in the workplace because they were > gay, or make anti gay jokes in front of the > children of lesbians and/or gays....but these > bigoted actions DO happen daily, and they are > unjust. What about the acts of associating people who don't do any of those things with people who picket funerals with "God hates fags" signs or other such people? Don't you think this is just as unfair and unjust? Let me be clear: many (most?) people who have a problem of any kind with homosexuality do NOT condone or support harrassing, attacking, or in any other way actively victimising gays. Saying "they have a problem with homosexuality, so they belong in the same category as those who would have all gays killed or who think that God hates gays" is WRONG, and yes, bigoted and prejudiced IMO. > You may think that someone "chooses" the gay > "lifestyle" (whatever the hell that is.... I > guess it must be how I spent my day, cooking > dinner, working, helping the children with > their homework, cleaning up cat vomit.... ) Which is also how most people who have a problem with homosexuality spend their lives. > but I will tell you with 100% surety that no one > chooses the person with whom they fall in love. True believers don't choose what they believe either. Del From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Nov 6 14:13:19 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:13:19 -0000 Subject: eye colour and other queries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Sharon" wrote: > > Hi all, > > I posted on the main HP list about eye colour and then thought it might be a bit off > topic--or could easily GET off topic. > > basically, I've been reading a lot of fanfiction and am curious about some things that seem > to be common to a lot of fics but i don't remember from canon. If anyone can tell me > whether they are in canon I would be SOOOOO happy. Here they are: Potioncat: It is interesting how many things seem to reappear in fanfic. It may be that that fanfic writers are also fanfic readers. I'll respond to the questions that I think I have an answer to. > 2. Draco's eyes are always descibed as grey (my favourite is 'full- moon-over-the-water' > LOL). I don't remember Draco's eyes ever being described in canon at all, though I possibly > wasn't paying attention. Potioncat: Not really any help here, but I do think they are described as grey in canon. You might find a source at the Lexicon if the Draco page is that detailed. > > 3. Many of the fics talk about 'glamour spells'--are they fanfic- created or in canon? I > cannot remember ever reading about a glamour spell.. though they sounds like a brilliant > idea of course.s Potioncat: I don't think glamour ever appears in canon, but it does in folklore. I think that's where it comes from. I've used it before....in fics, I mean, not RL. > > 4. They also talk about 'wards' being around premises -- kind of like protective spells to > keep others out. I KNOW there are such spells in canon but where are they described as > 'wards'? Potioncat: I don't think it's called wards in canon. I checked DH, which mentions enchantments, but does not call the area "wards". In "The Wedding" guests are Apparating at the 'distant boundary of the yard', but it isn't clear if that's courtesy or charms. Later, guests Disapparate from the yard because the Enchantments have failed. I've seen the use of "wards" for years in fanfic. It could come from SF or other fantasy sources? From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Tue Nov 6 15:06:52 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:06:52 -0000 Subject: eye colour and other queries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'll try to answer as best I can... > 1. Harry's eye colour is always described as a deep green (or jade or emerald etc). I > remember them being described as 'green' but where did this unusual 'absinthe in flames' > kind of colour come from? That doesn't even seem like a 'real' eye colour to me. Celoneth: His eyes are mentioned as "bright green" (PS UK version p. 20) & I guess they have to be somewhat distinctive b/c people mention it so often & remember what colour Lily's eyes were. > 2. Draco's eyes are always descibed as grey (my favourite is 'full-moon-over-the-water' > LOL). I don't remember Draco's eyes ever being described in canon at all, though I possibly > wasn't paying attention. Celoneth: I don't remember any reference to his eyes - its not in the description given when Harry first meets him, and the Lexicon doesn't have anything, though there may be something in canon I just can't find it, he's usually described as just pale & blonde. It may be the result of people using the description of the actor who plays Draco in order to describe him. > 3. Many of the fics talk about 'glamour spells'--are they fanfic-created or in canon? I > cannot remember ever reading about a glamour spell.. though they sounds like a brilliant > idea of course.s Celoneth: In GoF, Hermione uses a hair potion when she goes to the Yule Ball, so it may stem from there? There's also a spell to modify teeth size when Hermione gets buckteeth & Madam Pomfrey shrinks them. I don't recall specific glamour spells, though it makes sense for them to exist. > > 4. They also talk about 'wards' being around premises -- kind of like protective spells to > keep others out. I KNOW there are such spells in canon but where are they described as > 'wards'? Celoneth: I don't recall them being called "wards" but there are references to enchantments being put around houses. There's a bunch of references to the types of protections Hogwarts and other magical buildings have - being unplottable, spells that make Muggles not see the building or remember an urgent appointment. (I believe the references are in PS & the beginning of GoF [when they're at the Quidditch match]) There's also the spells that Hermione puts around the tent when they're camping in DH. & DD mentions that most wizarding homes have protections from unwanted Apparators (HBP UK version p. 62). hope this helps Celoneth From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Nov 6 15:42:19 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:42:19 -0000 Subject: eye colour and other queries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sharon: > 1. Harry's eye colour is always described as a deep green (or jade or emerald etc). I > remember them being described as 'green' but where did this unusual 'absinthe in flames' > kind of colour come from? That doesn't even seem like a 'real' eye colour to me. Magpie: Bright green in canon. Fanfic authors take it from there. Sharon: > > 2. Draco's eyes are always descibed as grey (my favourite is 'full- moon-over-the-water' > LOL). I don't remember Draco's eyes ever being described in canon at all, though I possibly > wasn't paying attention. Magpie: Definitely grey in canon, though I can't remember the quote. They're cold and grey like Lucius' eyes. Sharon: > 3. Many of the fics talk about 'glamour spells'--are they fanfic- created or in canon? I > cannot remember ever reading about a glamour spell.. though they sounds like a brilliant > idea of course.s Magpie: Glamour spells come from outside canon. As I've always understood and used it it's not a spell that makes you glamourous (in case that's what you thought) it's a spell that changes your appearance. It can make you more beautiful--make-up was I think sometimes put down as witchcraft because it was "glamoury." But originally the word I think just meant "enchantment" or "witchery." Sharon: > > 4. They also talk about 'wards' being around premises -- kind of like protective spells to > keep others out. I KNOW there are such spells in canon but where are they described as > 'wards'? Magpie: Nope. Nobody says wards in canon, surprisingly. It comes from other sources. -m From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 15:47:21 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:47:21 -0000 Subject: Formatting (Was: Why Rowling should not have outed DD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > bboyminn: > > First you can correct Tonks original Post by switching the > View of your browser's Character Encoding to Unicode(UTF-8). > > First, if you are using MS-Outlook for your email program, > it is probably set to use MS-Word to compose messages, > further MS-Word is probably set to match single and double > quote marks into pair. Your keyboard only has right hand > single and double quote ( ' " ), MS-Word has a formating > option to automatically switch match pairs of quote from > generic marks to matching left leaning and right leaning > marks. These left and right quote marks are from a > different part of the character set than the standard > generic marks. Consequently, they do not display properly. > > You can avoid this by setting the Options in MS-Word to > not automatically format quotes into matching pairs. > Tonks: My brower is set for the UTF-8. I do use Word to compose and then I cut and paste to the list. Are the quote marks the only problem? It drives me crazy when it puts the quotes upside down like that, but I never knew what to do about it. Can I change the formatting just for that or will it throw other things off? Tonks_op From n2fgc at arrl.net Tue Nov 6 17:24:53 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:24:53 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: eye colour and other queries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0JR3007RYHQ4KFV0@mta3.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> If this is any help, I found text in Chapter 23 of DH describing Lucius with gray eyes. There is a sentence which might help which reads: "Harry saw Draco's face up close now, right beside his father's. They were extraordinarily alike, except that while his father looked beside himself with excitement, Draco's expression was full of reluctance, even fear." I know I have seen other refs to Draco with gray eyes, but this was the first instance working backward that I could find. Not that Draco's eye color is specifically stated, but the fact that he and his father looked much alike leads me to the gray-eye thing. Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 17:32:11 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:32:11 -0000 Subject: Formatting (Was: Why Rowling should not have outed DD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > I agree with your point completely, but I'm quoting it for > > a different reason. The post is hard to read because Yahoo > > has mangled it. > > > > The only way I know to prevent Yahoo from treating > > apostrophes and asterisks as if they were some sort of > > indecipherable code is to post from the list. I vaguely > > remember, though, a suggestion posted to this list for > > avoiding this kind of garbling in messages ... > > bboyminn: > > First you can correct Tonks original Post by switching the View of your browser's Character Encoding to Unicode(UTF-8). > > Using SeaMonkey/Mozilla, from the menu, select > > [View] [Character Encoding] [Unicode(UTF-8)] > > So, usually these characters creep in for one of a couple of reasons. > Carol responds: Whoa! I never dreamed that it was my browser settings. I thought that everyone was seeing the @#*^ (or whatever) that I was seeing. I don't know about Sea Monkey/Mozilla, but I corrected the problem by going to character encoding on the View menu in Netscape. (I thought the problem originated with the composition of the message since most messages don't appear that way.) So now that I have the browser set to Unicode UTF-8, will I be able to view, say, Greek or Russian characters or even Chinese in a Yahoo post or e-mail message? (Not that I could read them, but I could at least transliterate the Greek). How about pronunciation symbols from online dictionaries? Carol, simultaneously happy and humiliated to learn something so basic after all these years From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 18:11:32 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:11:32 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Del wrote: > Let me be clear: many (most?) people who have a problem of any kind with homosexuality do NOT condone or support harrassing, attacking, or in any other way actively victimising gays. Saying "they have a problem with homosexuality, so they belong in the same category as those who would have all gays killed or who think that God hates gays" is WRONG, and yes, bigoted and prejudiced IMO. Carol responds: Exactly. Thinking that something is wrong for whatever reason (and the reasons aren't always related to religion--I suspect that the prevalence of AIDS among male homosexuals is another such reason, or perhaps the belief that same-sex love is one thing and same-sex sexual activity another) is not at all the same thing as hating and attacking homosexual men or lesbians. It's like saying that all of the millions of fundamentalist Christians and other moral conservatives who oppose abortion bomb abortion clinics. Only a tiny minority of those who believe that abortion is wrong would resort to murder to punish the "sinners" who perform or receive abortions. Even if abortion is murder (and I'm not expressing my own beliefs here), committing additional murders is not the way to stop it. Two wrongs (in the case of bombing abortion clinics, a grievous wrong) don't make a right. But *believing* that abortion or homosexuality or the death penalty or whatever is wrong is a matter of opinion. And we all have the right to hold and to express our opinions, so long as we don't engage in insults or namecalling. We can't force others to share our views by labeling other people's views as wrong or bigoted or intolerant or immoral. Neither side will persuade the other by hurting the others' feelings. I caught a bit of a news report the other day about people objecting to a guest speaker who claimed to have been "cured" of homosexuality. I didn't catch the whole story or the man's name so I can't provide any details, but surely that man has the right to speak and be listened to even by people who think that homosexuality is inborn, so the man must be "wrong" about his own experiences? Whatever happened to freedom of speech or to true tolerance, the willingness to listen to ideas we find repugnant (and I'm not talking about proposals to murder those we disagree with or bring down governments we oppose, only beliefs and opinions that conflict with our own)? And to Susan: No one on this list has said that you don't have every right to love your partner. Of course you do. From a Christian perspective (and I'm only an ex-Episcopalian, so I'm not speaking for myself exactly), we should all love one another, including those we disagree with. Carol, trying to play peacemaker and understanding why her mother used to tell her never to talk about sex, religion, or politics (a rule my mother now breaks rather frequently herself with regard to the latter two items) :-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 18:22:12 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:22:12 -0000 Subject: eye colour and other queries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sharon" wrote: > > I posted on the main HP list about eye colour and then thought it might be a bit off topic--or could easily GET off topic. > > 2. Draco's eyes are always descibed as grey (my favourite is 'full-moon-over-the-water' LOL). I don't remember Draco's eyes ever being described in canon at all, though I possibly wasn't paying attention. Carol responds: I thought sure that someone would provide the exact quotation by now, but apparently not. Here goes: "The man who followed could only be Draco's father. He had the same pale, pointed face and identical cold, gray eyes" CoS Am. ed. 50). In case you have the Bloomsbury edition, it's in chapter 4, "At Flourish and Blotts," a few pages into the chapter. (Harry is hiding in the cabinet in Borgin and Burkes). BTW, the Bloomsbury edition probably spells the eye color as "grey," but in the American edition, it's "gray." Carol, who frequently has to change "grey" to "gray" in American manuscripts and wishes she didn't have to because she likes "grey" better From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 18:52:04 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:52:04 -0000 Subject: Formatting (Was: Why Rowling should not have outed DD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: bboyminn: > > > > First you can correct Tonks original Post by switching the View of your browser's Character Encoding to Unicode(UTF-8). > > > > First, if you are using MS-Outlook for your email program, it is probably set to use MS-Word to compose messages, further MS-Word is probably set to match single and double quote marks into pair. MS-Word has a formating option to automatically switch match pairs of quote from generic marks to matching left leaning and right leaning marks. These left and right quote marks are from a different part of the character set than the standard generic marks. Consequently, they do not display properly. > > > > You can avoid this by setting the Options in MS-Word to not automatically format quotes into matching pairs. > > > > Tonks: > My brower is set for the UTF-8. I do use Word to compose and then I cut and paste to the list. Are the quote marks the only problem? It drives me crazy when it puts the quotes upside down like that, but I never knew what to do about it. Can I change the formatting just for that or will it throw other things off? > Carol: Hi, Tonks. If you temporarily set your browser to Western (ISO-8859-1) and go back to the original post, you'll see how the post looked to me before I set my own browser to Unicode to view it correctly. It was mostly the apostrophes that were affected. I can't duplicate the way they looked, but it was something like "aCTM," with a circumflex (a symbol like an upside-down v) over the "a" and two little crossmarks (like the crossing of a lowercase "t") through the capital "C." The TM was a superscript like the symbol for "trademark." Hard to read, as you can imagine. If you prefer to cut and paste from Word rather just typing your posts onlist (as I do), it might be a good idea to turn off all automatic formatting, which you can do using the Tools menu. (You can always turn the features you want back on again if you're using Word for some other purpose.) I'm not sure, but I think that Steve is talking about the "change straight quotes to smart [curly] quotes" feature. I didn't find an option for keeping single quotes together. (Steve, please correct me if I'm wrong. I have Word 2000 and the newer versions may be different.) Carol, now wondering if she should change the default setting on her browser to Unicode but deciding against it for the moment From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 18:58:56 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:58:56 -0000 Subject: Formatting - Unicode UTF-8 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > > > First you can correct Tonks original Post by switching the > > View of your browser's Character Encoding to Unicode(UTF-8). > > > > First, if you are using MS-Outlook for your email program, > > it is probably set to use MS-Word to compose messages, > > further MS-Word is probably set to match single and double > > quote marks into pair. ... > > > > You can avoid this by setting the Options in MS-Word to > > not automatically format quotes into matching pairs. > > > > Tonks: > My brower is set for the UTF-8. I do use Word to compose and > then I cut and paste to the list. Are the quote marks the only > problem? It drives me crazy when it puts the quotes upside > down like that, but I never knew what to do about it. Can I > change the formatting just for that or will it throw other > things off? > > Tonks_op > bboyminn: In MS-Word (2000), - go to the [Format] menu - select [Autoformat...] - in the new window that appears, select [Options] - in the next window that appears, in the [Replace] options, UNCheck - ... [X] Straight Quotes with Smart Quote - Also, you might want to UNCheck - ... [X] *Bold* and _Italics_ with Real Formatting Also, near the bottom of that window, you will find the option - Always Autoformat ... [X] Plain text WordMail documents For those using MS-Word as the editor for MS-Outlook, this option should be UNChecked. Unless you are composing manuscripts, you shouldn't really need to change straight quotes to left and right quotes. For most general correspondences, straight quotes are fine. It also seems that UTF-8 is frequently found on UNIX/LINUX computers. For those who are interested, here is a source of many UNICODE fonts...Arabic, Asian, Greek, and even Braille. http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/fonts.html For general Unicode information from the same source http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/ And information specifically on Unicode UTF-8 http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/unicode.html For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 19:25:57 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:25:57 -0000 Subject: Formatting (Was: Why Rowling should not have outed DD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "Carol" wrote: > > Carol earlier: > > > > I agree with your point completely, but I'm quoting it for > > > a different reason. The post is hard to read because Yahoo > > > has mangled it. > > > > > > The only way I know to prevent Yahoo from treating > > > apostrophes and asterisks as if they were some sort of > > > indecipherable code is to post from the list. I vaguely > > > remember, though, a suggestion posted to this list for > > > avoiding this kind of garbling in messages ... > > > > bboyminn: > > > > First you can correct Tonks original Post by switching the > > View of your browser's Character Encoding to Unicode(UTF-8). > > > > Using SeaMonkey/Mozilla, from the menu, select > > > > [View] [Character Encoding] [Unicode(UTF-8)] > > > > So, usually these characters creep in for one of a couple of > > reasons. > > > Carol responds: > > Whoa! I never dreamed that it was my browser settings. I > thought that everyone was seeing the @#*^ (or whatever) that > I was seeing. I don't know about Sea Monkey/Mozilla, but I > corrected the problem by going to character encoding on the > View menu in Netscape. ... > bboyminn: Netscape???? If you are using a Netscape browser it must be ancient. SeaMonkey from Mozilla is the new modern replacement for Netscape. Note, the standard Mozilla browser has been broken apart into two applications Firefox Browser (v2.0.0.9) and Thunderbird Emai (v2.0.0.6) both good programs, and both installed on my computer. For the record you are MUCH MUCH better off using Thunderbird than you are using MS-Outlook. Nearly all email viruses exploit weakness in the Outlook email program. Personally, I prefer the fully integrated (browser/email/chat) Mozilla SeaMonkey, and it is the ideal replacement for Netscape. I just downloaded the current version (v1.1.6) and it was 13Mb. For an integrated browser that is not really that large a program. > Carol: > So now that I have the browser set to Unicode UTF-8, will I > be able to view, say, Greek or Russian characters or even > Chinese in a Yahoo post or e-mail message? (Not that I could > read them, but I could at least transliterate the Greek). How > about pronunciation symbols from online dictionaries? > > Carol, bboyminn: Actually, if you look in detail at the View - Character Encoding menu, you will find that Chinese, Greek, Russian, etc... all have their own character encodings. Keep in mind their is a difference between Character Encoding and Fonts, you can have either one without the other. For example, I have Korean Character Encoding available, but did not have a Korean Font installed, so I couldn't view emails that come from Korea. WinXP does have an Eastern Asian group of fonts that I installed, and now I can see my Korean emails. It's confusing, and beyond what I've said I don't think I can explain the difference between Character Encoding and Fonts much better than I have. To see if you have Chinese Fonts on your computer, try going to the Wikipedia front page. http://www.wikipedia.org/ The third language down on the left side is Chinese (or it could be Japanese), if you see Chinese characters then you have the fonts. If not Wikipedia will likely prompt you to download those font. I think it actually has the fonts available and will auto download them if you allow it. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From oneel at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 20:01:31 2007 From: oneel at yahoo.com (Tania Canedo) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:01:31 -0000 Subject: anyone interested in a online chat about HP? Message-ID: Hiya guys, just wondering if anyone was interested in an online chat about HP and Spirtuality! Would be awsome! From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Nov 6 20:23:40 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:23:40 -0000 Subject: Formatting (Was: Why Rowling should not have outed DD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Carol responds: > > > > Whoa! I never dreamed that it was my browser settings. I > > thought that everyone was seeing the @#*^ (or whatever) that > > I was seeing. I don't know about Sea Monkey/Mozilla, but I > > corrected the problem by going to character encoding on the > > View menu in Netscape. ... Potioncat: You aren't crazy, I saw it too. Oh, maybe I have the wrong browswer? > > > > bboyminn: > > Netscape???? If you are using a Netscape browser it must be > ancient. SeaMonkey from Mozilla is the new modern replacement > for Netscape. Potioncat: Steve, LPs are ancient. HiFi's are ancient. Netscape is very modern. And I shudder to think what would happen if I dumped a bowl of seamonkeys on my modem. That is, if I could figure out what my modem is or where I keep it. >BBoy continues > Note, the standard Mozilla browser has been broken apart into > two applications Firefox Browser (v2.0.0.9) and Thunderbird > Emai (v2.0.0.6) both good programs, and both installed on > my computer. For the record you are MUCH MUCH better off using > Thunderbird than you are using MS-Outlook. Nearly all email > viruses exploit weakness in the Outlook email program. > Potioncat: Thunderbird! Now you're talking! That's my song "We'll have fun fun fun now that Daddy took the Tbird away..." From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Nov 6 20:27:02 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:27:02 -0000 Subject: anyone interested in a online chat about HP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tania Canedo" wrote: > > > > Hiya guys, just wondering if anyone was interested in an online chat > about HP and Spirtuality! Would be awsome! > Potioncat: You might ask if this is something you can post at the HPfGU announcement site: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Announcements/?yguid=138228949 You might get more response there. I think this would be a very interesting discussion, but can't commit the time at present. I might be able to do a survey. From oneel at yahoo.com Tue Nov 6 20:37:49 2007 From: oneel at yahoo.com (Tania Canedo) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:37:49 -0000 Subject: anyone interested in a online chat about HP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >... I might be able to do a survey. That'd be great. Thank you very much. From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Tue Nov 6 22:47:59 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 08:47:59 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: eye colour and other queries Message-ID: <20071107084759.CVS34293@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Celoneth: I don't remember any reference to his eyes It may be the result of people using the description of the actor who plays Draco in order to describe him. Sharon: I think Tom Felton's eyes are blue actually, but you may be right there. Celoneth: In GoF, Hermione uses a hair potion when she goes to the Yule Ball, so it may stem from there? There's also a spell to modify teeth size when Hermione gets buckteeth & Madam Pomfrey shrinks them. I don't recall specific glamour spells, though it makes sense for them to exist. Sharon: yes it would seem that there are such spells, I just never heard them called "glamour" spells. Celoneth: I don't recall them being called "wards" but there are references to enchantments being put around houses. Sharon: yes, again you are right about enchantments. Hermione uses them all through DH when she's protecting their campsites. But I never really think they were called "wards" Thanks so much for your help. Potioncat, thanks to you also :-) Sharon [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Tue Nov 6 22:54:52 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 08:54:52 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: eye colour and other queries Message-ID: <20071107085452.CVS34928@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Carol responds: I thought sure that someone would provide the exact quotation by now, but apparently not. Here goes: "The man who followed could only be Draco's father. He had the same pale, pointed face and identical cold, gray eyes" CoS Am. ed. 50). Sharon: Brilliant! Thanks for that. Carol: In case you have the Bloomsbury edition, it's in chapter 4, "At Flourish and Blotts," a few pages into the chapter. (Harry is hiding in the cabinet in Borgin and Burkes). BTW, the Bloomsbury edition probably spells the eye color as "grey," but in the American edition, it's "gray." Sharon: yes I have the Bloomsbury edition, and it is spelled "grey". I have never seen it spelled "gray" so obviously that's American spelling. Here in Australia we tend to follow UK spelling for the most part. "Gray" just looks like it's spelled wrong, like a lot of my students who tend to spell words phonetically. LOL. Thanks for your help, Sharon [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 6 23:17:39 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 23:17:39 -0000 Subject: eye colour and other queries In-Reply-To: <20071107085452.CVS34928@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes wrote: Sharon: > "Gray" just looks like it's spelled wrong, It is. It's these awkward Americans.... From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 00:14:59 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:14:59 -0000 Subject: It's a grey area... Was: Re: eye colour and other queries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol, who frequently has to change "grey" to "gray" in American > manuscripts and wishes she didn't have to because she likes "grey" better > Aw, go on. Leave the E in. You know you want to. Annemehr, who can afford to go for style over stylebooks because her job's not at stake From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 02:38:05 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:38:05 -0000 Subject: Formatting (Was: Why Rowling should not have outed DD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > bboyminn: > > Netscape???? If you are using a Netscape browser it must be > ancient. SeaMonkey from Mozilla is the new modern replacement > for Netscape. > Carol responds: Actually, I'm most comfortable in good old Netscape 7.2 but I sometimes use Netscape 9. I have Firefox installed but never use it. Why switch to something unfamiliar when you're comfortable where you are? The only time I use I.E (which I hate) is for downloads from the Microsoft site (updates to Microsoft programs) or any Microsofr-related site that won't work with Netscape. Seriously, I like netscape 7.2 and am comfortable with it. I hate all the complicated "improvements" in other browsers. > Note, the standard Mozilla browser has been broken apart into > two applications Firefox Browser (v2.0.0.9) and Thunderbird > Emai (v2.0.0.6) both good programs, and both installed on > my computer. For the record you are MUCH MUCH better off using > Thunderbird than you are using MS-Outlook. Nearly all email > viruses exploit weakness in the Outlook email program. Carol: I can't use Thunderbird e-mail because I have web-based e-mail (MSN). I got tech support to configure Outlook Express for my e-mail account, but I don't think it can be done in Thunderbird or Eudora or any other program I'm familiar with. The only other option that will work with my account is Hotmail, which I hate but use when I'm not at home. > Steve: > Personally, I prefer the fully integrated (browser/email/chat) > Mozilla SeaMonkey, and it is the ideal replacement for > Netscape. I just downloaded the current version (v1.1.6) and > it was 13Mb. For an integrated browser that is not really > that large a program. Carol: Hm. I don't do much chat and I'm happy with my e-mail and my browser. If there's a free integrated e-mail program I might check it out. > > > Carol: > > So now that I have the browser set to Unicode UTF-8, will I > > be able to view, say, Greek or Russian characters or even > > Chinese in a Yahoo post or e-mail message? (Not that I could > > read them, but I could at least transliterate the Greek). How > > about pronunciation symbols from online dictionaries? > > > > Carol, > > bboyminn: > > Actually, if you look in detail at the View - Character > Encoding menu, you will find that Chinese, Greek, Russian, > etc... all have their own character encodings. > > Keep in mind their is a difference between Character Encoding > and Fonts, you can have either one without the other. > > For example, I have Korean Character Encoding available, but > did not have a Korean Font installed, so I couldn't view > emails that come from Korea. WinXP does have an Eastern > Asian group of fonts that I installed, and now I can see > my Korean emails. It's confusing, and beyond what I've said > I don't think I can explain the difference between > Character Encoding and Fonts much better than I have. > > To see if you have Chinese Fonts on your computer, try > going to the Wikipedia front page. > > http://www.wikipedia.org/ Carol: "Front page" or "font page"? I *know* I have Chinese fonts on my computer because I edited a manuscript that included quotations in Chinese characters. Of course, I edited only the English portions. I had a terrible time doing the final spell check. I think I should have set the program to ignore all Chinese characters but I didn't know how. It took me about twelve hours to do that bleeping spell check! > > The third language down on the left side is Chinese (or it > could be Japanese), if you see Chinese characters then you > have the fonts. If not Wikipedia will likely prompt you to > download those font. I think it actually has the fonts > available and will auto download them if you allow it. > > For what it's worth. > > Steve/bboyminn > Carol: I don't want to download the fonts. I just want to be able to copy and paste Greek or Russian characters if the need arises, or be able to read them if I receive them in an e-mail message (which has happened on occasion). Carol, who has been contemplating putting some Russian Harry Potter excerpts into Babelfish to see how it translates them--my eccentric idea of fun, you know--only I didn't have the Russian text to do it From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Nov 7 02:55:35 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:55:35 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: said Susan> > > but I will tell you with 100% surety that no one > > chooses the person with whom they fall in love. said Del> > True believers don't choose what they believe either. > > Del > But that's just the point, Del..one CAN control what one believes, and one can control what one DOES..... Carol, I understand that you're trying to be nice, and you're a nice person... So, when my son gets people who make slanted eyes at him on the playground and imitate guttural Chinese sounds , I should say, oh well, some people think Chinese people are unintelligible and everyone should learn English and the only Americans are European Americans....never mind? Shall we say, well, the highest incidence of AIDS is now in Africa, that just goes to show that the dark races are uncivilized, ignorant and have less intelligence...and that kind of belief is okay as long as I state that my views are supported by the Bible? Nope, I don't buy it. I wish for all of you who can't see the immense harm you do by your antiquated attitudes never end up with a child or a grandchild who is gay or lesbian...and realize suddenly what harm ignorant and bigoted thoughts and attitudes do. I appreciate your responding to me, Carol, but what doesn't seem to be coming across is this isn't an intellectual exercise..this is MY life, and the life of tens of thousands of people like me..of course my feelings are hurt, and I am outraged... I'm not trying to change your mind right now - frankly, I think in the case of some people on this list, that would be an impossible task..but I will NOT be silent while people continue to make comments that I know to be wrong, immoral, and bigoted... So, if you don't want to hear it, please feel free to delete my posts without reading them. Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 03:18:47 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 03:18:47 -0000 Subject: It's a grey area... Was: Re: eye colour and other queries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol, who frequently has to change "grey" to "gray" in American > > manuscripts and wishes she didn't have to because she likes "grey" > better > > > > Aw, go on. Leave the E in. You know you want to. > > Annemehr, who can afford to go for style over stylebooks because her job's not at stake > Carol: Unfortunately for my spelling preferences, my job *is* at stake. You follows the publisher's preferred style, miss, or you doesn't get any more projects and you goes without galleons. :-( I'll spell the word as "grey" in private correspondence or in posts, but in manuscripts edited for American publishers, it has to be "gray" (the preferred spelling in Merriam Webster's), which at least has the virtue of being spelled as it sounds. ("Greyhound" is spelled with an "e," though, oddly enough.) No doubt Noah Webster, who took the "u" out of "colour," is responsible. Didn't George Orwell try to do something similar with British spelling, or did he just try to reduce the vocabulary to "Basic English"? Carol, too lazy to look up Orwell's plans for improving the language right now but hoping someone is familiar with the subject From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 06:47:16 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 06:47:16 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susanmcgee wrote: > But that's just the point, Del..one CAN > control what one believes, Del replies: I flatly disagree. People believe things for a reason. As long as that reason is there, the beliefs cannot be modified, ie people can't control them. One can work on changing the reason behind the beliefs, either in oneself or in others, but one cannot simply decide what to believe. It wouldn't be *belief* if it could be modified at will. After all, don't YOU *believe* that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, and don't you *believe* that people who think otherwise are wrong? Could YOU modify those beliefs just because someone else told you you should? If not, then why do you expect other people to do just that? > and one can control what one DOES..... This I agree with, but then I don't think anyone on this list disagreed with that anyway. > So, when my son gets people who make > slanted eyes at him on the playground > and imitate guttural Chinese sounds, > I should say, oh well, some people think > Chinese people are unintelligible and > everyone should learn English and the only > Americans are European Americans....never mind? Here you go again, not listening to us but choosing to associate people who believe certain things but don't ACTIVELY hurt other people, with people who DO hurt actively hurt other people. Can you please stop making such unfair, unjust and unwarranted associations? > Shall we say, well, the highest incidence > of AIDS is now in Africa, that just goes to > show that the dark races are uncivilized, > ignorant and have less intelligence... and > that kind of belief is okay as long as I > state that my views are supported by the Bible? > > Nope, I don't buy it. Who assigned you Thought Police Officer? If you want to live in a country where people are not allowed to think whatever they want and say so, then move out of America. I personally don't agree with the above belief, but from what I understand American people have the RIGHT to hold it and defend it if they so wish. > I wish for all of you who can't see the > immense harm you do by your antiquated > attitudes never end up with a child or a > grandchild who is gay or lesbian... and > realize suddenly what harm ignorant and > bigoted thoughts and attitudes do. And I hope YOUR kids never end up believing in a God who doesn't approve of homosexuality. > I appreciate your responding to me, Carol, > but what doesn't seem to be coming across is > this isn't an intellectual exercise..this is > MY life, and the life of tens of thousands of > people like me..of course my feelings are hurt, > and I am outraged... And I am getting seriously annoyed by the way you dismiss people's personal beliefs and complexities in favour of a black-and-white and morally totalitarian worldview. Believe it or not, but people who have a problem with homosexuality are REAL people too, not mindless and heartless robots. > I will NOT be silent while people continue to > make comments that I know to be wrong, immoral, > and bigoted... Well then, I'm sure you'll understand when some other people decry YOUR comments as wrong, immoral and/or bigoted. Let me repeat the bottom line of it all: WHO ASSIGNED YOU AS THOUGHT POLICE OFFICER??? Del From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 7 07:31:59 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:31:59 -0000 Subject: It's a grey area... Was: Re: eye colour and other queries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Carol: > I'll spell the word as "grey" in private correspondence or in posts, > but in manuscripts edited for American publishers, it has to be "gray" > (the preferred spelling in Merriam Webster's), which at least has the > virtue of being spelled as it sounds. ("Greyhound" is spelled with an > "e," though, oddly enough.) > > No doubt Noah Webster, who took the "u" out of "colour," is > responsible. Geoff: Now I know who to blame for one of my favourite beefs about spelling differences. Like many UK speakers, I pronounce words like 'colour' differently to the way I would if it lacked the 'u'. Carol: > Didn't George Orwell try to do something similar with > British spelling, or did he just try to reduce the vocabulary to > "Basic English"? Geoff: Without looking things up, I have a feeling you *may* be confusing him with George Bernard Shaw who had a bee in his bonnet about reforming spelling. ISTR that he left money in his will to pursue this. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 14:37:14 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:37:14 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > Let me repeat the bottom line of it all: > > WHO ASSIGNED YOU AS THOUGHT POLICE OFFICER??? > > Del ***Katie, butting back into this conversation after a week's breather: And who assigned you? I don't think that it's fair to say that Susan is being bigoted because she is offended and hurt by some pretty insensitive and insulting comments about gay people. Saying that you believe in a God that is offended by homosexuality is a pretty controversial comment, and it seems designed to offend and provoke. Especially for people, like myself, that believe in God AND in tolerance. When you say provoking things, people will respond. Isn't that what you're trying to get us to do? I am not saying that the pro-gay people who have resonded to you haven't said some provoking things back, but isn't that kind of the idea of this conversation? We disagree and we are trying to make the other people understand the point? As I have read both your and Susan's posts, you are both trying to get your points across and you are both pretty angry. Susan's position isn't any more controversial than is yours, and I think you need to see that. She's making her point and you are making yours. It's just that you both disagree with each other intensely. For the record...I don't think it's any better to say, "I disapprove of homosexuality, but it's not okay to deny them jobs, housing, or medical care...etc." than it is to just be openly prejudiced and bigoted against them. Tolerating those kinds of belief systems are what opens the door to ACTS of bigotry. It's just a lesser form of it. Just my .02, Katie From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 15:28:21 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:28:21 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Katie wrote: > And who assigned you? Del answers: I'm not the one arguing that some people *have* to change their beliefs. > I don't think that it's fair to say that > Susan is being bigoted because she is > offended and hurt by some pretty insensitive > and insulting comments about gay people. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you arguing that she's allowed to say bigoted things because she's hurt? > Saying that you believe in a God that is > offended by homosexuality is a pretty > controversial comment, and it seems designed > to offend and provoke. Controversial, I understand. But "designed to offend and provoke"? No, I don't see it. > Especially for people, like myself, that > believe in God AND in tolerance. I do too. I guess we don't understand the concept of tolerance in the same way, though. > When you say provoking things, people will > respond. Isn't that what you're trying > to get us to do? Go tell that to Susan, she's the one who started it. I only started posting on this thread after she nearly slandered me in a post of hers. > I am not saying that the pro-gay people > who have resonded to you haven't said some > provoking things back, but isn't that kind of the > idea of this conversation? We disagree and we > are trying to make the other people understand > the point? Except that Susan has pretty much admitted that she's not interested in understanding other people's points. She's already decided that they are wrong if they don't think like her, and she's just going to keep repeating it over and over again. > As I have read both your and Susan's posts, > you are both trying to get your points across > and you are both pretty angry. I'm not angry, I'm irritated. I hate being "taught" about tolerance by intolerant people. "You must let me say what I want, but I don't want you to say what you want" is NOT tolerance. > For the record...I don't think it's any better > to say, "I disapprove of homosexuality, but > it's not okay to deny them jobs, housing, or > medical care...etc." than it is to just be > openly prejudiced and bigoted against them. > Tolerating those kinds of belief systems are > what opens the door to ACTS of bigotry. It's > just a lesser form of it. OK, so *what* would you have people who hold those beliefs DO? Not exist? Deny their own beliefs? Go through some brain-washing treatment to adopt the current PC beliefs? What?? Del From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 7 15:28:42 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:28:42 -0000 Subject: Daniel Radcliffe - My Boy Jack Message-ID: Geoff: If you're a Dan fan you may like to know that "My Boy Jack" goes out on UK channel ITV1 next Sunday at 21:00 GMT, lasting for two hours. I got next week's copy of the "Radio Times" today which has a diary kept by Dan as a main article plus scenes from the TV film. There are some production shots available online at: www.radiotimes.com/my-boy-jack It's also due out on DVD on 19/11/07. Amazon.co.uk are offering it although I wonder whether it will be available for US regions? From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 15:42:32 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:42:32 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Del replies: > With a name like Parvati Patil, would it be > surprising that Parvati would turn out to be Hindu? > No it wouldn't. Someone reading the name "Parvati > Patil" would necessarily be aware that she might > very well be Hindu. No such thing about DD being gay > though: not only is he never hinted at as being gay, > but *nobody else* in the entire WW is either! Until > JKR said otherwise in an interview, there was simply > NO gay characters in her books. None whatsoever. And > thus no reason to expect DD to be gay. lizzyben: She could be any religion - it's implied that she could be Hindu, but then it's also arguably implied that DD could be gay. I thought it was very heavily implied in DH's description of the DD/GG relationship. But you're ducking my essential point. If someone really disagrees w/Hinduism, & doesn't like hearing that a character is Hindu or Jewish, etc., do they have the right to demand that JKR remove all Hindu characters from her series? No, IMO. But you seem to be saying that JKR should conform to people who don't agree w/homosexuality by removing any reference to a gay character. To be consistent, you'd also have to support muzzling any opinion or character that could possibly offend someone else. Del: > Then why didn't she actually DO that? Why didn't > she *write* DD as gay? Why didn't she have him SAY, > in the books, "I was in love with GG"? lizzyben: Because she didn't have the - what's the word? - courage. She knew the outcry & hysteria it would cause among conservatives if she made it explicit in the novels. So she waited till the interviews to clarifify things. Of course, if she HAD explicitly put it in the books, those same people would still be just as upset - if not more so. I could see people saying, you should've just mentioned in an interview instead & kept it out of the book! Del: > Indeed. And in the case of inter-racial > relationships, and witchcraft, and women having a > job, she put her quill where her mouth is > But with homosexuality, JKR didn't do that at all. > Instead, she pretended, for 7 entire books, to not > want to tackle the issue of homosexuality, thus > pandering to the wishes of a whole category of > readers, and then once those readers had bought and > read the books, she introduced homosexuality out of > the blue. That's manipulative. lizzyben: She did the same thing with the Christianity aspect. She remained quiet about any possible Christian elements to the series until after DH was published. Then she announced that it was a Christian story all along. Yet it seems that religious conservatives embraced that announcement no problem, without calling it manipulative or dishonest. But when she announces that DD was gay, suddenly everyone is outraged about her interview statements. Basically, I just feel like many people aren't being honest about the real reason that they're upset. Del: > Nobody is asking JKR to not depict DD as gay. In > fact, it's precisely because she didn't do exactly > that, that there's now a problem. lizzyben: So if she'd shown DD reminiscing about his torrid love affair with Grindewald in DH, there wouldn't be a problem? It seems like many people are simply disagree w/homosexuality & don't like having any gay characters in the series. Wouldn't they have just as much of a problem with it if it'd been obvious in the book? Would you no longer have a problem with it if she'd explicitly depicted DD as gay in the novel? Del: > Except that this doesn't seem to be how *she* sees > things, judging from her interviews. When she says > "he's my character", it's clear that she doesn't > consider her words as just another "viewpoint", but > as truth. And when she says things like (paraphrase) > "I never doubted that a great wizard could be gay", > how can this not be construed as a direct moral > attack on those of her fans who don't want DD to be > gay? lizzyben: Because she does believe that a great or brilliant person could be gay. How is that a moral attack on anyone? JKR can say what she likes, but people are under no obligation to listen. The fans can keep shipping Neville/Luna no matter what she says. I can still think DD is evil, no matter how much she says he's good. I can still see Snape as a hero, even if she says that she doesn't see him that way. We're all free to form our own opinions - JKR is no one's boss. lizzyben: > > So, in the interest of tolerating other people's > > beliefs & opinions, she shouldn't express her own? Del: > Not after pandering to those people's beliefs and > opinions for 7 books, no, not IMO. I see this as > totally despicable. And in the books, NOBODY is gay and homosexuality doesn't even exist. That's the way > JKR wrote those books, and she needs to deal with > that now. lizzyben: I think JKR herself isn't as tolerant of homosexuality as she'd like to think. Interracial dating & working women were introduced with casual off-handness. Dean & Ginny are dating, and it's not a big deal. I wish homosexuality could've been treated the same way - Seamus & Zack are dating, and it's not a big deal. Instead, JKR made it a very Big Deal, that had to be hidden & announced, and causes major tragedy & melodrama to the gay character. But I can't even get to that deeper criticism, because the simple statement that DD is gay has caused such a firestorm of controvery. lizzyben: > > IMO tolerance extends to allowing everyone to > > have & express their own views - JKR is free to > > express her own opinions & beliefs, & readers are > > free to express how they disagree w/those beliefs. > > But neither has the right to silence the other. > > Except that she's trying to do just that: silence > those fans who are outraged at her revelation that > DD is gay. "He's my character" and "I never doubted > that great wizards can be gay" are both ways to tell > those outraged readers to get lost. Hence my protest. > > Del lizzyben: Has she silenced you? Has she silenced me? No. She's expressed her opinion of the character, and we are all free to offer own own opinions & beliefs. She's also called Harry/Ginny "soulmates" - maybe that could be interpreted as telling Harry/Hermione shippers to get lost, but they won't. They'll keep happily writing Harmonian fan fiction no matter what she says. I just don't like the idea that JKR should shut up so that she won't express any ideas or values that could possibly conflict with those of some readers. She should be allowed to express her own political opinions or religious values, just as you are free to express your own. If JKR wants to say that a character is gay, or Hindu, or an alien, she's got a total right to express that opinion. Just as outraged fans have a right to express their own disagreement. But NO ONE can force other people to conform with their own personal values. So IMO fans can't demand her silence or conformity to their own personal values. lizzyben From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 16:16:16 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:16:16 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Katie wrote: > > And who assigned you? > > Del answers: > I'm not the one arguing that some people > *have* to change their beliefs. ***Katie again: Although you *have* argued repeatedly that JKR should have left gay characters out of the books because it might offend someone. Implying that anyone ought to be quiet about their beliefs, whether in a book or on a Yahoo group, is the same. > >Katie: > > I don't think that it's fair to say that > > Susan is being bigoted because she is > > offended and hurt by some pretty insensitive > > and insulting comments about gay people. > > Del:I don't understand what you're trying to say > here. Are you arguing that she's allowed to > say bigoted things because she's hurt? > ***Katie again: Absolutely not! I don't believe she *is* saying anything bigoted. I think that her tone is angry and offended because she's hurt, and it's being read as bigoted. Having no tolerance for intolerance is not being bigoted. Having no tolerance for hate isn't being bigoted. I am not accusing you of being hateful, or bigoted, but IMO, your posts have definitely leaned on the side of intolerance. I think Susan feels personally attacked because she is gay (please correct me, Susan, if I am wrong), and she is defending herself and her community. I don't think that is bigoted, nor would I defend bigoted behavior. > >Katie: Saying that you believe in a God that is > > offended by homosexuality is a pretty > > controversial comment, and it seems designed > > to offend and provoke. > > Del: Controversial, I understand. But "designed to > offend and provoke"? No, I don't see it. ***Katie again: I can't go through every post and pick out certain things that I believe were designed to offend people...but the overall tone of your posts has been very offensive. As I tried to tell you before, if you are not trying to be offensive, maybe you should choose your words more carefully. I understand what it's like to have things come out wrong...it happens to me all the time! But I am very careful in posting that I choose my words to say exactly what I mean. And if it turns out that I haven't done that well, I try and correct it. <<>> > >Katie: For the record...I don't think it's any better > > to say, "I disapprove of homosexuality, but > > it's not okay to deny them jobs, housing, or > > medical care...etc." than it is to just be > > openly prejudiced and bigoted against them. > > Tolerating those kinds of belief systems are > > what opens the door to ACTS of bigotry. It's > > just a lesser form of it. > >Del: OK, so *what* would you have people who hold those > beliefs DO? Not exist? Deny their own beliefs? > Go through some brain-washing treatment to adopt > the current PC beliefs? What?? > > Del ***Katie again: It would be nice if bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance didn't exist, yes. I certainly would never say those people shouldn't exist, but their beliefs are foul and offensive to me. I will never understand how someone else's sexuality, skin color, ethnicity, religion...etc. can be morally offensive to another person, or threatening to their rights and way of life. I understand being comfortable with who you are and not wanting to change, but when that feeling turns into being offended by people that are different...that's loathsome to me. For example, I am comfortable being Catholic. I don't want to be Muslim or Jewish...but Judaism and Islam do not in any way offend or upset me. Nor do I believe that God sees Jews or Muslims any differently than he sees me. Any path to God is a good path, IMO. I feel the same way about sexuality. I'm not gay. I'm married and I have 2 kids. But my children's grandfather is gay. Does that impinge on my heterosexual way of life? No. So why should it upset anyone else?? No, I don't want people "adopting" some view that isn't their own. That's very disingenuous. What I *would* like is if those people would have a genuine change of heart and realize that gay people, or black people, or Muslim people, or whoever it is that they don't like, isn't a threat to them or their way of life. I wish bigotry would disappear. It makes me sad, pure and simple. Pulling this back to HP in some way, I would say that it just shows how right JKR was to talk about DD's sexuality if this is the reaction from the HP community. I was pretty bored with her and her endless interviews before, but now I see how much work there is left to do. If people who loved HP are going to now stop reading them because there is a gay character...I think those people missed the point. HP is in no way a perfect series, but it definitely makes the point about tolerance very clearly...and I just wonder why tolerance and acceptance suddenly stops when it comes to sexuality. Katie From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 16:27:34 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:27:34 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: lizzyben wrote: > She could be any religion - it's implied > that she could be Hindu, but then it's also > arguably implied that DD could be gay. I > thought it was very heavily implied in DH's > description of the DD/GG relationship. Del replies: I didn't. One reason for that is that I read it as an intellectual fascination, but another big reason is that JKR created a world in which homosexuality had never been mentioned as even possibly existing. > But you're ducking my essential point. If > someone really disagrees w/Hinduism, & doesn't > like hearing that a character is Hindu or > Jewish, etc., do they have the right to demand > that JKR remove all Hindu characters from her > series? No, IMO. But you seem to be saying that > JKR should conform to people who don't agree > w/homosexuality by removing any reference to > a gay character. No, that's not at all MY position. My position is that if she wanted DD to be gay, then she should have written him as gay in the books, instead of lamely outing him after the deal is done. > Because she didn't have the - what's the word? > - courage. She knew the outcry & hysteria it > would cause among conservatives if she made > it explicit in the novels. So she waited till > the interviews to clarifify things. Seems we agree on this point then: it was a very lame and coward way to handle things. > Of course, if she HAD explicitly put it in the > books, those same people would still be just > as upset - if not more so. I could see people > saying, you should've just mentioned in an > interview instead & kept it out of the book! Good point! Personally, I would probably be upset for the same reason I've already mentioned: because it doesn't square with the WW as she created it all through the first 6 books. Other than that... it's her books, she gets to write them, not me. She wrote quite a few things I dislike, but I don't argue that she had no right to write them. > She did the same thing with the Christianity > aspect. She remained quiet about any possible > Christian elements to the series until after > DH was published. Then she announced that it > was a Christian story all along. Yet it seems > that religious conservatives embraced that > announcement no problem, without calling it > manipulative or dishonest. Probably because for most Christians, it was just so OBVIOUS that her story was a Christian story. > Basically, I just feel like many people aren't > being honest about the real reason that they're > upset. I don't know about other people, but me I'm upset for two main reasons: 1- I think it was cowardly to out DD after the facts instead of writing him as gay in the books. 2- DD being gay is totally inconsistent with the strictly heterosexual WW she's created. So I feel like she's deliberately created a controversy just to make a point that I can't even figure out. Ugh. > So if she'd shown DD reminiscing about his > torrid love affair with Grindewald in DH, > there wouldn't be a problem? I'd have a problem with anyone's *torrid* love affair, as graphic sex never was the name of the HP game. And as I already mentioned, I'd be seriously bothered by the lack of consistency between a gay DD and a strictly heterosexual WW. But other than that, I would personally not have been seriously bothered, no. No more than by several other things in the HP books, at least. > I think JKR herself isn't as tolerant of > homosexuality as she'd like to think. > Interracial dating & working women were > introduced with casual off-handness. Dean > & Ginny are dating, and it's not a big deal. > I wish homosexuality could've been treated the > same way - Seamus & Zack are dating, and it's > not a big deal. Instead, JKR made it a very > Big Deal, that had to be hidden & announced, > and causes major tragedy & melodrama to the > gay character. But I can't even get to that > deeper criticism, because the simple statement > that DD is gay has caused such a firestorm of > controvery. But, but... This is EXACTLY what I've been talking about, what I've been saying is bothering me! > I just don't like the idea that JKR should shut > up so that she won't express any ideas or values > that could possibly conflict with those of some > readers. She should be allowed to express her own > political opinions or religious values, just as > you are free to express your own. In theory I agree, but in practice I still think that she went at it the wrong way. I don't want her to shut up, I only want her to show some respect and sensitivity and yes, courage, when addressing delicate issues. Is that too much to ask for? Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 16:36:03 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:36:03 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Katie wrote: > Although you *have* argued repeatedly that > JKR should have left gay characters out of > the books because it might offend someone. Del replies: No I haven't. In fact, I've repeatedly said that a big part of my problem is that she FAILED to write DD as gay in the books. > I can't go through every post and pick out > certain things that I believe were designed > to offend people...but the overall tone of > your posts has been very offensive. That's the way I feel about Susan's posts. > No, I don't want people "adopting" some view > that isn't their own. That's very disingenuous. > What I *would* like is if those people would > have a genuine change of heart OK, so in other words, you don't have any practical answer. You don't like the way it is, you don't think people should be the way they are, but you have no serious alternative to offer them. Well, you know what? That's exactly how most people who have a problem with homosexuality feel too. Welcome in their shoes. And if they are bigots, then so are you, since you refuse to let people act according to their conscience, even while failing to offer them a viable alternative. Del From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 16:51:13 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:51:13 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Katie said: Saying that you believe in a God that is offended by homosexuality is a pretty controversial comment, and it seems designed to offend and provoke. Tonks: I don???t think that Del said that SHE believed in this type of God. I read that as a general statement. And many people do believe in that type of God. I do not. But the people who do have to right to say so, here or anywhere else, at least in the U.S. Katie: For the record...I don't think it's any better to say, "I disapprove of homosexuality, but it's not okay to deny them jobs, housing, or medical care...etc." than it is to just be openly prejudiced and bigoted against them. Tolerating those kinds of belief systems are what opens the door to ACTS of bigotry. It's just a lesser form of it. Tonks: There is a BIG difference between having reservations about a subject, any subject, in this case homosexuality, and not believing that people should not be harmed or discriminated against. As a Democrat, I totally disagree with the Republican agenda, but I don???t think that Republicans should be doomed to hell, denied jobs or housing, etc. Are you saying that I must also think like a Republican? That is what you are implying here. Tonks_op From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 16:57:16 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:57:16 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Katie wrote: > > Although you *have* argued repeatedly that > > JKR should have left gay characters out of > > the books because it might offend someone. > > Del replies: > No I haven't. In fact, I've repeatedly said > that a big part of my problem is that she > FAILED to write DD as gay in the books. ***Katie again: Fair enough. I guess what I was referring to, and I phrased it poorly, was that you have argued that saying DD is gay has now offended some people who now don't want to read the books, and she shouldn't have done that. >Katie: > > I can't go through every post and pick out > > certain things that I believe were designed > > to offend people...but the overall tone of > > your posts has been very offensive. > > Del:That's the way I feel about Susan's posts. ***Katie again: I am sorry you feel that way. I think she feels she's in a defensive position and needs to defend herself and her beliefs. I don't speak for her, this is just my interpretation of her posts. I could be entirely wrong. > > >Katie: No, I don't want people "adopting" some view > > that isn't their own. That's very disingenuous. > > What I *would* like is if those people would > > have a genuine change of heart > > Del: OK, so in other words, you don't have any practical > answer. You don't like the way it is, you don't think > people should be the way they are, but you have no > serious alternative to offer them. Well, you know what? > That's exactly how most people who have a problem with > homosexuality feel too. Welcome in their shoes. > And if they are bigots, then so are you, since you > refuse to let people act according to their conscience, > even while failing to offer them a viable alternative. > > Del ***Katie: First of all, please refrain from calling me names, since I have not called you any. I have been very purposefully talking about *behaviors* and *beliefs*, NOT people. I have done no name-calling, and I would appreciate the same courtesy in return. I am not a bigot, and I didn't say these people should not act according to their conscience. I said that their conscience should change. That their consciences are misguided, IMO. Second of all, if you are going to quote someone, please don't cut them off mid-sentence and not even write that it's a snip. My full quote was: "No, I don't want people "adopting" some view that isn't their own.That's very disingenuous. What I *would* like is if those peoplewould have a genuine change of heart and realize that gay people, or black people, or Muslim people, or whoever it is that they don't like, isn't a threat to them or their way of life. I wish bigotry would disappear. It makes me sad, pure and simple." I don't feel there is a "viable alternative". You either see the light, or you don't, IMO. I wish more people believed in God. Is it my job to convince them of his existence?? I wish there wasn't war. Can I stop it? I wish people weren't bigoted. Is it my job to show them why they're wrong?? I'm trying right now! I've been trying to say for weeks that gay people are the same as stright, and that gay "lifestyles" aren't any different...etc. My point is, I think I'm allowed to wish that something didn't exist without solving the problem all by myself. I just wish that we all could stop throwing insults at each other and hear each other instead. I am trying to hear you. Please extend me the same. Katie From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 17:56:02 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:56:02 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40711070956i462f2baen67a9aa84719fb99f@mail.gmail.com> Del wrote: > I don't know about other people, but me I'm upset > for two main reasons: > > 1- I think it was cowardly to out DD after the facts > instead of writing him as gay in the books. > > 2- DD being gay is totally inconsistent with the > strictly heterosexual WW she's created. > > So I feel like she's deliberately created a > controversy just to make a point that I can't > even figure out. Ugh. montims: see, with regard to # 2 - that is where I cannot follow you. I cannot conceive of any society being "strictly heterosexual" in any place or time. So it stood to reason for me that a percentage of the WW was gay, even if it was not explicitely mentioned. And it is interesting to me to find out who is gay, so I hope she outs more characters as time goes by... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 18:26:22 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:26:22 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dell said: Personally, I would probably be upset for the same reason I've already mentioned: because it doesn't square with the WW as she created it all through the first 6 books. Tonks: I agree. The problem for me is that before OP there was a lot of talk among fans that Remus and Sirius were gay lovers. And even in the film, the ???you two are acting like an old married couple??? thing came up. I, and I suspect a lot of others, thought that when she paired Remus with Tonks that she was doing that to prevent people from reading any gay characters into the books. It would have been plausible for her to have made Remus and Sirius gay, I would not have had any problem with that personally. But she didn???t. And why? Well it seemed to me that she was saying in effect that she was not writing a modern story, but one with the social world of the past, say anything before the 1960???s. Maybe even the 1700-1800???s, given the way most of them dressed. Now suddenly she has changed the world in which HP is set. It just doesn???t fit with what she has written in the books, all other factors aside. lizzyben said: Because she does believe that a great or brilliant person could be gay. How is that a moral attack on anyone? Katie said: I will never understand how someone else's sexuality, skin color, ethnicity, religion...etc. can be morally offensive to another person, or threatening to their rights and way of life. Snip What I *would* like is if those people would have a genuine change of heart and realize that gay people, or black people, or Muslim people, or whoever it is that they don't like, isn't a threat to them or their way of life. Tonks: I suggest that you go to Yahoo Answers on any given night between 2am and 6am EST and read the post in Society and Culture under the subheading 'Religion and Spirituality'. You will get quite an eye opener and different view of things. There are many groups that are a "threat to our rights and way of life???. I no long post there because I was sent a very threating vidio. Ask me about the tolerant feelings that I have for that group of people now!! This is the major point of my being against DD being gay. There are parts of the world where nothing else from outside can get it, but the HP books have. These are parts of the world who are anti-gay, anti-women's right, even anti-left-handed (which I am). Could they use a lesson on tolerance? Very much so. Are they going to listen to a teacher that is gay? No. And this is the problem. This is why I am opposed to DD being gay. DD is the wise teacher, like a wise holy man. He is not a wise holy woman. Some people would not listen to a woman. And some people, the very people who need the teaching the most, will not listen to him because he is gay. Now from our liberal Western POV we can say "oh well, it is their lost". Problem is it is not just THEIR lost, it effects all of us.My objection to Rowlings statement as I have repeatedly said is because it was Stupid of her. She knew the reaction that would come, and she was not thinking about the political ramifications WORLD WIDE. She shot herself in the foot. If she hoped that her books would teach tolerance, she messed up. Because you can not teach anything to people who will not listen to you. She is a teacher, she should have known better. Tonks_op From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Nov 7 18:36:10 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:36:10 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Tonks: And some people, the very people who need the teaching the > most, will not listen to him because he is gay. Now from our liberal > Western POV we can say "oh well, it is their lost". Problem is it is > not just THEIR lost, it effects all of us.My objection to Rowlings > statement as I have repeatedly said is because it was Stupid of her. > She knew the reaction that would come, and she was not thinking > about the political ramifications WORLD WIDE. She shot herself in > the foot. If she hoped that her books would teach tolerance, she > messed up. Because you can not teach anything to people who will not > listen to you. She is a teacher, she should have known better. Magpie: I don't think I'll ever get this, because I don't get what they're losing by not listening to Dumbledore. What is he saying that's so important that they woudl put into practice that they can't get if they don't want to listen to him because he's gay? Couldn't she just as easily have blown it when she revealed him to be as imperfect as he was in DH? It just seems like you're starting with this premise that Dumbledore is changing the world here and then it all ends because she said he was gay just when everybody was ready to fix all the problems of the world. All I can see is she's got this series of books that are popular but really don't say anything particularly noteworthy at all, and some people are mad that she said a character was gay in it.How come she shouldn't be worried about all those H/Hr shippers who didn't want to read the books when they found out about R/Hr. What about the anti-mixing of the races people? (That would have been pretty controversial pre-1960s too!) How did she expect to reach people with a book about witchcraft when that's forbidden in so many places? I don't care if Dumbledore is gay and I'm still not taking any lessons from him or the books--except often "don't let this happen to you." So maybe they pick up another book that has the same messages or better ones. So why is it only *this* crowd that needs to be worried about? -m From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 18:48:46 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:48:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <367952.78030.qm@web52705.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <<>> Katie said: I will never understand how someone else's sexuality, skin color, ethnicity, religion...etc. can be morally offensive to another person, or threatening to their rights and way of life. Snip What I *would* like is if those people would have a genuine change of heart and realize that gay people, or black people, or Muslim people, or whoever it is that they don't like, isn't a threat to them or their way of life. Tonks: I suggest that you go to Yahoo Answers on any given night between 2am and 6am EST and read the post in Society and Culture under the subheading 'Religion and Spirituality' . You will get quite an eye opener and different view of things. There are many groups that are a "threat to our rights and way of life???. I no long post there because I was sent a very threating vidio. Ask me about the tolerant feelings that I have for that group of people now!! <<>> ***Katie again: Well, I didn't mean unreasonable people or fringe groups. I am quite aware of the dangers of extremism in any belief system. Obviously people that advocate jihad are a threat. Obviously people that advocate blowing up abortion clinics because of right-wing Christianity are a threat. Obviously people that believe in violence and hate and justify it behind a veil of religion are a threat. I didn't mean crazy people! I meant regular, mainstream religious organizations that are legitimate. Regular mainstream Islam does not advocate violence, and therefore is not a threat. Islamic belief systems are not a threat to Christianity. They are not in competition with one another. Again, I do not include any cult-like or extremist groups in this. My point was, homosexuality in no way threatens heterosexuality and vice versa. I simply extended that into religion. I could have used ethnicity as well. My being English doesn't threaten someone else being Iranian, or Canadian. Now, if I decide that my being English is better than someone being Iranian, and I decide that their being Iranian is a threat to me, and I decide to act upon that feeling by not employing Iranians at my business, or allowing my children to play with Iranians...or read books with Iranian characters...now I have crossed a line. See what I'm getting at? I was just trying to make a point about how belief systems, just like personal sexuality, do not infringe on anyone else's rights. And so, I obviously didn't mean people or groups whose sole purpose *is* to infringe on other people's rights. I am sorry if that wasn't clear. Katie __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 19:03:21 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:03:21 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > I don't think I'll ever get this, because I don't get what they're > losing by not listening to Dumbledore. What is he saying that's so > important that they woudl put into practice that they can't get if > they don't want to listen to him because he's gay? Couldn't she just as easily have blown it when she revealed him to be as imperfect as he was in DH? > > It just seems like you're starting with this premise that Dumbledore is changing the world here and then it all ends because she said he was gay just when everybody was ready to fix all the problems of the world. All I can see is she's got this series of books that are popular but really don't say anything particularly noteworthy at all, Tonks: If you don't see the teachings, you don't see them. What can I say. A lot of people don't see the Christian symbols either, but they are there. Rowling is in a unique position. No other book, except possible the Christian bible, has been read by so many people in every county. The Christian symbolism aside, there are major teachings in the series. Some are obvious and some are not. Children read these books. Children around the world. These books are in libraries in American schools where Christian books can not go. These books are being read by the young people who at an age where they can open mindedly take in the ideas. This is why, in Iran, some objected to the HP books on the grounds that they were brainwashing children to Western ideas. But the sensors read them and passed them as OK. That was before DD???s outing. Think of it in terms of WWII, instead of Radio Free Europe, we have the HP books. They slip the ideas in under the disguise of entertainment. How are children indoctrinated into any ideas that they will hold later in life? Sometimes their parents, their religion, their culture, and often because they have read something that presents ideas that are different than what their parents, religion, and culture have tired to instill in them. Now I hear you thinking, well then it is good that DD is gay. No it isn???t, if the books do not get past the sensors, be it government, school or parents. From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk Wed Nov 7 19:18:07 2007 From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:18:07 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Tonks: > Rowling is in a unique position. No other book, except possible the > Christian bible, has been read by so many people in every county. > The Christian symbolism aside, there are major teachings in the > series. Some are obvious and some are not. Children read these > books. Children around the world. These books are in libraries in > American schools where Christian books can not go. These books are > being read by the young people who at an age where they can open > mindedly take in the ideas. This is why, in Iran, some objected to > the HP books on the grounds that they were brainwashing children to > Western ideas. But the sensors read them and passed them as OK. That > was before DD???s outing. Think of it in terms of WWII, instead of > Radio Free Europe, we have the HP books. They slip the ideas in > under the disguise of entertainment. How are children indoctrinated > into any ideas that they will hold later in life? Sometimes their > parents, their religion, their culture, and often because they have > read something that presents ideas that are different than what > their parents, religion, and culture have tired to instill in them. > Now I hear you thinking, well then it is good that DD is gay. No it > isn???t, if the books do not get past the sensors, be it government, > school or parents. Celoneth: Sorry just had to address this one point - why does JKR or any other author have to shoulder the responsibility of changing the attitudes of the world? Radio Free Europe was a government program - JKR is a private citizen with no duty to make sure that everyone reads the books and gets the proper messages. They're books not propoganda tools, not tools of the military or the government. Nor do I think that the books were an attempt by JKR to evangelise her readers to her views or Christianity or anything else - they're fictional books, made for people to enjoy and read. All books have a message, some better than others - some people agree with the messages of a book, some wont - some will enjoy it, some will find it horribly offensive - its the nature of literature. A lot of people won't read certain books and its their right to not read them, but its still the author's right to write them as they wish to. I just have a huge problem with the suggestion that authors need to consider what they write in terms of a larger geo-political context, to be sneaky to get past censors in other states and to present their message to readers in those states. That is the job of governments and international organisations, not of authors or artists unless they choose to willingly undertake such a job. Celoneth From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Nov 7 19:18:58 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:18:58 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Magpie: > > I don't think I'll ever get this, because I don't get what they're > > losing by not listening to Dumbledore. What is he saying that's so > > important that they woudl put into practice that they can't get if > > they don't want to listen to him because he's gay? Couldn't she > just as easily have blown it when she revealed him to be as > imperfect as he was in DH? > > > > It just seems like you're starting with this premise that > Dumbledore is changing the world here and then it all ends because > she said he was gay just when everybody was ready to fix all the > problems of the world. All I can see is she's got this series of > books that are popular but really don't say anything particularly > noteworthy at all, > > Tonks: > If you don't see the teachings, you don't see them. What can I say. > A lot of people don't see the Christian symbols either, but they are > there. Magpie: There are some there, yes. (I don't buy all of the ones that have been suggested, still.) A lot of people don't see Big Gay Dumbledore- -and he's pretty much not there. Tonks: > > Rowling is in a unique position. No other book, except possible the > Christian bible, has been read by so many people in every county. > The Christian symbolism aside, there are major teachings in the > series. Some are obvious and some are not. Children read these > books. Children around the world. These books are in libraries in > American schools where Christian books can not go. These books are > being read by the young people who at an age where they can open > mindedly take in the ideas. This is why, in Iran, some objected to > the HP books on the grounds that they were brainwashing children to > Western ideas. Magpie: This is all very vague. So the books are popular. Because they are popular people think they are dangerous. So what? What are the ideas here that can't be found elsewhere? Dumbledore's raised a teenaged boy to take out the evil wizard through suicide. And he's not teaching anybody to be gay anywhere in them. Tonks: But the sensors read them and passed them as OK. That > was before DD???s outing. Think of it in terms of WWII, instead of > Radio Free Europe, we have the HP books. Magpie: God help us. I'll take Radio Free Europe, thanks. HP is hardly the only ray of information from the west anybody's getting in the world. Tonks: They slip the ideas in > under the disguise of entertainment. How are children indoctrinated > into any ideas that they will hold later in life? Sometimes their > parents, their religion, their culture, and often because they have > read something that presents ideas that are different than what > their parents, religion, and culture have tired to instill in them. Magpie: There's plenty of ideas in HP I'd be happy if kids didn't hear myself, so I can't get too upset about that. For years people have tried to insist they were making kids into readers and they don't even do that. Tonks: > Now I hear you thinking, well then it is good that DD is gay. No it > isn???t, if the books do not get past the sensors, be it government, > school or parents. Magpie: No, I'm not thinking that. I'm thinking that DD is not gay in the books at all and the only people who know he is gay are people who've read reports of that conference. People have attempted to ban the HP books already--you yourself even quoted that. They already worry that they're indoctrinating people into Western ideas. Okay, bad Rowling for giving them one more reason. I personally do not think that the HP books being a tiny bit less popular is any big tragedy--they're going to do that anyway because they're out now. (They already experience drop off in sales when they're no longer new.) Some kids will never get to see Star Wars either. I get that you're saying that she might lose some readers by saying that omg she thinks one of her characters is gay. I don't agree with blowing this up into some huge tragedy, or blowing the books up into some singularly important moral instruction just because they're popular. It still seems like you're giving very special consideration to people who don't read these books for *this* reason that you don't give to any other reason. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 7 23:53:37 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:53:37 -0000 Subject: It's a grey area... Was: Re: eye colour and other queries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > No doubt Noah Webster, who took the "u" out of "colour," is responsible. > > Geoff: > Now I know who to blame for one of my favourite beefs about spelling differences. Like many UK speakers, I pronounce words like 'colour' differently to the way I would if it lacked the 'u'. Carol again: I've mentioned him before but not in any detail. Here's a link if you're interested: http://www.m-w.com/info/spelling-reform.htm Needless to say, not all of Webster's proposed reforms were accepted! If you want to find out about good old Noah in more depth, here's a link to his essay on spelling reform (he thought that Americans needed to escape from the restrictive influence of Britain--sorry! Please consider the era): http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/DKitchen/new_655/webster_language.htm (The only proposed changes in this essay that were ultimately accepted by Americans are "plow" for "plough" and "draft" for "draught.") Here's a link to his spelling book, which does *not* use simplified spelling, and which kids these days would find a nightmare rather than an aid to spelling: http://www.merrycoz.org/books/spelling/SPELLING.HTM Scroll down past the introduction and all the recommendations and prefaces for the spelling book itself. Carol earlier: > > Didn't George Orwell try to do something similar with British spelling, or did he just try to reduce the vocabulary to "Basic English"? > > Geoff: > Without looking things up, I have a feeling you *may* be confusing him with George Bernard Shaw who had a bee in his bonnet about reforming spelling. ISTR that he left money in his will to pursue this. > Carol responds: You may be right about Shaw advocating spelling reform (it wouldn't surprise me at all), but it was definitely George Orwell who advocated Basic English (though I admit I should have looked it up yesterday rather than waiting until today). He was a proponent of Basic English until about 1944, when he changed his mind (and ridiculed the concept through the Newspeak of "1984"). His 1946 essay, "Politics and the English Language," which expresses his concern with political jargon and its effects on ordinary English (he should be alive today to see what's happening now), contains the following (IMO) delightful parody: "[Original passage from Ecclesiastes, King James version:] "'I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.' "Here it is in modern English: "Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account." He's right, IMO. A *lot* of twentieth- (and twenty-first-) century writing sounds exactly like that "modern English" passage, deadly dull, colorless, abstract, and not worth remembering. He advocates the following simple rules: 1. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. 2. Never use a long word where a short one will do. 3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. 4. Never use the passive where you can use the active. 5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. 6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything barbarous. With the possible exception of the third rule (e.g., a lot of people omit "that's" that ought to be left in for clarity's sake, IMO), I agree with him. Back to Basic English, an 850-word basic vocabulary that was originally intended as a tool for teaching English to non-native speakers: http://www.articleworld.org/index.php/Basic_English Orwell stopped advocating it when he realized that it would strip English writing of most of its color without making it any clearer. (Supposedly another advocate of Basic, Winston Churchill, gave up on it when he found out that "blood, toil, sweat, and tears" would be rendered as "blood, hard work, eyewash and body water," but that sounds like a linguistic urban legend to me. Don't know how I got here from Webster's simplified spelling. GBS might be closer to a British Webster, after all. http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/politics-english-language1.htm Carol, who will check into Shaw's ideas on spelling reform tomorrow if she can find the time From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 00:43:35 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 00:43:35 -0000 Subject: Is Umbridge a commentary on British government's educational policy? Message-ID: I raised a couple of questions about Umbridge on the main list that I hoped someone would respond to here, but not a peep. What I'd like to know is whether British readers think that Umbridge is a caricature of Margaret Thatcher (whom JKR evidently didn't like). I'd also like to know whether Hermione's remark, "It means the Ministry is ("are," if you'r British) interfering at Hogwarts," has any bearing on government interference in British schools, "public" or otherwise. As an American, I read the line and think about government-sponsored programs like "No child left behind" (which many people think are just "throwing money at the problem" and tying teachers' hands), but I have no idea whether anything comparable is happening in Britain that JKR might be criticizing. BTW, I understand that JKR is criticizing corruption and bureaucracy. That's not what I'm asking. I'm wondering whether Umbridge (in OoP, not DH) has any specific relevance to British politics or educational policy in the Thatcher era or later. I take the (male) Prime Minister in "The Other Minister" to be simply a mild satire on self-interested politicians. Umbridge is obviously a much more sinister figure. Carol, isolated from British thought and politics in the world's most arid backwater From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Wed Nov 7 23:37:11 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 09:37:11 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Daniel Radcliffe - My Boy Jack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5A909DDB@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Geoff: If you're a Dan fan you may like to know that "My Boy Jack" goes out on UK channel ITV1 next Sunday at 21:00 GMT, lasting for two hours. Sharon: My Boy Jack just came out at the cinema here in Aug/September. However, most cinemas didn't even run it! It was on only at two cinemas (in a city with many huge multiplex cinemas) late in the afternoon. It got a bad review as well. I didn't get a chance to see it because it disappeared too soon, but I will probably get the dvd when it comes out here. Anyone care to review it for me? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jeopardy18 at comcast.net Thu Nov 8 04:40:24 2007 From: jeopardy18 at comcast.net (seanmulligan2000) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 04:40:24 -0000 Subject: Is Umbridge a commentary on British government's educational policy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > BTW, I understand that JKR is criticizing corruption and bureaucracy. > That's not what I'm asking. I'm wondering whether Umbridge (in OoP, > not DH) has any specific relevance to British politics or educational > policy in the Thatcher era or later. > > I imagine that it was a reflection on real life education policy in GB since Rowlings used to work as a teacher. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 05:33:31 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:33:31 -0000 Subject: The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > I take the (male) Prime Minister in "The Other Minister" to be simply > a mild satire on self-interested politicians. Umbridge is obviously a > much more sinister figure. Tonks: Don't know about Umbridge. But I thought that "the Other Minister" was Tony Blair and he was waiting for a phone call from President Bush. I am sure that was be a commentary on the U.S. president. And I loved it!!! "that horrible man". Tonks_op From Schlobin at aol.com Thu Nov 8 05:45:39 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 05:45:39 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Absolutely not! I don't believe she *is* saying anything bigoted. I > think that her tone is angry and offended because she's hurt, and > it's being read as bigoted. Having no tolerance for intolerance is > not being bigoted. Having no tolerance for hate isn't being bigoted. > I am not accusing you of being hateful, or bigoted, but IMO, your > posts have definitely leaned on the side of intolerance. I think > Susan feels personally attacked because she is gay (please correct > me, Susan, if I am wrong), and she is defending herself and her > community. I don't think that is bigoted, nor would I defend bigoted > behavior. > > You are entirely correct. I have been personally attacked as a lesbian. Thanks for asking for clarification. Susan From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 07:20:45 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 07:20:45 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40711070956i462f2baen67a9aa84719fb99f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: montims wrote: > see, with regard to # 2 - that is where I cannot > follow you. I cannot conceive of any society > being "strictly heterosexual" in any place or time. Del replies: This implies that you think of the WW as being a "real" society. But it's not. It's a purely fictional society. There are NO HP-style of wizards in Real Life. So automatically applying the standards of RL on to the WW is a risky business, since the WW is entirely based on one such standard being broken to begin with. So what matters more than what we can conceive of, is what is in the books themselves. For example, I personally cannot conceive of a perfectly racism-free society, and yet that's how JKR has written the WW society. Another example is that you cannot conceive of a strictly heterosexual society, and yet *that's how JKR has written the WW society*. Wizards are not racist, and wizards are not gay. It might not be in accordance with the standards of Real Life, but it's how JKR has written the WW society, throughout her 7 books. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 07:38:48 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 07:38:48 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Katie wrote: > I guess what I was referring to, and I > phrased it poorly, was that you have argued > that saying DD is gay has now offended some > people who now don't want to read the books, > and she shouldn't have done that. Del replies: Not quite. What I have argued is that: 1- JKR knew perfectly well that there *are* some of her readers who would stop reading her books if there was a main gay character in them. 2- She pandered to the wishes of those readers throughout the 7 books, by creating a strictly heterosexual society, and by writing DD as an asexual character. 3- AFTER the 7 books were out, and AFTER a good deal of those aforementioned readers had BOUGHT and read the books, she outed DD. That's despicably manipulating IMO. Something worthy of DD himself, and I despise DD on that matter. > I think she feels she's in a defensive position > and needs to defend herself and her beliefs. *She* feels she needs to defend herself and her beliefs??? Who has called her bad things for being a lesbian *on this list* ??? Who has told her that she's being X and Y just because she's a lesbian *on this list*??? Nobody!!! She, though, has called untold numbers of list members, and yours truly in particular, bigoted and prejudiced and intolerant, and has associated all those people with criminals and mean people, simply because those readers have a problem with homosexuality! Excuse me, but she's not the one in need of defense here: she's the one *attacking*! > First of all, please refrain from calling me names, > since I have not called you any. As someone else mentioned, "bigot" is not a name. And anyway, I included a "if" in my sentence, so it's up to you whether you end up being a bigot or not: I only call you a bigot if you call people who have a problem with homosexuality but don't victimise gay people bigots. > I am not a bigot, Neither are they. > and I didn't say these people should not act > according to their conscience. I said that their > conscience should change. That their > consciences are misguided, IMO. And they believe that gay people's hearts and hormones are misguided, and they wish that their hearts and hormones would change. As I said, exactly the same situation. > Second of all, if you are going to quote someone, > please don't cut them off mid-sentence and not even > write that it's a snip. Actually, snipping is the rule on the HP lists. We are *supposed* to snip and quote only the parts we are directly replying to. > I don't feel there is a "viable alternative". You > either see the light, or you don't, IMO. Which is exactly how those people who have a problem with homosexuality feel too. > I wish people weren't bigoted. Is it my job to show > them why they're wrong?? I'm trying right now! I've > been trying to say for weeks that gay people are the > same as stright, and that gay "lifestyles" aren't any > different...etc. Precisely. And people who have a problem with homosexuality have been doing the same. Everyone is cheering for their team, as everyone is entitled to. > I just wish that we all could stop throwing insults > at each other and hear each other instead. I am > trying to hear you. Please extend me the same. I do hear you, but you don't seem to hear me. I've been trying to explain that calling those people who have a problem with homosexuality "bigots" simply because one doesn't agree with them is a sign of bigotry and intolerance in oneself. Do you hear me when I say that? Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 07:40:13 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 07:40:13 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: susanmcgee wrote: > I have been personally attacked as a lesbian. Del wonders: Where and when? ON THIS LIST, I mean. From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 08:27:08 2007 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 08:27:08 -0000 Subject: The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > Tonks: > Don't know about Umbridge. But I thought that "the Other Minister" was > Tony Blair and he was waiting for a phone call from President Bush. I > am sure that was be a commentary on the U.S. president. And I loved > it!!! "that horrible man". > > Tonks_op > That was my first thought too, but the timeline isn't right. HBP starts the summer of 1996 and Blair didn't become PM until the next spring, and of course Bill Clinton was president then. I have no difficulty imagining John Major calling Bill Clinton 'that horrible man'!! (Poor Bill, the Brits even made fun of him in 'Love Actually.') Snape's Witch From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Nov 8 11:47:29 2007 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:47:29 -0000 Subject: Is Umbridge a commentary on British government's educational policy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol wrote: > What I'd like to > know is whether British readers think that Umbridge is a caricature of > Margaret Thatcher (whom JKR evidently didn't like). I'd also like to > know whether Hermione's remark, "It means the Ministry is ("are," if > you'r British) interfering at Hogwarts," has any bearing on government > interference in British schools, "public" or otherwise. I don't see Umbridge as a caricature of Thatcher, myself. Their methods are just so different. Thatcher would have passed a law to abolish the Governors, and then fired Dumbledore, before ever going near Hogwarts, for example. She just didn't need a Hermione to decode her intentions. I also have trouble seeing MOM interference in Hogwarts as satire, too, because it's all in the context of a fight against an outside threat. The MOM's interference isn't a response to political pressures about education (which is what British government interference in schools is), but to do with differing perceptions of threat. Umbridge isn't really trying to improve DADA because she thinks it's badly taught: she's trying to undermine it because she thinks it's taught too well. However, I'm not a teacher, so I don't know if some of the details - those clipboard sessions with Trelawney and Hagrid, for example - are based on real incidents. > Carol, isolated from British thought and politics in the world's most > arid backwater Can a backwater be arid? David From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 12:50:22 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:50:22 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Katie wrote: > > I guess what I was referring to, and I > > phrased it poorly, was that you have argued > > that saying DD is gay has now offended some > > people who now don't want to read the books, > > and she shouldn't have done that. > > Del replies: > Not quite. What I have argued is that: > > 1- JKR knew perfectly well that there *are* > some of her readers who would stop reading her > books if there was a main gay character in them. > > 2- She pandered to the wishes of those readers > throughout the 7 books, by creating a strictly > heterosexual society, and by writing DD as an > asexual character. > > 3- AFTER the 7 books were out, and AFTER a good > deal of those aforementioned readers had BOUGHT > and read the books, she outed DD. > > That's despicably manipulating IMO. Something > worthy of DD himself, and I despise DD on that > matter. <<<>>> ***Katie again: There was a lot more to this post, but I would like to address the part relevant to HP. I know we're on the OT list, but I feel this whole discussion has veered off into political and social quagmire, and I think I'd like to get back to the books. I don't understand why JKR would "know" that there is a whole group of people that wouldn't buy the books if there was a gay main character? I didn't know that before there was such an uproar about it! I didn't think it was a real big deal, and appartently, neither did she, since she mentioned it so casually. So, I don't think there was an intent to deceive. Much like the backstories of other major characters, we only get what is relevant to Harry's story - and this wasn't - so we didn't get it in the books. It's as simple as that. Secondly, I don't know why anyone would think she was "pandering" to a particular group of anyone. As some others have mentioned, was she pandering to the H/R shippers when she got them together? No, she was just writing the books the way she wanted to, and some people happened to agree with her choices and be happy about it. Was she pandering to the LOLLIPOPS people when she gave us the Lily/Snape story? No, she just has a lot of devoted fans that realized what was about to happen. I certainly don't believe that she sat down and consciously said, "If DD is gay, no one will read my books. I better keep that quiet." It just wasn't meaningful to the story! It didn't matter! And then some fan asks her a simple question, she answers, and it's a huge deal. I don't think she saw this firestorm coming. I certainly didn't. Furthermore, I have to say that if having a gay character in the books (who, as you mention, is only gay in her head, not actually in the story) completely ruins the books for them, then I think they need to reevaluate how much they liked the books to begin with. There is absolutely nothing gay about DD in the books, so if you want to ignore what she said, then ignore it and read on. I ignore plenty of what she's said about Snape - even what she said in the books!! My Snape is a very different man than the one she revealed in DH, and in later interviews, and I just choose to ignore that, because I keep my Snape in my head when I read. If I can ignore actual canon in order to enjoy the book, I don't understand why other people can't just ignore her one-off comment about DD and keep on reading? Katie From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 13:03:21 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:03:21 -0000 Subject: Daniel Radcliffe - My Boy Jack In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5A909DDB@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes wrote: > > Geoff: > If you're a Dan fan you may like to know that "My Boy Jack" goes > out on UK channel ITV1 next Sunday at 21:00 GMT, lasting for two > hours. > > Sharon: > > My Boy Jack just came out at the cinema here in Aug/September. However, most cinemas didn't even run it! It was on only at two cinemas (in a city with many huge multiplex cinemas) late in the afternoon. It got a bad review as well. I didn't get a chance to see it because it disappeared too soon, but I will probably get the dvd when it comes out here. Anyone care to review it for me? ***Katie: I don't know about "My Boy Jack", but "The December Boys", which I thought looked sweet and lovely and I really wanted to see it, only played in the states in NY and LA. I live in a big city and I really thought it would open at one of our smaller, artier theaters, but nope. I was really disappointed. Did anyone see that one? Katie From mercia at ireland.com Thu Nov 8 16:20:52 2007 From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:20:52 -0000 Subject: The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Snape" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > > > Tonks: > > Don't know about Umbridge. But I thought that "the Other Minister" > was > > Tony Blair and he was waiting for a phone call from President Bush. I > > am sure that was be a commentary on the U.S. president. And I loved > > it!!! "that horrible man". > > > > Tonks_op > > > > That was my first thought too, but the timeline isn't right. HBP > starts the summer of 1996 and Blair didn't become PM until the next > spring, and of course Bill Clinton was president then. > > I have no difficulty imagining John Major calling Bill Clinton 'that > horrible man'!! (Poor Bill, the Brits even made fun of him in 'Love > Actually.') > > Snape's Witch You are right no doubt on the timeline being wrong but I suspect this is JKR's notorious problems with maths and dates slipping up again. I think that most of the UK proably read this as a not very covert reference to Tony Blair and Bill Clinton with even a little snipe at the Blair/Brown rivalry thrown in with the comment that even the Chancellor had been unable to remove the portrait. I know that I and most of my HP fan friends smirked to ourselves over that one. I think she was letting current realities at the time of writing HBP creep in and not paying too much attention to the date events in the book were supposed to be happening. JMO of course. Mercia > From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Nov 8 16:25:17 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:25:17 -0000 Subject: The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > Tonks_op > > > > > > > That was my first thought too, but the timeline isn't right. HBP > > starts the summer of 1996 and Blair didn't become PM until the next > > spring, and of course Bill Clinton was president then. > > > > I have no difficulty imagining John Major calling Bill > Clinton 'that > > horrible man'!! (Poor Bill, the Brits even made fun of him > in 'Love > > Actually.') Magpie: I took the president in Love, Actually to be a sort of mash-up of Clinton and Bush. -m From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Thu Nov 8 16:43:54 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:43:54 -0000 Subject: The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: snapes_witch wrote: > > > Tonks: > > Don't know about Umbridge. But I thought that "the Other Minister" > > was Tony Blair and he was waiting for a phone call from President > > Bush. I am sure that was be a commentary on the U.S. president. > > And I loved it!!! "that horrible man". > > > > Tonks_op > > > > That was my first thought too, but the timeline isn't right. HBP > starts the summer of 1996 and Blair didn't become PM until the next > spring, and of course Bill Clinton was president then. Ann: Yes, JKR's just being 1990s/2000s anachronistic again. But if we play the game of All-Canon-Is-Accurate, it's obvious who the PM is: Neil Kinnock. (Wikipedia link for non-Britons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election%2C_1992) (His predecessor is John Major, but I'm not sure who the redecorator/Chancellor is.) Come on, it's only a small change... > Carol: > I raised a couple of questions about Umbridge on the main list that > I hoped someone would respond to here, but not a peep. What I'd like > to know is whether British readers think that Umbridge is a > caricature of Margaret Thatcher (whom JKR evidently didn't like). > I'd also like to know whether Hermione's remark, "It means the > Ministry is ("are," if you'r British) interfering at Hogwarts," has > any bearing on government interference in British schools, "public" > or otherwise. Ann: I didn't see that on main, sorry. (Did you mention Umbridge's blood status?) Anyway, she's not a Thatcher avatar; if she was, she wouldn't be all pink fluffy cardigans and kittens, and she'd've been revealed to be a Dalek or a vampire in disguise. Or a dragon. Or Voldemort. As to Ministry interference... I didn't think of this until you asked, but there's a general perception of the government pressuring schools to teach core subjects (especially English and maths ["math" if you're a degenerate colonial]) to improve test results, and in general only teach things pupils will be tested on, rather than other cool stuff. (One of the main measures for GCSE success is 5 A*-C grades including English and maths, hence my examples.) There's not much conflict over what exactly gets taught, IMO, as the intelligent design/evolution debate in the US. There has been a bit lately with sponsors of "city academies" being allowed to decide what's on the syllabus, but I think that's too recent to be a target. Ann From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 17:14:21 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:14:21 -0000 Subject: The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Snape's Witch: > > That was my first thought too, but the timeline isn't right. HBP starts the summer of 1996 and Blair didn't become PM until the next spring, and of course Bill Clinton was president then. > > > > I have no difficulty imagining John Major calling Bill > Clinton 'that horrible man'!! (Poor Bill, the Brits even made fun of him in 'Love Actually.') Mercia said: > You are right no doubt on the timeline being wrong but I suspect this is JKR's notorious problems with maths and dates slipping up again. I think that most of the UK proably read this as a not very covert reference to Tony Blair and Bill Clinton with even a little snipe at the Blair/Brown rivalry thrown in with the comment that even the Chancellor had been unable to remove the portrait. I know that I and most of my HP fan friends smirked to ourselves over that one. I think she was letting current realities at the time of writing HBP creep in and not paying too much attention to the date events in the book were supposed to be happening. JMO of course. Tonks: I still think that the reference is to Bush. Never Bill!!! I didn't know people in the UK had a bad impression of Clinton. He was one of our best presidents. What's a little "massage" after all? I agree that Rowling isn't paying that much attention to the time line. The book came out when people the world over saw Bush as a war monger and an idiot. I am SURE it is Bush. Now that is something I wish she would admit sometime. Maybe when he is out of office and Hillary is in! Tonks_op From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 17:23:53 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 09:23:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <159541.7505.qm@web52705.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Tonks wrote: Snape's Witch: > > That was my first thought too, but the timeline isn't right. HBP starts the summer of 1996 and Blair didn't become PM until the next spring, and of course Bill Clinton was president then. > > > > I have no difficulty imagining John Major calling Bill > Clinton 'that horrible man'!! (Poor Bill, the Brits even made fun of him in 'Love Actually.') Mercia said: > You are right no doubt on the timeline being wrong but I suspect this is JKR's notorious problems with maths and dates slipping up again. I think that most of the UK proably read this as a not very covert reference to Tony Blair and Bill Clinton with even a little snipe at the Blair/Brown rivalry thrown in with the comment that even the Chancellor had been unable to remove the portrait. I know that I and most of my HP fan friends smirked to ourselves over that one. I think she was letting current realities at the time of writing HBP creep in and not paying too much attention to the date events in the book were supposed to be happening. JMO of course. Tonks: I still think that the reference is to Bush. Never Bill!!! I didn't know people in the UK had a bad impression of Clinton. He was one of our best presidents. What's a little "massage" after all? I agree that Rowling isn't paying that much attention to the time line. The book came out when people the world over saw Bush as a war monger and an idiot. I am SURE it is Bush. Now that is something I wish she would admit sometime. Maybe when he is out of office and Hillary is in! Tonks_op ***Katie: I agree with Tonks. I always read that scene as being Blair/Bush. After all, American and UK politics are so intertwined. And Bush *is* a horrible man. ; ) Katie . __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 17:45:50 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:45:50 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > ***Katie: > I don't understand why JKR would "know" that there is a whole group of people that wouldn't buy the books if there was a gay main > character? I didn't know that before there was such an uproar about it! I didn't think it was a real big deal, and appartently, neither did she, since she mentioned it so casually. Tonks: Rowling is 42 years old and a world traveler. Surely her head is not in the sand. She worked for Amenity International. She MUST know. I think the editors made sure that she did not put anything like that in the books. Scholastic for one is a company that makes Educational books for children. They would be aware of the potential backlash. If you watch the interview in Canada you can see her hesitate and all of her body language says ???I am hiding something, someone has told me to shut up and I am conflicted about saying what I want to say so I will not answer that question directly???. > > Katie said: > Secondly, I don't know why anyone would think she was "pandering" to a particular group of anyone. Tonks: Some might think that she was pandering to the gay community by outing DD as she did. And why would they think that? Because it seems that being 'gay' is the 'in' thing to be. It is the new way to be a rebel, to be fashionable, the new 'black' as they say. (and before you all jump on me, I didn't say that I think that, just that this may be the view of some.) Katie: I don't think she saw this firestorm coming. Tonks: I agree. I don't think she was thinking when she said what she did. It was the end of her U.S. tour, she was probably tired and stressed. And the editor wasn't standing over her. Again I think you can tell from the interview in Canada a few days later, that someone did have a little 'talk' with her. > Katie: > There is absolutely nothing gay about DD in the books, so if you > want to ignore what she said, then ignore it and read on. I ignore > plenty of what she's said about Snape - (Snip) If I can ignore > actual canon in order to enjoy the book, I don't understand why > other people can't just ignore her one-off comment about DD and keep on reading? Tonks: It would have been better if Rowling had said, as Del suggested "I see DD as gay, but the readers are free to view him as they wish". I see DD as a mentor I once had, a celebate monk, wise man, teacher, role model, etc. I like the idea that maybe a little part of DD might be attacted to me. I don't share the view that DD is a bad person, a puppetmaster, or whatever some people say. I don't know why they think that of DD. He is a Saint to me, even now. Tonks_op From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 18:24:23 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:24:23 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Katie wrote: Katie wrote: > I don't understand why JKR would "know" that > there is a whole group of people that wouldn't > buy the books if there was a gay main character? Del replies: Remember how so many people have been against the HP books because they are "about witchcraft"? Remember how quite a few efforts have been made to ban those books because of that? Do you really think that homosexuality is less controversial than witchcraft? > Secondly, I don't know why anyone would think > she was "pandering" to a particular group of > anyone. As some others have mentioned, was she > pandering to the H/R shippers when she got them > together? No, she was just writing the books the > way she wanted to, and some people happened to > agree with her choices and be happy about it. Well then, apparently, the way she wanted her books to be was WITHOUT homosexuality. If that's what she wanted back when she actually WROTE them, then why change her mind so soon after she finished writing them? > If I can ignore actual canon in order to enjoy > the book, I don't understand why other people > can't just ignore her one-off comment about DD > and keep on reading? Because not everyone is like you? Because for some people the "damage" has already been done? Because little Johnny heard about DD being gay in school or something and now Mom and Dad have to deal with it? Or inversely because Ma and Pop were not hot with HP to begin with, and now that they've heard on TV that DD is gay, they've demanded that Mary get rid of her HP books? I can imagine hundreds of reason why her highly mediatised comment could not be ignored by quite a few people. Del From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 18:56:49 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:56:49 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Katie wrote: > > Katie wrote: > > I don't understand why JKR would "know" that > > there is a whole group of people that wouldn't > > buy the books if there was a gay main character? > > Del replies: > Remember how so many people have been against the > HP books because they are "about witchcraft"? > Remember how quite a few efforts have been made > to ban those books because of that? > > Do you really think that homosexuality is less > controversial than witchcraft? > ***Katie again: Well, I did. Until recently. > > Katie: Secondly, I don't know why anyone would think > > she was "pandering" to a particular group of > > anyone. As some others have mentioned, was she > > pandering to the H/R shippers when she got them > > together? No, she was just writing the books the > > way she wanted to, and some people happened to > > agree with her choices and be happy about it. > > Del: Well then, apparently, the way she wanted her > books to be was WITHOUT homosexuality. If that's > what she wanted back when she actually WROTE > them, then why change her mind so soon after she > finished writing them? ***Katie: I just don't think that she was deliberately creating books that excluded homosexuality. That thought never crossed my mind, even being a gay rights activist. There are plenty of books and films that do not specifically address homosexuality, but I do not think of these books as *excluding* homosexuality, either. Just because it wasn't relevant to the plot doesn't mean it was deliberately excluded or that JKR created a strictly heterosexual WW. Personally, I would have felt it would have been horribly awkward and unnessessary if DD had suddenly turned to Harry while discussing Voldemort and said, "By the way, Harry, I'm gay. Just wanted to mention it. So, about that prophecy..." : ) I mean, it just didn't matter to the story. > > > If I can ignore actual canon in order to enjoy > > the book, I don't understand why other people > > can't just ignore her one-off comment about DD > > and keep on reading? > > Because not everyone is like you? Because for > some people the "damage" has already been done? > Because little Johnny heard about DD being gay in > school or something and now Mom and Dad have to > deal with it? Or inversely because Ma and Pop > were not hot with HP to begin with, and now that > they've heard on TV that DD is gay, they've > demanded that Mary get rid of her HP books? > I can imagine hundreds of reason why her highly > mediatised comment could not be ignored by quite > a few people. > > Del ***Katie: Ok. Why are you being so sarcastic? I am trying so, so hard to keep this discussion reasonable and about the books. Can we just please tone down the sarcasm and take a deep breath? Please? My point there was, and I was really only considering adults, not kids, that if you choose to ignore JKR's comments, you can. It's your (generic, not you, specifically) choice whether or not to take these things to heart. And BTW, she *did* say that *she* always thought of him as gay...not that everyone else had to, too. Katie From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 19:17:21 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 13:17:21 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40711081117y5bbf75c5p3fa3f6461864c2ee@mail.gmail.com> > > Katie wrote: > > I don't understand why JKR would "know" that > > there is a whole group of people that wouldn't > > buy the books if there was a gay main character? > > Del replies: > Remember how so many people have been against the > HP books because they are "about witchcraft"? > Remember how quite a few efforts have been made > to ban those books because of that? > > Do you really think that homosexuality is less > controversial than witchcraft? montims: I'm not Katie, and I know short answers are not allowed, but I had to respond to this - homosexuality is a normal phenomenon that has manifested itself in every culture (and across other animal species too, evidently). Witchcraft, as considered in real life, where people manipulate events, and often hurt people, using energies and intent, surely is much more controversial than who fancies whom??? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 19:27:28 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:27:28 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Del wrote: > I do hear you, but you don't seem to hear me. I've been trying to explain that calling those people who have a problem with homosexuality "bigots" simply because one doesn't agree with them is a sign of bigotry and intolerance in oneself. Do you hear me when I say that? Carol responds: I agree that the unwillingness to hear views that we consider offensive is a form of intolerance, as is labeling our own views as "tolerant" and then having no tolerance for those who don't share them. Maybe we should just ban the b-word ("bigot")? Then maybe we could express our ideas without labeling those whose views we disagree with as bigoted or intolerant. If, for example, someone on this list were to argue that women should not be allowed to stay home and be housewives because housework is degrading, I would probably consider that person an idiot, but I wouldn't use the word on this list. He or she has the right to be wrong (assuming that I'm right in this instance). Or if I want to say that illegal immigrants should be sent back over the border (just as an example of an opinion some people might consider "intolerant"), I have the right not only to write those words but to defend them without being attacked. Perhaps we should respond to the ideas themselves rather than to the speaker. ("I disagree because . . ." not "You're a bigot and you're hurting my feelings.") That man I mentioned earlier (whose name, unfortunately, I didn't catch) who believes that he was "cured" of homosexuality also has the right to speak without being attacked and the right to be heard without being hissed or booed by people who think he's--what? Deluded? Evil? Brain-washed? Wrong? Should researchers whose studies indicate that homosexuality is not inborn be prevented from publishing the results of their studies for fear of offending those who believe otherwise? Does a mother whose homosexual son died of AIDS not have the right to blame his death on his lifestyle even if she's wrong? Should we not listen to her and comfort her rather than calling her a bigot? People on all sides of the spectrum have feelings. That's part of the human condition. Carol, using the word "bigot" only to illustrate her points and not to label anyone From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 19:50:38 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:50:38 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Del wrote: > > I do hear you, but you don't seem to hear me. I've been > trying to explain that calling those people who have a problem with > homosexuality "bigots" simply because one doesn't agree with them is a sign of bigotry and intolerance in oneself. Do you hear me when I say that? > > Carol responds: > I agree that the unwillingness to hear views that we consider > offensive is a form of intolerance, as is labeling our own views as > "tolerant" and then having no tolerance for those who don't share > them. Maybe we should just ban the b-word ("bigot")? Then maybe we > could express our ideas without labeling those whose views we disagree with as bigoted or intolerant. ***Katie: But I, to whom Del was initially resonding, haven't called anyone a bigot. I *specifically* have been referring to thoughts and beliefs, *not* people. I have been trying very hard to keep the tone of the conversations civil, and I feel like I'm being yelled at in return. I understand it is very difficult to convey tone in this format, but I do feel like some posts are very aggressive. Let's do ban the word "bigot" and let's stop namecalling altogether. We should be able to disagree without attacking each other personally. Katie From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 8 20:00:38 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:00:38 -0000 Subject: The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Snape" wrote: Snape's Witch: > That was my first thought too, but the timeline isn't right. HBP > starts the summer of 1996 and Blair didn't become PM until the next > spring, and of course Bill Clinton was president then. > > I have no difficulty imagining John Major calling Bill Clinton 'that > horrible man'!! (Poor Bill, the Brits even made fun of him in 'Love > Actually.') Geoff: Actually, Bill Clinton commands a good deal more respect and liking in the UK than the present incumbent of the White House - whose name eludes me.... Shrubb or Plant or something? Maybe Cabbage - oh no, that was Helmut Kohl. :-) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 8 20:08:00 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:08:00 -0000 Subject: Daniel Radcliffe - My Boy Jack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes > wrote: > > > > Geoff: > > If you're a Dan fan you may like to know that "My Boy Jack" goes > > out on UK channel ITV1 next Sunday at 21:00 GMT, lasting for two > > hours. > > > > Sharon: > > > > My Boy Jack just came out at the cinema here in Aug/September. > However, most cinemas didn't even run it! It was on only at two > cinemas (in a city with many huge multiplex cinemas) late in the > afternoon. It got a bad review as well. I didn't get a chance to > see it because it disappeared too soon, but I will probably get the > dvd when it comes out here. Anyone care to review it for me? > > > ***Katie: > > I don't know about "My Boy Jack", but "The December Boys", which I > thought looked sweet and lovely and I really wanted to see it, only > played in the states in NY and LA. I live in a big city and I really > thought it would open at one of our smaller, artier theaters, but > nope. I was really disappointed. Did anyone see that one? Geoff: Sharon, surely, you mean "December Boys" and not "My Boy Jack". The latter is a made-for-TV film and, according to Dan's diary in the "Radio Times", they didn't finish location shooting until 17/08/07, and it has only just been trailed and Dan has been giving interviews quite recently. I had read that "December Boys" was only released at a limited number of cinemas and it certainly didn't come around my area, so I'm asking Santa for a DVD! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 20:14:21 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:14:21 -0000 Subject: Is Umbridge a commentary on British government's educational policy? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > > What I'd like to know is whether British readers think that Umbridge is a caricature of Margaret Thatcher (whom JKR evidently didn't like). I'd also like to know whether Hermione's remark, "It means the Ministry is ("are," if you're British) interfering at Hogwarts," has any bearing on government interference in British schools, "public" or otherwise. > David responded: > I don't see Umbridge as a caricature of Thatcher, myself. Their methods are just so different. Thatcher would have passed a law to abolish the Governors, and then fired Dumbledore, before ever going near Hogwarts, for example. She just didn't need a Hermione to decode her intentions. Carol again: True, but Umbridge wasn't the PM, just his senior undrsecretary, who has to achieve her ends through manipulation (pushing Fudge's buttons, playing on his worst fears) and insinuating herself into power. And I wonder if she and Lucius were working together behind the scenes to get DD fired before she appeared in the books, or whether she merely saw him as a kindred spirit with a common goal. Clearly, she *knows* him, so there's some connection. (I don't think I'm getting too *on* topic for this list since I'm speculating rather than analyzing canon). > David: > I also have trouble seeing MOM interference in Hogwarts as satire, too, because it's all in the context of a fight against an outside threat. The MOM's interference isn't a response to political pressures about education (which is what British government interference in schools is), but to do with differing perceptions of threat. Umbridge isn't really trying to improve DADA because she thinks it's badly taught: she's trying to undermine it because she thinks it's taught too well. > Carol: Well, yes. there's the whole question of whether she knows that Voldemort is back and is in league with the DEs (in contrast to Fudge, who simply doesn't want to believe that LV is back and would rather believe that DD is about to attempt a coup) or whether she really believes that DD and Harry are spreading dangerous lies. But I'm not talking about motives. I'm talking about methods. Of course, the British government isn't going to send a high-ranking official into a school to take it over and eventually oust the headmaster (Hogwarts is the only school of witchcraft and wizardry in the British WW, so its infiltration is more significant than, say, the infiltration of Eton or Harrow, bad as that would be). I'm thinking more of educational decrees and enforced changes in curriculum, say, watered-down classes because they're considered too difficult for children to grasp (or no longer "relevant," to borrow a term from the seventies). Umbridge treats the students like little children and claims to be their friend, protecting them from "lies," while she herself is doing the brain-washing. Maybe it's not British schools but, say, Soviet-era Russian schools that she's satirizing? The idea has to come from somewhere and relate to something. (There's an apparent connection to the Spanish Inquisition--which I realize was not the only inquisition) in her title and tactics, IMO, but no one ever responds when I raise that point.) David: > However, I'm not a teacher, so I don't know if some of the details - those clipboard sessions with Trelawney and Hagrid, for example - are based on real incidents. Carol: Ah. Teacher inspections. The Boggart of all nontenured teachers, I suspect. I certainly hated them when I was a teacher. I always feared that I was going to be either fired or reprimanded. Fortunately, I only had to endure them during my first year at each place I taught (one high school, two universities.) I'm sure it felt extremely degrading to the Hogwarts teachers who'd been teaching for more than a dozen years, and terrifying to Hagrid, who was inexperienced (and, IMO, incompetent). Inspections by the headmaster or principal would be one thing, especially for new teachers, but inspections by a government official would not be tolerated. Or at least, I can't imagine an American teacher enduring such an inspection without protest. But I have no idea what goes on in British schools these days (and know only what I've read about nineteenth-century British schools in the days before Dumbledore). Carol earlier: > Carol, isolated from British thought and politics in the world's most arid backwater > David: > Can a backwater be arid? Carol: It was intended as a pun. As far as I'm concerned, Tucson is a cultural backwater, but since it's in the desert (and we're short on rain even by Arizona standards this year), I thought I'd throw in that little joke. Probably neither funny nor clever, but I thought "arid backwater" was a nice little oxymoron of sorts Carol, wondering whether British teachers are encouraged or required to "teach to the test" or subject to any other kind of government pressure regarding lesson plans or curriculum From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 8 20:16:13 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:16:13 -0000 Subject: The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "or.phan_ann" wrote: > > snapes_witch wrote: > > > > > Tonks: > > > Don't know about Umbridge. But I thought that "the Other Minister" > > > was Tony Blair and he was waiting for a phone call from President > > > Bush. I am sure that was be a commentary on the U.S. president. > > > And I loved it!!! "that horrible man". > > > > > > Tonks_op > > > > > > > That was my first thought too, but the timeline isn't right. HBP > > starts the summer of 1996 and Blair didn't become PM until the next > > spring, and of course Bill Clinton was president then. > > Ann: > Yes, JKR's just being 1990s/2000s anachronistic again. But if we play > the game of All-Canon-Is-Accurate, it's obvious who the PM is: Neil > Kinnock. (Wikipedia link for non-Britons: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election%2C_1992) > (His predecessor is John Major, but I'm not sure who the > redecorator/Chancellor is.) Come on, it's only a small change... Geoff: Hate to say it, but you're obviously not a UK voter. Neil Kinnock was never PM; he was the Labour Party leader from 1983-1992. The rollcall of PMs in the 1990s was that Margaret Thatcher stepped down in November 1990 and was succeeded by John Major who remained in office until May 1997 when Tony Blair's Labour Party ousted the Conservatives. From Churchmouse365 at aol.com Thu Nov 8 19:36:26 2007 From: Churchmouse365 at aol.com (constant2chatter) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:36:26 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: There is another side to this, if JKR can enable peace through her craft why not? You know during W.W.II the government said a lot to dehumanize the enemy so there would be less moral dilemma about killing them (the enemy). This I imagine went on both sides, at least if we are to believe CNN broadcasts. I moderate another group, I want to share what I had to post today, we are a small 40 or so member child friendly group. A timely letter, OK here it is, I have been on our link sites and all but the WB official site and JKR own site are discussing the Albus Dumbledore is gay release and are not at all polite about it. I apologize about this already before I begin because I don't think it belongs here, BUT JKR herself apparently said this on Larry King live and it won't go away. We have also lost 2 members,this week and I don't think it is because we are not very active as we have never been, so we as a group need to address this. We are all aware that this is fiction; all of these charters are on paper no more alive than Peter Pan. For the life of me I can't figure out why she did this, and for the record the story did not need sex. Any kind of sex, and for that matter, I thought it stood on its own as a right of passage from,childhood to adult. Certainly no one of the living has had more problematic childhood than a psychopath trying to kill him at every turn and an allied group to assist on command, and schoolwork that could blow you up if you did it wrong. I really thought Dumbledore was more than a little fond of the school nurse. First Dumbledore coming out of the closet, really being thrown out by the author, changes the story substantially, Dumbledore is the HEAD MASTER,of a school, and he takes particular interest in Harry. The Greeks thought the most ideal love was between a teacher and his student, women were just for procreation. Well, guess what I am not an accent Greek and I am not amused. If anyone has noticed the Greek civilization ended badly. These books are no longer for young children, and you should hear some of the questions I got at my house. Now given that books like the scarlet letter, and The Awakening by Kate Chopin,God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy, Middle Passage by Charles Johnson, July People by Nadine Gordimer, and some smutty Japanese literature were on the reading list in the high school my oldest daughter attended, by that comparison Harry Potter is quite tame. However, as a fan I feel betrayed because she started the series to get YOUNG children,to read, especially boys. Even the choice bothers me; I could have seen Gildaroy Lockheart as gay even Hoarse Slug horn But Dumbledore, What purpose did that serve? The editor was right the story was better without all of this, Universal is spending about a billion dollars to build Hogwarts and Hogmead village, they have a court case, it is not family entertainment anymore. I wonder how WB is going to handle this in the movies, carefully I hope. It just goes on and on, a few careless words and whatever good she did with the series destroyed. I am so pissed. Thanks, Constant r > > parents, their religion, their culture, and often because they have > > read something that presents ideas that are different than what > > their parents, religion, and culture have tired to instill in them. > > Now I hear you thinking, well then it is good that DD is gay. No it > > isn???t, if the books do not get past the sensors, be it government, > > school or parents. > > Celoneth: > Sorry just had to address this one point - why does JKR or any other > author have to shoulder the responsibility of changing the attitudes > of the world? Radio Free Europe was a government program - JKR is a > private citizen with no duty to make sure that everyone reads the > books and gets the proper messages. They're books not propoganda > tools, not tools of the military or the government. Nor do I think > that the books were an attempt by JKR to evangelise her readers to her > views or Christianity or anything else - they're fictional books, made > for people to enjoy and read. All books have a message, some better > than others - some people agree with the messages of a book, some wont > - some will enjoy it, some will find it horribly offensive - its the > nature of literature. A lot of people won't read certain books and its > their right to not read them, but its still the author's right to > write them as they wish to. > > I just have a huge problem with the suggestion that authors need to > consider what they write in terms of a larger geo-political context, > to be sneaky to get past censors in other states and to present their > message to readers in those states. That is the job of governments and > international organisations, not of authors or artists unless they > choose to willingly undertake such a job. > Celoneth > From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Thu Nov 8 21:07:01 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:07:01 -0000 Subject: The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Geoff Bannister said: > > > > Ann: > > Yes, JKR's just being 1990s/2000s anachronistic again. But if we > > play the game of All-Canon-Is-Accurate, it's obvious who the PM is: > > Neil Kinnock. (Wikipedia link for non-Britons: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election%2C_1992) > > (His predecessor is John Major, but I'm not sure who the > > redecorator/Chancellor is.) Come on, it's only a small change... > > Geoff: > Hate to say it, but you're obviously not a UK voter. Neil Kinnock > was never PM; he was the Labour Party leader from 1983-1992. > > The rollcall of PMs in the 1990s was that Margaret Thatcher stepped > down in November 1990 and was succeeded by John Major who remained > in office until May 1997 when Tony Blair's Labour Party ousted the > Conservatives. Ann: You're wrong! I *am too* a UK voter. You just misread me, honest. See that remark about "it's only a small change"? What I meant was that you'd only need a small change to make Kinnock PM, because that election was so close - and given the Potterverse's huge thumping differences to our world (such as *magic*), it shouldn't raise any eyebrows, right? (Sorry for being confusing, btw - I was more explicit in draft, but decided I was over-explaining the joke. That's life...) Ann, who doesn't really think the PM in HBP is Kinnock, just a fictional one so JKR didn't look too political From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Nov 8 21:38:59 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:38:59 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: churchmouse: First Dumbledore > coming out of the closet, really being thrown out by the author, > changes the story substantially, Dumbledore is the HEAD MASTER,of a > school, and he takes particular interest in Harry. The Greeks thought > the most ideal love was between a teacher and his student, women were > just for procreation. Well, guess what I am not an accent Greek and I > am not amused. If anyone has noticed the Greek civilization ended > badly. Magpie: I'm sorry, are you suggesting that because she said she always thought he was gay that that has something to do with his particular interest in Harry? He's particularly interested in Harry because he's The Chosen One and The Boy Who Lived. And she said she thought he was gay, not that he was ancient Greek. (And I wouldn't be too snotty about their civilization.) She's not the one who suggested he's perving on the underaged boy. churchmouse: However, as a fan I feel > betrayed because she started the series to get YOUNG children,to read, > especially boys. Even the choice bothers me; I could have seen > Gildaroy Lockheart as gay even Hoarse Slug horn But Dumbledore, What > purpose did that serve? Magpie: She said he was infatuated with Grindelwald. That's the only thing it really affected. It didn't seem to have a purpose other than this is the way Dumbledore's character was in her head. There's no purpose in Myrtle being a lech but that's the way she is. Do I want to know why you'd be okay with Slughorn or Lockhart being gay somehow more than Dumbledore? Why are those the two "you could see" but there's a problem with Dumbledore? Because Lockhart's a vain pompous guy obsessed with appearance and Slughorn's a prissy glutton? Why is there more of a problem with Dumbledore? He doesn't seem any less believable than those two to me. churchmouse: The editor was right the story was better > without all of this, Magpie: Luckily the story itself is still without all this. Though I personally don't think knowing that Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald would make the story any worse. It would just slightly change our understanding of his motivations there. And contrast him to Snape in that remember Dumbledore chose his ideals over the man he loved. churchmouse: Universal is spending about a billion dollars to > build Hogwarts and Hogmead village, they have a court case, it is not > family entertainment anymore. Magpie: Well, not some families anyway. Many families would have no more problem with it than they did before. The books remain exactly the same as they always were, after all. It's not like homosexuality and families can't exist together. Gay people have families. churchmouse: I wonder how WB is going to handle this > in the movies, carefully I hope. It just goes on and on, a few > careless words and whatever good she did with the series destroyed. I > am so pissed. Thanks, Constant Magpie: I don't see why WB has to handle anything carefully at all. They're not filming her interview comments, they're filming the books, in which there is no homosexuality at all that we see anywhere. They don't have to deal with this any more than they deal with Neville marrying Hannah Abbot or better yet any more than they have to deal with the death of Arthur Weasley--it didn't make it into the books. But if she's destroyed whatever good she did with the series with a few careless words, the series must not have been much good. -m From mercia at ireland.com Thu Nov 8 21:52:57 2007 From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:52:57 -0000 Subject: The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Tonks: > I still think that the reference is to Bush. Never Bill!!! I didn't > know people in the UK had a bad impression of Clinton. He was one of > our best presidents. What's a little "massage" after all? > > I agree that Rowling isn't paying that much attention to the time > line. The book came out when people the world over saw Bush as a war > monger and an idiot. I am SURE it is Bush. Now that is something I > wish she would admit sometime. Maybe when he is out of office and > Hillary is in! > > Tonks_op Sorry Tonks, I do actually agree it was probably the Blair/Bush relationship she was sending up. I was getting time line confused as well, thinking 1996 had to be Clinton! But you (and Geoff) are right, Clinton would command a lot more respect in Britain. And JKR was just having fun with a reference that was topical at the time she was writing. Wonder what they'll make of it in 20 years time! Mercia > From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 22:00:25 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 16:00:25 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40711081400i14f1ecfdyfa7ba80eba805000@mail.gmail.com> > > Geoff: > The rollcall of PMs in the 1990s was that Margaret Thatcher stepped > down in November 1990 and was succeeded by John Major who remained > in office until May 1997 when Tony Blair's Labour Party ousted the > Conservatives. montims: stepped down? Or was she pushed??? Speaking totally OT of British politics, the most poignant memory I have was of Spitting Image when the Tories got in again, and the singing of "Tomorrow belongs to me" - I was in tears... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Thu Nov 8 21:57:55 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 07:57:55 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Daniel Radcliffe - My Boy Jack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AB0002E@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Geoff: Sharon, surely, you mean "December Boys" and not "My Boy Jack". The latter is a made-for-TV film and, according to Dan's diary in the "Radio Times", they didn't finish location shooting until 17/08/07, and it has only just been trailed and Dan has been giving interviews quite recently. I had read that "December Boys" was only released at a limited number of cinemas and it certainly didn't come around my area, so I'm asking Santa for a DVD! Sharon: yes of course I mean the "December Boys"! Sorry about that, my brain was taking a short vacation there. I still don't know of anyone who's seen it! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 22:23:51 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:23:51 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40711081117y5bbf75c5p3fa3f6461864c2ee@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > montims: > I know short answers are not allowed Goddlefrood: They are. From mercia at ireland.com Thu Nov 8 22:41:21 2007 From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:41:21 -0000 Subject: The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40711081400i14f1ecfdyfa7ba80eba805000@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > > > > Geoff: > > The rollcall of PMs in the 1990s was that Margaret Thatcher stepped > > down in November 1990 and was succeeded by John Major who remained > > in office until May 1997 when Tony Blair's Labour Party ousted the > > Conservatives. > > montims: > stepped down? Or was she pushed??? > > Speaking totally OT of British politics, the most poignant memory I have was > of Spitting Image when the Tories got in again, and the singing of "Tomorrow > belongs to me" - I was in tears... The key for me to Umbridge NOT being Thatcher is that Maggie never bothered playing around with that cutsie feminine image but ruled with a rod of iron (or a handbag) from day one. And if we're speaking Spitting Image, the best depiction of that was the restaurant scene with Thatcher and cabinet out to dinner. As Thatcher orders her steak the waitress enquires, 'And the vegeatables?' To which Thatcher responds, 'Oh they'll have the same as me.' Mercia > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 22:53:31 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:53:31 -0000 Subject: The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > Ann: > > > But if we play the game of All-Canon-Is-Accurate, it's > > > obvious who the PM is: Neil Kinnock. > > Geoff: > > Hate to say it, but you're obviously not a UK voter. Neil > > Kinnock was never PM; > Ann: > What I meant was that you'd only need a small change to make > Kinnock PM, because that election was so close. Goddlefrood: It wasn't that close, they got a majority of 65, wasn't it? It decreased as by-elections came up, but the election of 1992 really couldn't be called close. There was a headline at the time, in The Sun (that bastion of political propriety) reading: "Would the last person to leave the country turn out the light?" That rag always claimed to have swung the election, however the CONservatives would probably have won anyway. The current lot of Tories make Major's crew look like some of the greatest statesmen ever. I fondly remeber the time when Arthur Scargill was PM myself. Goddlefrood, singing the Grantham Anthem. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 8 23:26:57 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:26:57 -0000 Subject: The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40711081400i14f1ecfdyfa7ba80eba805000@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > > > > Geoff: > > The rollcall of PMs in the 1990s was that Margaret Thatcher stepped > > down in November 1990 and was succeeded by John Major who remained > > in office until May 1997 when Tony Blair's Labour Party ousted the > > Conservatives. > > montims: > stepped down? Or was she pushed??? Geoff: Someone helped her down the stairs by supporting her arm as she went. It is possible that they overestimated the amount of pressure required..... You're surely not suggesting that someone might have disliked the good lady? From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Nov 8 23:36:14 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:36:14 -0000 Subject: The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > Goddlefrood: > I fondly remeber the time when Arthur Scargill was PM myself. > > Goddlefrood, singing the Grantham Anthem. Geoff: Could this be advance symptoms of psephological dementia? [Psephological dementia. Medical. A condition in which the patient suffers delusions and hallucinations concerning election results. First noted Fiji 2007.] (Source: Bannister International Encyclopaedia, Theobalds Road, Bloomsbury, London) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 8 23:57:37 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:57:37 -0000 Subject: The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tonks: > > I still think that the reference is to Bush. Never Bill!!! I didn't know people in the UK had a bad impression of Clinton. He was one of our best presidents. What's a little "massage" after all? > > > > I agree that Rowling isn't paying that much attention to the time line. The book came out when people the world over saw Bush as a war monger and an idiot. I am SURE it is Bush. Now that is something I wish she would admit sometime. Maybe when he is out of office and Hillary is in! > Mercia: > Sorry Tonks, I do actually agree it was probably the Blair/Bush relationship she was sending up. I was getting time line confused as well, thinking 1996 had to be Clinton! But you (and Geoff) are right, Clinton would command a lot more respect in Britain. And JKR was just having fun with a reference that was topical at the time she was writing. Wonder what they'll make of it in 20 years time! Carol responds: Didn't JKR say that she wrote that chapter for an earlier book and kept trying to use it but it didn't fit until HBP? At any rate, I just saw the PM as a generic politician worried about his public image, and while I did take the "president of a distant country" to be the president of the U.S. (probably because I'm American), I didn't have any particular U.S. president in mind. (BTW, the chapter presented an interesting contrast between Fudge and Scrimgeour as well as Fudge and the unnamed PM. I found the depiction of Fudge surprisingly sympathetic, considering how bad he looked in OoP. Free from the influence of Umbridge now that he's out of office, I suppose.) Carol, who suspects that readers twenty years from now will apply the depiction of the PM and the president to whatever politicians they're familiar with From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 00:31:41 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:31:41 -0000 Subject: The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > "that horrible man". It was "the wretched man" :-). zanooda From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 00:34:01 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:34:01 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" > wrote: > > Del: Well then, apparently, the way she wanted her > > books to be was WITHOUT homosexuality. If that's > > what she wanted back when she actually WROTE > > them, then why change her mind so soon after she > > finished writing them? > > > ***Katie: I just don't think that she was deliberately creating > books that excluded homosexuality. That thought never crossed my > mind, even being a gay rights activist. There are plenty of books > and films that do not specifically address homosexuality, but I do > not think of these books as *excluding* homosexuality, either. Just > because it wasn't relevant to the plot doesn't mean it was > deliberately excluded or that JKR created a strictly heterosexual WW. > Annemehr: It's not as though plenty people didn't notice. There was certainly a lot of discussion on Main (the corner of the fandom I'm most familiar with) about, say, the possibility of Sirius/Lupin, and whether or not JKR would ever write a gay couple in canon. Although, I'll admit that if I had never joined the fandom online, it probably wouldn't have crossed my mind, either. *However,* now that she has said that she always thought of DD as being gay, it becomes clear that she did indeed *deliberately* leave homosexuality out of the books. Personally, I'm happy with a gay DD, but I still can't help but wonder why, if she had a gay character in mind all along, that she completely omitted any hint of homosexuality from the books. It could have been her publishers, I suppose, but I do find it hard to believe they could have made her omit it by the time she was writing GoF. Katie: > Personally, I would have felt it would have been horribly awkward > and unnessessary if DD had suddenly turned to Harry while discussing > Voldemort and said, "By the way, Harry, I'm gay. Just wanted to > mention it. So, about that prophecy..." : ) I mean, it just didn't > matter to the story. Annemehr: Oh now, I'm sure DD could have worked in a good hint while he was talking about Grindelwald. And as I said before, if JKR had just written a line here or there about a gay or lesbian couple at the Yule Ball, or kissing in the hallway or something, people wouldn't need much to pick up on DD/GG. Annemehr From kkersey at swbell.net Fri Nov 9 00:46:13 2007 From: kkersey at swbell.net (kkersey_austin) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:46:13 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Del wrote: > Well then, apparently, the way she wanted her > books to be was WITHOUT homosexuality. If that's > what she wanted back when she actually WROTE > them, then why change her mind so soon after she > finished writing them? Elisabet points out: Changed her mind after she wrote the books? Really? Here's what JKR has to say about that: Q: At what stage in the [unintelligible] in writing the Harry Potter books did you conceive the notion of Dumbledore's [unintelligible] sexuality JKR: Ummm, really, early on. I would say... all of the characters... I was writing for 7 years before the first book was published. The characters became, almost came, more and more into focus as I worked and... I can't honestly say there was a moment when I decided that, that was just something I knew or I came to know... so, umm, from very early on. Probably before the first book was published. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/1022-torontopressconf.html Elisabet continues: But I want to be fair. You were responding to Katie's comment about JKR writing the books the way she wanted to. But it seems clear from comments that JKR said in the Toronto press conference that she expects some readers (e.g. children) to be oblivious to hints that DD was gay while some others (e.g. sensitive adults) "may well understand" that DD was infatuated with GW; she goes on to say that she herself "knew" it to be an infatuation. Sounds to me like she did write it the way she wanted to: consistent with her own conception of DD, but not requiring the reader to hold the same idea in order to understand the story on at least a basic level. Note, BTW, how she answered the question about Aberforth and the goats at Carnegie Hall: Q: In the Goblet of Fire Dumbledore said his brother was prosecuted for practicing inappropriate charms [JKR buries her head, to laughter] on a goat; what were the inappropriate charms he was practicing on that goat? JKR: How old are you? Eight. JKR: I think that he was trying to make a goat that was easy to keep clean [laughter], curly horns. That's a joke that works on a couple of levels. I really like Aberforth and his goats. But you know Aberforth having this strange fondness for goats if you've read book seven, came in really useful to Harry, later on, because a goat, a stag, you know. If you're a stupid Death Eater, what's the difference. So, that is my answer to YOU. http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-hall-reveals-dumbledore-is-gay-neville-marries-hannah-abbott-and-scores-more Elisbaet again: With this answer she clearly is saying that there is an innocent reading appropriate for eight year olds ("...that is my answer to YOU") and at the same time, yes, but that she intended more mature readers to interpret it, well, somewhat differently. From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri Nov 9 01:18:02 2007 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:18:02 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > > montims: > > I know short answers are not allowed > > Goddlefrood: > > They are. > David: Cool. From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Nov 9 02:16:16 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 02:16:16 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > I do hear you, but you don't seem to hear me. I've > been trying to explain that calling those people who > have a problem with homosexuality "bigots" simply > because one doesn't agree with them is a sign of > bigotry and intolerance in oneself. Do you hear me > when I say that? > > Del > Oh, okay, so you're fine with the people who say that Africans have smaller brains and are less intelligent than Europeans/white people...after all, it's their opinion, right? They're not bigots? And by the way, the constant statements that homosexuality is immoral or abnormal ARE attacks on me and every lesbian and gay man. Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Nov 9 02:33:48 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 02:33:48 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" > wrote: > > > > Del wrote: > > > I do hear you, but you don't seem to hear me. I've been > > trying to explain that calling those people who have a problem with > > homosexuality "bigots" simply because one doesn't agree with them > is a sign of bigotry and intolerance in oneself. Do you hear me when > I say that? > > > > Carol responds: > > I agree that the unwillingness to hear views that we consider > > offensive is a form of intolerance, as is labeling our own views as > > "tolerant" and then having no tolerance for those who don't share > > them. Maybe we should just ban the b-word ("bigot")? Then maybe we > > could express our ideas without labeling those whose views we > disagree with as bigoted or intolerant. > > > ***Katie: But I, to whom Del was initially resonding, haven't called > anyone a bigot. I *specifically* have been referring to thoughts and > beliefs, *not* people. I have been trying very hard to keep the tone > of the conversations civil, and I feel like I'm being yelled at in > return. I understand it is very difficult to convey tone in this > format, but I do feel like some posts are very aggressive. > > > Let's do ban the word "bigot" and let's stop namecalling altogether. > We should be able to disagree without attacking each other > personally. Katie > Perhaps then we could ban the word homosexual? Which I have said again and again is offensive. When my son is called names at school because he's Asian, I hear parents say "I'm not a bigot" all the time, while explaining that it's overreacting for my son to get upset because their children didn't intend to hurt their feelings. Well, intent is nice, but it's the effect on MY children that I find important. Bigotry is real. Oppression is real. Assaults on lesbians and gays are real. If you read my posts carefully, I said holding and expressing those viewpoints contribute to an atmosphere that allows and condones such actions. In most places in the U.S., you can use hate speech against lesbians and gays all the want -- in some places it is a crime when directed against racial minorities.... As to being "gay" being the new cool thing? Oh SURE most people CHOOSE to be discriminated against, denied the right to discuss their identity while in the U.S. armed forces, thrown out of the family, fired from jobs, and called names. If it's the new cool thing -- why is "that's so gay" the latest derogatory comment in the schoolyards. As for JKR pandering to the gay lobby -- this is another right wing mantra. There is NO SUCH THING as the HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA...yes, now I AM shouting...I know U.S. Republicans who are gay, I know probation officers who are very conservative, there's no one agenda. Being a lesbian is only one part of my very complex identity.....for example, oftentimes I'm more interested in discussing Harry Potter or other fantasy than in discussing sexual orientation. We are diverse, we are varied, we have different political views based on family background, race, age, class, nationality, ethnicity, etc. etc. etc. Trying to put us all in one package is discriminatory and bigoted. (By the way, Joe, what do you Blacks thing about ..whatever). Joe doesn't represent all Black people or all African American people...Joe's just one guy... JKR doesn't have to pander to ANYone at this point. She said clearly, she always thought of DD as gay, and she said he was in love with GG. I would have been happier if she had included a couple of same gender adolescent couples, and I am still puzzled as to why she didn't. However, as I keep saying, the books that delight me don't have to match my political views in every circumstance, and frankly, when you're a lesbian, you're used to 90% of the stuff you see not reflecting your life in one way. It's unfair and unjust, but so it goes... Folks, if you persist in insisting it's just fine (because it's part of your religion, or whatever) to say that homosexuality is wrong or immoral, I'm going to say that you're voicing bigotry. It's nice to say, gosh, let's just agree to disagree, but this is my life, my civil rights, my children's lives....it's not an intellectual conversation. After all, the DeathEaters had the right to believe that being a mudblood made you inferior, right? And they could say it all they liked as long as they didn't DO anything about it, right? That IS the argument? And if they believe that, I'm supposed to be tolerant of their beliefs? If someone voices a comment about a racial minority, for example, if they said it was wrong for Harry and Cho to kiss, would that be okay? Is anyone hearing me say that slavery and oppression have Biblical supports, and lots of people said they were following their religious teachings by keeping slaves? Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Nov 9 02:45:49 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 02:45:49 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "constant2chatter" wrote: > > For the life of me I can't figure out why she did this, > and for the record the story did not need sex. Any kind of sex, and > for that matter, I thought it stood on its own as a right of passage > from,childhood to adult. Certainly no one of the living has had more > problematic childhood than a psychopath trying to kill him at every > turn and an allied group to assist on command, and schoolwork that > could blow you up if you did it wrong. I really thought Dumbledore > was more than a little fond of the school nurse. First Dumbledore > coming out of the closet, really being thrown out by the author, > changes the story substantially, Dumbledore is the HEAD MASTER,of a > school, and he takes particular interest in Harry. The Greeks thought > the most ideal love was between a teacher and his student, women were > just for procreation. Well, guess what I am not an accent Greek and I > am not amused. If anyone has noticed the Greek civilization ended > badly. These books are no longer for young children, and you should > hear some of the questions I got at my house. Now given that books > like the scarlet letter, and The Awakening by Kate Chopin,God of Small > Things by Arundhati Roy, Middle Passage by Charles Johnson, July > People by Nadine Gordimer, and some smutty Japanese literature were on > the reading list in the high school my oldest daughter attended, by > that comparison Harry Potter is quite tame. However, as a fan I feel > betrayed because she started the series to get YOUNG children,to read, > especially boys. Even the choice bothers me; I could have seen > Gildaroy Lockheart as gay even Hoarse Slug horn But Dumbledore, What > purpose did that serve? The editor was right the story was better > without all of this, Universal is spending about a billion dollars to > build Hogwarts and Hogmead village, they have a court case, it is not > family entertainment anymore. I wonder how WB is going to handle this > in the movies, carefully I hope. It just goes on and on, a few > careless words and whatever good she did with the series destroyed. I > am so pissed. Thanks, Constant > > > r > > > parents, their religion, their culture, and often because they have > > > read something that presents ideas that are different than what > > > their parents, religion, and culture have tired to instill in them. > > > Now I hear you thinking, well then it is good that DD is gay. No it > > > isn???t, if the books do not get past the sensors, be it government, > > > school or parents. > > > Well, gosh, let's talk about this again. Saying someone is gay does not introduce "sex" into the books. Being gay is an orientation. Are all straight people having sex? Next, being gay should not be equated with child sexual abuse. This is bigotry. It is slander. It is disgusting. Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Nov 9 02:51:35 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 02:51:35 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > If, for example, someone on this list were to argue that women should > not be allowed to stay home and be housewives because housework is > degrading, I would probably consider that person an idiot, but I > wouldn't use the word on this list. He or she has the right to be > wrong (assuming that I'm right in this instance). Or if I want to say > that illegal immigrants should be sent back over the border (just as > an example of an opinion some people might consider "intolerant"), I > have the right not only to write those words but to defend them > without being attacked. Perhaps we should respond to the ideas > themselves rather than to the speaker. ("I disagree because . . ." not > "You're a bigot and you're hurting my feelings.") > Well, it would be nice if someone would address me directly, but I guess that people who are abnormal and who have chosen a sinful lifestyle don't deserve simple courtesy. I said that my feelings were hurt, that this kind of commentary is upsetting in order to humanize the discussion. If I were an undocumented worker, and someone said I should be sent back over the border, I would be understandably upset as well. I'm trying to make the point that we are dealing with real peoples' lives here, and to say "well, you're just getting upset, we're having an intellectual discussion, everyone's entitled to their opinion." Everyone IS entitled to their opinion. My opinion is that the type of nonsense that is being spouted by people about lesbians and gay men is based in bigotry and ignorance. Someone might want to take a look at the scientific research about "changing" someone's sexual orientation. Or at the research that is finding that children of lesbians and gay men do just as well emotionally as the children of heterosexuals. Otherwise, a poor young kid who is gay or who is a lesbian is going to read this stuff, and say (gosh, I don't want to live a life where everyone thinks I'm abnormal and immoral, maybe I can change?) or worse yet, thinks about killing themselves because they can't imagine leading a happy or normal life. It really seems as if people would like me to be silent. It seems to me that it's okay for YOU to have YOUR opinions about the abnormality and immorality of "homosexuality" but it's not okay for me to have MY opinions about injustice and intolerance. Susan From zanelupin at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 05:11:28 2007 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 05:11:28 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" > wrote: > > > > > montims: > > > I know short answers are not allowed > > > > Goddlefrood: > > > > They are. > > > David: > > Cool. > KathyK: LOL Thank you, David! From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Nov 9 05:55:50 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 05:55:50 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Susanmcgee wrote: > > But that's just the point, Del..one CAN > > control what one believes, > > Del replies: > I flatly disagree. People believe things for > a reason. As long as that reason is there, > the beliefs cannot be modified, ie people > can't control them. One can work on changing > the reason behind the beliefs, either in > oneself or in others, but one cannot simply > decide what to believe. It wouldn't be *belief* > if it could be modified at will. > > After all, don't YOU *believe* that there's > nothing wrong with homosexuality, and don't > you *believe* that people who think > otherwise are wrong? Could YOU modify those > beliefs just because someone else told you > you should? > > If not, then why do you expect other people > to do just that? > Of course not. But if someone presented me with evidence, with examples, with reasoned discourse, as has happened so many times in my life, I'd say "hmmmm..well, maybe I should rethink that.." > > and one can control what one DOES..... > > This I agree with, but then I don't think > anyone on this list disagreed with that > anyway. > > > So, when my son gets people who make > > slanted eyes at him on the playground > > and imitate guttural Chinese sounds, > > I should say, oh well, some people think > > Chinese people are unintelligible and > > everyone should learn English and the only > > Americans are European Americans....never mind? > > Here you go again, not listening to us but > choosing to associate people who believe > certain things but don't ACTIVELY hurt > other people, with people who DO hurt > actively hurt other people. Can you please > stop making such unfair, unjust and > unwarranted associations? > Really. So you think that people who think Asians are inferior can go through their life never communicating that to an Asian or Asian American or English person with Asian ancestry....? > > Shall we say, well, the highest incidence > > of AIDS is now in Africa, that just goes to > > show that the dark races are uncivilized, > > ignorant and have less intelligence... and > > that kind of belief is okay as long as I > > state that my views are supported by the Bible? > > > > Nope, I don't buy it. > > Who assigned you Thought Police Officer? If > you want to live in a country where people > are not allowed to think whatever they want and > say so, then move out of America. I personally > don't agree with the above belief, but from > what I understand American people have the > RIGHT to hold it and defend it if they so wish. > How am I trying to control your thoughts? > > I wish for all of you who can't see the > > immense harm you do by your antiquated > > attitudes never end up with a child or a > > grandchild who is gay or lesbian... and > > realize suddenly what harm ignorant and > > bigoted thoughts and attitudes do. > > And I hope YOUR kids never end up believing > in a God who doesn't approve of homosexuality. Well, I think you confuse beliefs, which I contend can be changed through reflection, analysis, and experience, with the fact of being a lesbian or gay male...which for many people is not subject to change.. > > > I appreciate your responding to me, Carol, > > but what doesn't seem to be coming across is > > this isn't an intellectual exercise..this is > > MY life, and the life of tens of thousands of > > people like me..of course my feelings are hurt, > > and I am outraged... > > And I am getting seriously annoyed by the way you > dismiss people's personal beliefs and complexities > in favour of a black-and-white and morally > totalitarian worldview. Believe it or not, but > people who have a problem with homosexuality are > REAL people too, not mindless and heartless robots. > But I never said you were a mindless or heartless robot. You're putting words in my mouth. You are the one who is attacking me. Now you say I'm in favor of a black and white (a racist phrase, by the way)..and a morally totalitarian worldview? Huh? Where do you get that? > > I will NOT be silent while people continue to > > make comments that I know to be wrong, immoral, > > and bigoted... > > Well then, I'm sure you'll understand when some > other people decry YOUR comments as wrong, > immoral and/or bigoted. > > Let me repeat the bottom line of it all: > > WHO ASSIGNED YOU AS THOUGHT POLICE OFFICER??? > > Del > Del, please indicate specifically through citing one of my posts where I have tried to be a "thought police officer." You think *I* am the one who is attacking people, yet take a look at this post...? Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Nov 9 05:58:08 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 05:58:08 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40710311056j429809f0mfd27d74797dad1b1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > > > > Tonks: > > >big snip< > > > > > > But I am upset > > that the vision that I have of DD is being tampered with. It is a > > type of betrayal. It is as if DD were living a lie in the books. And > > this is not the way for her to treat the epitome of goodness. She > > makes him look like a liar and a fake. She is telling us that our > > deep intuitive sense of our most beloved person is wrong. She is > > messing with the subconscious mind, and whatever a person feels > > about gay people in the real world, it is upsetting to challenge our > > inter vision of a character we thought we knew. The subconscious > > mind is not rational. This is why there is such a strong reaction > > from so many people. > > > montims: > so that is why I'm not so upset aout it. Quite apart from the fact that I > don't care who or what DD fancies, I have no "deep intuitive sense of our > most beloved person" - DD is a character in a fictional series of books that > I enjoy reading. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Albus Dumbledore has always been my favorite character, from Book One on..... What's interesting is why your "deep intuitive sense" of him has been damaged by the idea that he once loved another man? So, my deep intuitive sense of Lupin has been shattered by JKR's insistence that he's at least bisexual? Just don't get it... Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Nov 9 06:08:09 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 06:08:09 -0000 Subject: free speech and free thought Message-ID: So, what's the deal here? Yes, in America, one of the values that we think we believe in is free speech. Yet, there are limitations to free speech. This has come up in the case of families of soldiers who have died in Iraq whose funerals have been picketed by Rev. Phelps (God Hates Fags)....so our concept of free speech tends to be a little situational. I think that some people on the list are not used to being challenged about their beliefs about lesbian and gay people, and about the immorality or abnormality of same gender partnerships. I have curtailed no one's free speech or thought. I have told no one that they are not free to think what they please, post what they please, or believe what they please..what I have done, and will continue to do, is challenge those beliefs. That's my right. I have exerted no force, nor have I suggested that someone leave the list (although someone just suggested that if I don't like the value of American free speech, I should "move out" of America.) Interesting. I have named the fact that constant comments and statements about how being lesbian or gay hurts me, and hurts other lesbians and gays. Why should JKR pander to beliefs (that "homosexuality" is wrong, or unnatural, or unGodlike) that don't match hers? She hasn't pandered to beliefs that everyone should be a Christian (despite the fact that she herself is a Christian). She's said that it's no news to her that a brave and brilliant man could be gay. I think she's incredibly courageous, given the junk that has been thrown at her for that statement. She's experiencing a little of what lesbians and gay men experience daily -- the barrage of hatred and ignorance and intolerance that lies just beneath the surface of our veneer of civilization. Thank goodness most people believe that beliefs CAN be changed...and that we can learn and grow through experience, through understanding, through compassion and through love. Some day we'll live in a world where who you love is not grounds for being hated or discriminated against. Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Nov 9 06:17:36 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 06:17:36 -0000 Subject: "curing" "homosexuality" Message-ID: Of course, any person has the right to state whatever they please about "curing" "homosexuality", but here are some facts from the American Psychiatric Association that you might want to check out. (Of course the APA and the AMA are probably part of the "homosexual" lobby) Facts Regarding "Reparative Therapy" The record shows that "reparative therapy" has no support from the major medical and mental health professional organizations. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed the term "homosexuality" from the list of mental and emotional disorders. Sexual orientation is not a disorder; therefore, it does not need to be cured. In 1990, the American Psychological Association stated that scientific evidence shows that reparative therapy does not work and that it can do more harm than good. In 1998, the American Psychiatric Association stated it was opposed to reparative therapy, stating "psychiatric literature strongly demonstrates that treatment attempts to change sexual orientation are ineffective. However, the potential risks are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive [suicidal] behavior..." The American Medical Association, states in its policy number H- 160.991, that it "opposes, the use of `reparative' or `conversion' therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation". In 2001, The U.S. Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior asserted that homosexuality is not "a reversible lifestyle choice". Richard Cohen, one of the main reparative therapists, is permanently excluded from the American Counseling Association (ACA). "Reparative therapy" is unethical. It does not work and it is dangerous and destructive. The damage that can be done by this practice is real. It can destroy someone's self esteem and faith and may lead to self-destructive and suicidal behavior. From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Nov 9 06:26:01 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 06:26:01 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > churchmouse: > However, as a fan I feel > > betrayed because she started the series to get YOUNG children,to > read, > > especially boys. Even the choice bothers me; I could have seen > > Gildaroy Lockheart as gay even Hoarse Slug horn But Dumbledore, > What > > purpose did that serve? > > Magpie: > She said he was infatuated with Grindelwald. That's the only thing > it really affected. It didn't seem to have a purpose other than this > is the way Dumbledore's character was in her head. There's no > purpose in Myrtle being a lech but that's the way she is. > > Do I want to know why you'd be okay with Slughorn or Lockhart being > gay somehow more than Dumbledore? Why are those the two "you could > see" but there's a problem with Dumbledore? Because Lockhart's a > vain pompous guy obsessed with appearance and Slughorn's a prissy > glutton? Why is there more of a problem with Dumbledore? He doesn't > seem any less believable than those two to me. > Yes, Magpie, good point...it's okay if a cowardly, prissy, pompous, unethical Lockhart is gay...or if a old fat admirer of Riddle Slytherin is gay....THAT jives with people's stereotypical view of gay men...but for the bravest and best wizard in the world to be gay? Now THAT's a problem! If one MUST include gay characters, it's critical that they be portrayed as doomed, suicidal, unhappy, or flawed... That's SUGGESTING that brave and brilliant men might love other men! What purpose did it serve? I doubt very much that JKR had a "purpose" in mind...I think that she imagined these characters and they all had a background and a back story..given that she's not a bigot, she had no problem in imagining some of her characters being gay... Susan From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 06:50:13 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 06:50:13 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > ***Katie: But I, to whom Del was initially resonding, haven't called > anyone a bigot. I *specifically* have been referring to thoughts and > beliefs, *not* people. I have been trying very hard to keep the tone > of the conversations civil, and I feel like I'm being yelled at in > return. I understand it is very difficult to convey tone in this > format, but I do feel like some posts are very aggressive. > Tonks: Well as an innocent bystander, I think both of you think that the other is attacking and both of you think that you are not. Of course, to some extent it will depend on the POV of the bystander as to which one of you is or is not attacking. If I tend to agree with Del I will think that Del is being attacked. And if I agree with Susan, or Katie, I will think that anyone with the opposite view is attacking. It is hard in these debates not to take some things personally. Our ideas, if near and dear to us, become part of us and when they are attacked, it can feel as if we are being attacked. (I know that I have felt this way on the main list a time or two in the past.) That is the nature of a debate when both sides own their POV and are not just debating for the hell of it. I think that is just the way it is. I agree that it would be best if we didn't bring negative judgements and slur words into the discussion. On the other hand I can understand the anger that this subject invokes in some who have been unfairly treated by society. It is hard to understand the other person's POV when you are hurting yourself. I remember once as a child, my mother taught me to put myself in the other person's place and using my imagination, ask myself how that person might be feeling when I do such and such. It has been a learning experience for me to discover, here on this list, that for the younger people in our society, who do not remember the way things use to be, that it is apparently is a whole different world out there. Or maybe all of you are just from New York. ;-) Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 07:18:13 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 07:18:13 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Elisabet continues: >> Note, BTW, how she answered the question about Aberforth and the goats at Carnegie Hall: > Q: In the Goblet of Fire Dumbledore said his brother was prosecuted > for practicing inappropriate charms [JKR buries her head, to laughter] on a goat; what were the inappropriate charms he was practicing on that goat? > > JKR: How old are you? > > Eight. > > JKR: I think that he was trying to make a goat that was easy to keep clean [laughter], curly horns. That's a joke that works on a couple of levels. I really like Aberforth and his goats. But you know Aberforth having this strange fondness for goats if you've read book seven, came in really useful to Harry, later on, because a goat, a stag, you know. If you're a stupid Death Eater, what's the difference. So, that is my answer to YOU. (Snip > Elisbaet again: > With this answer she clearly is saying that there is an innocent > reading appropriate for eight year olds ("...that is my answer to > YOU") and at the same time, yes, but that she intended more mature > readers to interpret it, well, somewhat differently. Tonks: So Rowlings mind is in the gutter? I knew she was newly married when she named Tonks, Nymphadora. I thought, my God, why is she using that word in a children???s book. It was just so obvious where HER mind was. I don???t want to think of Aberforth as a sexual pervert who is having sex with goats. For god sakes!!! The publishers, Warner Brothers, and who knows who else, should have put a spell on that woman to shut her up. I read where she says that outing DD was so freeing for her. Heck, lady, you have plently of money, see a therapist if you want to free yourself! Don't use us. I am surprised that WB didn't have her sign a contract to keep quiet. I bet they will with the next superstar "children's" book author. Tonks_op From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Nov 9 07:27:30 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 07:27:30 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > > Elisabet continues: > >> Note, BTW, how she answered the question about Aberforth and the > goats at Carnegie Hall: > > Q: In the Goblet of Fire Dumbledore said his brother was prosecuted > > for practicing inappropriate charms [JKR buries her head, to > laughter] on a goat; what were the inappropriate charms he was > practicing on that goat? > > > > JKR: How old are you? > > > > Eight. > > > > JKR: I think that he was trying to make a goat that was easy to > keep clean [laughter], curly horns. That's a joke that works on a > couple of levels. I really like Aberforth and his goats. But you > know Aberforth having this strange fondness for goats if you've read > book seven, came in really useful to Harry, later on, because a > goat, a stag, you know. If you're a stupid Death Eater, what's the > difference. So, that is my answer to YOU. > (Snip > > Elisbaet again: > > With this answer she clearly is saying that there is an innocent > > reading appropriate for eight year olds ("...that is my answer to > > YOU") and at the same time, yes, but that she intended more mature > > readers to interpret it, well, somewhat differently. > > Tonks: > So Rowlings mind is in the gutter? I knew she was newly married when > she named Tonks, Nymphadora. I thought, my God, why is she using > that word in a children???s book. It was just so obvious where HER > mind was. I don???t want to think of Aberforth as a sexual pervert who > is having sex with goats. For god sakes!!! The publishers, Warner > Brothers, and who knows who else, should have put a spell on that > woman to shut her up. I read where she says that outing DD was so > freeing for her. Heck, lady, you have plently of money, see a > therapist if you want to free yourself! Don't use us. I am surprised > that WB didn't have her sign a contract to keep quiet. I bet they > will with the next superstar "children's" book author. > > Tonks_op > But of course, they didn't know that JKR's work would make her a superstar...... Re: Aberforth: IT'S A JOKE! She doesn't really think that Aberforth is having sex with goats..it's TONGUE IN CHEEK..... And a wonderful tongue in cheek reference in the movie OoP where Aberforth is seen with the goats..... Susan From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 07:57:10 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 07:57:10 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "susanmcgee48176" wrote: > > Magpie: Why are those the two "you could > > see" but there's a problem with Dumbledore? Because Lockhart's a > > vain pompous guy obsessed with appearance and Slughorn's a prissy glutton? Susan:> > Yes, Magpie, good point...it's okay if a cowardly, prissy, pompous, unethical Lockhart is gay...or if a old fat admirer of Riddle Slytherin is gay....THAT jives with people's stereotypical view of gay men...but for the bravest and best wizard in the world to be gay? Tonks: I just want to point out that what you have just said above is also, what was the word we are not going to use? The B word. You are implying here that someone who is old, or over weight is seen as less that human. Slughorn, in your eyes, isn???t 'good enough' to be the gay one. You are saying that someone like Lockhart who is cautious, and cares about their appearance, is prissy and cowardly. Do you see my point? No one is without some prejudges against some group or other. The problem for me in all of this bickering back and forth is that truth gets lost. Whoever is not like US, is ???them???. We are all discriminated against one way or another. Like it or not, it seems to be a fact of life. I wish it were not so, but it is what it is. Tonks_op old, fat, and prissy. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 09:58:36 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:58:36 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40711081117y5bbf75c5p3fa3f6461864c2ee@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: montims wrote: > homosexuality is a normal phenomenon Del wonders: "normal" as in what? As in "it happens everywhere all the time"? Or as in "it's well within the norm"? I agree in the first case, but I contend that it all depends on what is identified as "the norm" in the second case. > that has manifested itself in every culture (and > across other animal species too, evidently). Can you point me to a single animal species where life-long exclusive same-sex couples are "normal"? > Witchcraft, as considered in real life, where > people manipulate events, and often hurt people, > using energies and intent, surely is much more > controversial than who fancies whom??? First, you're going to offend quite a few practicioners of withcraft with that kind of talk. And second, no matter how unreasonable it may seem to you, I do think that homosexuality is still more controversial than withcraft. Arguing that it shouldn't be so is rather pointless. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 10:00:31 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:00:31 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Elisabet > Note, BTW, how she answered the question about > Aberforth and the goats at Carnegie Hall: Del cautions: I don't think it's wise to drag Aberforth into this discussion. I mean, in a WW where only heterosexuality is ever mentioned, we have two brothers, one gay and one apparently into bestiality... Unless you consider it a complete coincidence that the ONLY character versed into bestiality happens to be the brother of the ONLY gay character, you can't help but wonder about the message JKR is sending here. I do, at least. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 10:08:28 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:08:28 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: susanmcgee wrote: > Perhaps then we could ban the word homosexual? > Which I have said again and again is offensive. Del replies: It's not universally offensive. First it's not offensive where I come from, and second I've discussed homosexuality at length with quite a few Americans, including gay and lesbian ones, and NONE of them EVER mentioned that my using the word "homosexual" was offensive to them. "Homosexual" is an apt descriptor, just like bigot is, when correctly used. People who are sexually attracted to people of the same sex and only people of the same sex, are homosexual, period. That's not an insult, that's a description. If "homosexual" is somehow an insult, then using the word "heterosexual" is also an insult. I don't see bisexuals or heterosexuals objecting to the use of those terms. So why do gays and lesbians object to the use of "homosexual"? If it's just because they see in the term "homosexual" an innuendo that isn't meant by most people who actually use that word, then I'd say the burden of changing is on gays' shoulders. By the way, I would consider that for gays and lesbians, the word "straight" would be far more insulting than the word "heterosexual". I mean, if I'm straight, then what are you supposed to be? Crooked, bent, deviant? > Bigotry is real. Oppression is real. Assaults > on lesbians and gays are real. Nobody on this list has denied that. > If you read my posts carefully, I said holding > and expressing those viewpoints contribute to an > atmosphere that allows and condones such actions. And that's the part I disagree with. First because quite a few people who have a problem with homosexuality actually fight the victimisation of gays and lesbians. And second because forcing people to keep their opinions to themselves has never been a good way to ensure that those opinions disappear and that they are never acted upon, quite the contrary in fact: the more people are forced to repress their opinions, the more likely they are to violently act upon them sooner or later, given the opportunity. > Being a lesbian is only one part of my very > complex identity..... That's true of everyone, including bigots and more generally people who have a problem with homosexuality: they are *complex* people, so reducing them to hateful bigots is in fact counter-effective. > Trying to put us all in one package is > discriminatory and bigoted. Then you should understand why it's just as offensive to put all people who have a problem of some kind with homosexuality in the same package. > JKR doesn't have to pander to ANYone at this point. Then why did she? If she thought of DD as gay from back before she even started writing the books, how come she didn't actually write him AS gay? She was obviously under some compulsion of some kind to NOT write him as gay, and to even not mention any instance of homosexuality in her books. Now, what could that compulsion have been? Was it internal? Did she have a personal reason not to mention homosexuality at all in her books, and to keep the homosexuality of one of her main characters a secret? What reason could this have been? It can't have been a desire to keep ALL sexuality out of her books, since heterosexuality is pretty heavily mentioned and shown. So what was it? Can YOU imagine a reason that does NOT involve considering that homosexuality is not quite "as normal" as heterosexuality? I can't. Or maybe her compulsion was external? Maybe it was the publishers, though by the time she wrote the last books, you'd think she'd have enough power to include obvious allusions if she wanted to. Or maybe, oops, she was actually PANDERING to the unspoken wishes of a good deal of her readers, by keeping such a controversial issue as homosexuality out of her books? Can you give me another reason? > I would have been happier if she had included > a couple of same gender adolescent couples, > and I am still puzzled as to why she didn't. Exactly. WHY didn't she? She had PLENTY of opportunities, and she passed them all. Why? > frankly, when you're a lesbian, you're used > to 90% of the stuff you see not reflecting > your life in one way. It's unfair and unjust, > but so it goes... Try and be a Christian in an staunchly atheist country. Granted, we don't get beaten or otherwise physically abused, but our very existence is considered as a joke. > Folks, if you persist in insisting it's just > fine (because it's part of your religion, > or whatever) to say that homosexuality is wrong > or immoral, I'm going to say that you're voicing > bigotry. >From dictionary.com: bigotry: 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. 2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot. Which one is the bigot? * The person who says "I think there's something wrong with homosexuality, but I don't mind other people thinking otherwise, and I won't persecute gays and lesbians in any way"? * Or the person who says "I don't care what your reasons for saying something are, I just won't allow you to say it without verbally attacking you"? I'm not the one around here openly saying that if people say X or Y, I'm going to jump on them and call them offensive words. > It's nice to say, gosh, let's just agree > to disagree, but this is my life, my > civil rights, my children's lives.... it's > not an intellectual conversation. And it's not my life too, maybe??? Do you think that maybe I'm not actually living in this world, or something?? > After all, the DeathEaters had the right to > believe that being a mudblood made you inferior, > right? And they could say it all they liked as > long as they didn't DO anything about it, right? > That IS the argument? And if they believe that, > I'm supposed to be tolerant of their beliefs? DD was. Harry was. That's EXACTLY what TOLERANCE is about! Tolerance is not about tolerating the beliefs that we don't mind: it's about granting other people the right to believe anything they want, no matter how offensive it may be to us. You can claim the right to be intolerant, and you can choose to be intolerant, but then please don't turn around and try and teach some warped vision of tolerance to others. > If someone voices a comment about a racial minority, > for example, if they said it was wrong for Harry > and Cho to kiss, would that be okay? It would be their right, yes. No matter how distateful it would be to me, I would nonetheless grant them the right to say things like that. I would be personally hurt because I couldn't avoid thinking about my Eurasian cousins, but that wouldn't change the fact that I would grant that person the right to say that on a public forum. Not in my house, though... > Is anyone hearing me say that slavery and > oppression have Biblical supports, and lots > of people said they were following their religious > teachings by keeping slaves? If you wanted to say it, I'd see no reason to stop you from saying it. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 10:10:53 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:10:53 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: susanmcgee wrote: > Well, it would be nice if someone would > address me directly, but I guess that people > who are abnormal and who have chosen a sinful > lifestyle don't deserve simple courtesy. Del replies: Of all people involved in this conversation, you are the last one who should try and play that card, since you did exactly that to me, and I wasn't even participating on OTC at the time, so you can't even pretend that you thought I would read it anyway. > I'm trying to make the point that we are > dealing with real peoples' lives here, Yes we are. I'm real, my beliefs are real, my relationship with God is real, my efforts to show compassion to everyone, including gays and lesbians, is real. And for you to talk as if all of this weren't real, yes, it does hurt. > Everyone IS entitled to their opinion. My > opinion is that the type of nonsense that is > being spouted by people about lesbians and > gay men is based in bigotry and ignorance. Funny you should say that, since you never bothered to ask ME *WHY* I am not fully accepting of homosexuality. You just assumed you knew, or something, I guess? > Someone might want to take a look at the > scientific research about "changing" someone's > sexual orientation. Or at the research that > is finding that children of lesbians and gay > men do just as well emotionally as the > children of heterosexuals. > > Otherwise, a poor young kid who is gay or > who is a lesbian is going to read this stuff, > and say (gosh, I don't want to live a life > where everyone thinks I'm abnormal and immoral, > maybe I can change?) or worse yet, thinks about > killing themselves because they can't imagine > leading a happy or normal life. What about being told that you should change your beliefs? What about growing up in a world that ridicules your beliefs? What about thinking that maybe one will have to deny what they believe in order to be able to live a normal life? What do YOU know about that? > It really seems as if people would like me to be > silent. Correction: YOU are the one who has been wishing for other people to stop saying what they think. > It seems to me that it's okay for YOU to have > YOUR opinions about the abnormality and immorality > of "homosexuality" but it's not okay for me > to have MY opinions about injustice and intolerance. I'm not saying that you can't have your own opinions of injustice and intolerance. I'm just saying that you are just as intolerant as you claim me to be, for example. My opinion, you know. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 10:12:30 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:12:30 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: susanmcgee wrote: > Oh, okay, so you're fine with the people who > say that Africans have smaller brains and are > less intelligent than Europeans/white people... > after all, it's their opinion, right? They're > not bigots? Del replies: I'm not fine with their opinions (especially since I happen to also have black-and-white cousins, one of my uncles is from Guadalupe - and yes, we are a very coloured family, makes for wonderful family pictures), but I'm fine with those people existing and having their own opinions. As for designating them as bigots: I honestly don't know about that, it's something I just don't lose any time thinking about. People are people, they have their own opinions, sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I strongly disagree with them, and that's it. I can control which opinions are allowed to be voiced in my home, I can take action when I see someone being persecuted, I can raise my own voice to express another opinion, all those things are useful. But cataloging someone as a "bigot"? What's the point, the use of that? What does it accomplish, except ensure that they won't be willing to listen to me and talk to me?? > And by the way, the constant statements that > homosexuality is immoral or abnormal ARE > attacks on me and every lesbian and gay man. And the constant statements that anyone who has a problem with homosexuality is an untolerant bigot is an attack on all non-bigoted people who happen to have a problem with homosexuality. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 10:15:26 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:15:26 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susanmcgee wrote: > But if someone presented me with evidence, > with examples, with reasoned discourse, as > has happened so many times in my life, I'd > say "hmmmm..well, maybe I should rethink that.." Del wonders: Are you somehow under the impression that this is the first time in my life that I'm discussing homosexuality? Are you under the impression that I have never been through that rethinking process? If you are indeed under that impression, then let me tell you that you are gravely wrong. I have been in extremely deep and complex discussions on that topic, I have rethought my position a number of times, in fact I *constantly* rethink it, anytime a new fact or idea is thrown my way (something you haven't done, by the way: everything you've said in this discussion, I've heard many many times before.) You shouldn't assume that just because people disagree with you means that they haven't carefully thought out their position and opinion. > Really. So you think that people who think Asians > are inferior can go through their life never > communicating that to an Asian or Asian > American or English person with Asian ancestry....? No. But I do think that they can choose to express their opinion or not when meeting those people. Me, for example: I have a problem with homosexuality. This didn't prevent me from living harmoniously along with a couple of girls in the flat upstairs that I strongly suppose were a lesbian couple. I was always polite to them, I enjoyed their presence, I enjoyed their personalities, and I totally enjoyed having them as neighbours. I would NEVER have done anything to hurt them. In particular, I would NEVER have gone out of my way to inform them that I have a problem with their sexuality. And you know what? Many people in my Church act exactly like me. You could live alongside us for years, talk to us every day, visit with us every week, go on holidays with us, and yet never know that we have a religious problem with your sexuality. You'd have to ask us directly what our Church's position and our personal position on homosexuality are, to know that we have any problem with it. > How am I trying to control your thoughts? Emotional manipulation: "I won't like you, nor approve of you, nor recognise you as someone equal to me in opinions and qualities (morality, compassion, whatever), until you fully agree with me." > Well, I think you confuse beliefs, which I > contend can be changed through reflection, > analysis, and experience, with the fact of being > a lesbian or gay male...which for many people > is not subject to change.. My beliefs are indeed subject to change... but only within some limits. I have REASONS to believe what I believe, solid reasons, that I can no more deny than you can deny your exclusive attraction to females. > Now you say I'm in favor of a black and white > (a racist phrase, by the way).. No it's not. Every single phrase that mentions the words "white" and "black" is not a racist phrase. If it's racist, then tell me: which colour is it in favour of? Black or white? > and a morally totalitarian worldview? Huh? > Where do you get that? Do you or don't you, think that there is only ONE right opinion about homosexuality? > Del, please indicate specifically through citing > one of my posts where I have tried to be a > "thought police officer." Anytime you argue that some opinions should not be freely aired, that some things cannot be said without automatically deserving verbal attack. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 10:16:57 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:16:57 -0000 Subject: free speech and free thought In-Reply-To: Message-ID: susanmcgee wrote: > I think that some people on the list are not > used to being challenged about their beliefs > about lesbian and gay people, and about the > immorality or abnormality of same gender > partnerships. Del replies: Talking about me but not to me, hm? But anyway: if you think that I am one of those people who "are not used to being challenged", you are totally and utterly wrong. More wrong than you can begin to imagine. > Why should JKR pander to beliefs (that > "homosexuality" is wrong, or unnatural, or > unGodlike) that don't match hers? I'll repeat what I have already said countless times: she DID pander to those beliefs! > She's experiencing a little of what lesbians > and gay men experience daily -- the barrage of > hatred and ignorance and intolerance that lies > just beneath the surface of our veneer of civilization. And which isn't directed only at gays and lesbians. In fact, people of my religion in America are attacked just as much by Fundamentalist Evangelicals than gays and lesbians. Some even see us as worse than gays and lesbians, and create ministries whose sole goal is to harass and oppress people of my religion. > Thank goodness most people believe that beliefs > CAN be changed...and that we can learn and grow > through experience, through understanding, > through compassion and through love. You haven't shown much of that to ME, you know. Where is your understanding of my position? Where is your compassion for people who have a problem with homosexuality and who struggle to reconcile their belief with an attitude of love and compassion to actual gays and lesbians? Where is your compassion towards "bigots"? > Some day we'll live in a world where who you > love is not grounds for being hated or > discriminated against. I sure hope NOT, I'd hate to live in a world where, say, pedophiles are not being discriminated against. Del From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Fri Nov 9 10:19:25 2007 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:19:25 +0100 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations References: Message-ID: <002101c822ba$0387ec00$15b2a8c0@miles> Tonks wrote: > Our ideas, if near and dear to us, become part of us and > when they are attacked, it can feel as if we are being attacked. (I > know that I have felt this way on the main list a time or two in the > past.) That is the nature of a debate when both sides own their POV > and are not just debating for the hell of it. I think that is just > the way it is. Miles: Generally you are absolutely right. But here I am not so sure. Because there is a difference between both positions. To be homosexual is no choice, no belief. It's not an idea, it's not to be changed (there's no other scientifically accepted position). But to believe that something is immoral and that it should not be proclaimed, or talked about, or whatever, that is an opinion or a belief that *can* be changed. So, if Susan feels attacked, she feels attacked for what she *is*, while others might feel attacked for their *opinions*. That's really not the same. If tolerance is defined as the "suspect, the adverseries could be right", the only chance for Susan to accept her counterparts' position would be to deny her own personality and existence. On the other hand, statements about homosexuality are just one minor part of any Christian or other religious catechism, so nobody would have to deny even his own faith by accepting Susan's POV - not to speak of personality and existence. Miles From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 10:36:48 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:36:48 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Katie wrote: > Well, I did [think that homosexuality is less > controversial than witchcraft]. Until recently. Del replies: I guess you fell for the false impression that most people don't have any problem with homosexuality. The truth is, though, that most people who do have a problem with homosexuality won't SAY so in public, most of the time, because they don't want to be verbally attacked, ridiculed, or even slandered. So they keep their opinions to themselves, and only expose them anonymously and/or in private. This all gives an overall impression that most people don't have a problem with homosexuality, when in fact quite a lot of people do, but don't say so. I think you'd be surprised to realise just how many people around you, in your real life, only pretend to go along with your opinions. > I just don't think that she was deliberately > creating books that excluded homosexuality. Did they include homosexuality? No. To be realistic, should they have included homosexuality? Yes. The conclusion is inescapable. > Just because it wasn't relevant to the plot > doesn't mean it was deliberately excluded or > that JKR created a strictly heterosexual WW. Was the absence of racism relevant to the plot? No. Then why did JKR go out of her way to point out that there is no racism in the WW? And she DID create a strictly heterosexual WW. Intentionally or not is the question, but the fact itself is hardly disputable. > Personally, I would have felt it would have > been horribly awkward and unnessessary if DD > had suddenly turned to Harry while discussing > Voldemort and said, "By the way, Harry, I'm > gay. Just wanted to mention it. So, about > that prophecy..." : ) I mean, it just didn't > matter to the story. I don't understand why people insist on creating such stupid scenarios to somehow "prove" that JKR couldn't include homosexuality in her books. She had plenty of opportunities to discreetly inject some homosexuality in her books, just like she discreetly injected different races. Those couples kissing in the rosebushes, why couldn't one of them be a same-sex one? Those students asking Harry to the Yule Ball, why couldn't one of them be a boy? Heck, why not have Ginny date a girl in-between two boys? As for DD: would it have been so amazingly awkward to have him simply admit that he loved GG, when he's discussing it all with Harry in King's Cross? No need to make a big deal of it, just mention it in passing. > Ok. Why are you being so sarcastic? I am trying > so, so hard to keep this discussion reasonable > and about the books. Can we just please tone > down the sarcasm and take a deep breath? Please? I actually was not being sarcastic this time, I was being dead serious. I was giving very serious reasons why some people, right now, are pretty upset by the whole "DD is gay" thing. > My point there was, and I was really only > considering adults, not kids, that if you choose > to ignore JKR's comments, you can. That's true of adults who don't have kids who read HP and who have heard about the gay comments. As much as parents might manage to "forget" about it, they can't just tell their kids to forget about it too: they have to deal with it, even if they don't want to. Del From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 10:52:56 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:52:56 -0000 Subject: The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Goddlefrood: > > I fondly remeber the time when Arthur Scargill was PM myself. > Geoff: > Could this be advance symptoms of psephological dementia? > [Psephological dementia. Medical. A condition in which the > patient suffers delusions and hallucinations concerning > election results. > First noted Fiji 2007.] Goddlefrood: 2006, to be precise, that was when they had the last coup... Thinking that the elections earlier in the year were rigged, and naturally they were, er um. From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Fri Nov 9 11:37:03 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:37:03 -0000 Subject: The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Goddlefrood wrote: > > > > > > Ann: > > > > But if we play the game of All-Canon-Is-Accurate, it's > > > > obvious who the PM is: Neil Kinnock. > > > > Geoff: > > > Hate to say it, but you're obviously not a UK voter. Neil > > > Kinnock was never PM; > > > Ann: > > What I meant was that you'd only need a small change to make > > Kinnock PM, because that election was so close. > > Goddlefrood: > > It wasn't that close, they got a majority of 65, wasn't it? > It decreased as by-elections came up, but the election of 1992 > really couldn't be called close. > > > > The current lot of Tories make Major's crew look like some of the > greatest statesmen ever. Ann: Well, I had a vague idea that the 1992 election had been close, and looking it up on Wikipedia I saw that the Tories only won by 1,241 votes - but you're right, scrolling a bit further down I see they had a majority of 65. This country could really do with a bit of democracy. Speaking of useless Tories, it looks like you keep an eye on UK politics. Given Ming Campbell's resignation and the fact that there's only two people standing for the party leadership, do you get the impression the Lib Dems are going to be the next Tories? Always shuffling leaders and never getting anywhere? Thanks for recommending Agatha Christie to me, by the way; I just read "Murder on the Orient Express" and it's great fun - certainly made a change from "The Silmarillion". Ann From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 13:27:46 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 05:27:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <885111.30935.qm@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Tonks wrote: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "susanmcgee48176" wrote: > > Magpie: Why are those the two "you could > > see" but there's a problem with Dumbledore? Because Lockhart's a > > vain pompous guy obsessed with appearance and Slughorn's a prissy glutton? Susan:> > Yes, Magpie, good point...it's okay if a cowardly, prissy, pompous, unethical Lockhart is gay...or if a old fat admirer of Riddle Slytherin is gay....THAT jives with people's stereotypical view of gay men...but for the bravest and best wizard in the world to be gay? Tonks: I just want to point out that what you have just said above is also, what was the word we are not going to use? The B word. You are implying here that someone who is old, or over weight is seen as less that human. Slughorn, in your eyes, isn???t 'good enough' to be the gay one. You are saying that someone like Lockhart who is cautious, and cares about their appearance, is prissy and cowardly. Do you see my point? No one is without some prejudges against some group or other. The problem for me in all of this bickering back and forth is that truth gets lost. Whoever is not like US, is ???them???. We are all discriminated against one way or another. Like it or not, it seems to be a fact of life. I wish it were not so, but it is what it is. Tonks_op old, fat, and prissy. ***Katie: You're right, Tonks. Except that old, prissy people don't get beaten to death for being old and prissy. There aren't Hate Crimes against the old and prissy. I appreciate you're trying to lighten the mood, but I feel like these are serious issues. There are different levels of prejudice. I am overweight. I have been overweight all of my life, and I have been discriminated against and ridiculed for it...but I would never suggest that my situation being chubby has any comparison with what African American people or gay people go through. There's a big difference between the prejudice against fat people, or old people, and the prejudice against black people, gay people, or even women. Those minority groups are in physical danger from the prejudices against them. It's serious stuff. I think that we cannot compare these - it's like apples and oranges. IMO. Katie . __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Nov 9 13:49:48 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:49:48 -0000 Subject: The Other Minister (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "or.phan_ann" wrote: Ann: > Well, I had a vague idea that the 1992 election had been close, and > looking it up on Wikipedia I saw that the Tories only won by 1,241 > votes - but you're right, scrolling a bit further down I see they had > a majority of 65. This country could really do with a bit of democracy. Geoff: It the built-in bias of "first past the post". I can't recall when there was last a UK Government which actually got more than 50% of the popular vote. There is some movement in the devolved Assemblies and Parliament (that is: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland fotr non-Brits) where PR is being used more. It's not only the UK: it has happened in the US. Was it the 2000 Presidential election where Gore got more popular votes but Bush gained more Electoral College votes after the Florida shenanigans? ...or was it 2004? I'm sure a friend from across the pond will put me right. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 13:51:24 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 05:51:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <882498.80860.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com> delwynmarch wrote: Katie wrote: > Well, I did [think that homosexuality is less > controversial than witchcraft]. Until recently. Del replies: <<>>I think you'd be surprised to realise just how many people around you, in your real life, only pretend to go along with your opinions. ***Katie: No, I think you might be surprised by how in the minority you are - at least where I live. I know you are not in the States, but the city I live in is very gay - we have entire neighborhoods that are dominated by gay couples, gay clubs, and restaurants and bars owned by gay people. It's also one of the most socially and politically liberal cities in the whole country. We haven't voted for a Republican mayor in 40 years, and my state has never gone "red" in a presidential election, meaning our electoral votes always go to the Democrat. Most of my friends are even more socially liberal than I am. In fact, I am often the one arguing for more traditional stuff in our political discussions. I am certainly the only practicing Catholic in my group of friends...including my own husband!! In addition, I don't need anyone to go along with my opinions to keep the peace. I enjoy a good debate. I've enjoyed *this* debate, except when we've gotten personal and attacked each other. <<>> > Katie: Personally, I would have felt it would have > been horribly awkward and unnessessary if DD > had suddenly turned to Harry while discussing > Voldemort and said, "By the way, Harry, I'm > gay. Just wanted to mention it. So, about > that prophecy..." : ) I mean, it just didn't > matter to the story. Del: I don't understand why people insist on creating such stupid scenarios to somehow "prove" that JKR couldn't include homosexuality in her books. She had plenty of opportunities to discreetly inject some homosexuality in her books, just like she discreetly injected different races. Those couples kissing in the rosebushes, why couldn't one of them be a same-sex one? Katie: Shockingly, Del, I agree with you. : ) I don't know what else to say on that one. I wish she *had* done that. Although I wish you hadn't called my scenario "stupid". I was purposely being ridiculous and *trying* to be funny! : ) >Katie: My point there was, and I was really only > considering adults, not kids, that if you choose > to ignore JKR's comments, you can. Del: That's true of adults who don't have kids who read HP and who have heard about the gay comments. As much as parents might manage to "forget" about it, they can't just tell their kids to forget about it too: they have to deal with it, even if they don't want to. ***Katie: I have kids. It's true that they are too young to have read Potter yet, but I certainly don't plan to open my first reading of it to them by saying, "Mommy's going to read Harry Potter to you now, and by the way, before we begin, Dumbledore is gay like grandpa." It's just not necessary for a reading of the book. As you and I agree, there is no reference to gayness in the books, so why bother with it? I have plenty of other opportunities to discuss gayness with them. HP does not need to be the platform. Katie . __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 14:40:47 2007 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:40:47 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: <882498.80860.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Katie wrote: > I know you are not in the States, but the > city I live in is very gay - we have entire > neighborhoods that are dominated by gay couples, > gay clubs, and restaurants and bars owned by > gay people. Del replies: Ah bah you're cheating then ;-) :-P Mind you, that would explain why homosexuality isn't such a controversial subject in your neck of the woods. But anyway, I guess I should have made that "you" a more general you, huh? > In addition, I don't need anyone to go > along with my opinions to keep the peace. > I enjoy a good debate. I do too, but unfortunately, not everyone does. It's almost a rule for me, in real life, to avoid debates at all costs, because there is almost always someone around willing to jump down the throat of anyone who doesn't agree with them. Especially on such "loaded" matters as homosexuality. > Although I wish you hadn't called my scenario > "stupid". I was purposely being ridiculous and > *trying* to be funny! : ) Oops, sorry! Projection on my part: some people on MAIN and/or OTC have argued that JKR couldn't possibly have revealed DD's gayness, even if she had wanted to, because it couldn't be done without it being jarring, and they *seriously* used such scenarios to illustrate it. I just assumed that you were one of them. My bad. > It's true that they are too young to have read > Potter yet, but I certainly don't plan to open > my first reading of it to them by saying, > "Mommy's going to read Harry Potter to you now, > and by the way, before we begin, Dumbledore is > gay like grandpa." It's just not necessary for > a reading of the book. As you and I agree, > there is no reference to gayness in the books, > so why bother with it? I was seeing things from the other way around: the parents of kids who have already read HP, and who now learn that DD is gay. If homosexuality is an issue for those parents, then this outing of DD has put them into "damage control" mode without any advance warning. > I have plenty of other opportunities to > discuss gayness with them. HP does not need to > be the platform. Precisely! There are parents out there who don't appreciate being put on the spot of having to discuss gayness here and now with their kids, by JKR outing DD out of the blue. If JKR had written DD as gay, those parents could have chosen whether and when to let their kids read HP, and they would have been able to plan a discussion on homosexuality. Instead, out of the blue, they find themselves *having* to have that discussion *right now*. I can understand that they are pissed. Del From i_am_finally_me at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 15:21:04 2007 From: i_am_finally_me at yahoo.com (Demonsplaygirl) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 07:21:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations Message-ID: <179931.50436.qm@web45513.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Hello everyone. I don't usually post here, because I"m usually way to busy to read all 500 of everyones emails!! But today I read part of a post, and I just could not believe that you are discussing this!! So I figured that I'd put my 35 cents in.. So I hope nobody mines.. About the Homosexual stuff. The word Homosexual is NOT offensive to those of us who live Gay, Lesbian or even Bi lifestyle, I know that because I AM BI, and my current fiancee is a lesbian. The word homosexual is what we are, and were proud of it. Though I'm not sure why this topic is even being discussed, on account this is supposed to be about Harry Potter, but I've learned to just let you guys just ramble every now and then. There is nothing wrong with Dumbledore being Gay, whether he is or isn't isn't really a big thing when comes to the Harry Potter books, and the reason I say this is because does it change the fact that he cared about all his students? Does that effect the fact that the man is now dead?! Dumbledore was a great man, and awesome wizard, that I even tend to respect a little. He lead Hogwarts, in all its victories and troubles, he kept his students secrets, and did what he had to to protect them. Especially Harry, Hermione, and Ron. He was never unreasonable, without a good excuse anyway, and he was always one that Harry or any student at Hogwarts could go to with any problem that they had, and he'd give his words of advice. Dumbledore was a great man, so why even debate the fact that he might be gay, or that he is gay? Does that change his awesomeness? I don't think it does... Well I must go now... I have things to do today.. Thanx Much for your time.. Hope __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Nov 9 15:53:39 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:53:39 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Katie wrote: > > Well, I did [think that homosexuality is less > > controversial than witchcraft]. Until recently. > > Del replies: > I guess you fell for the false impression that most > people don't have any problem with homosexuality. > The truth is, though, that most people who do have > a problem with homosexuality won't SAY so in public, > most of the time, because they don't want to be > verbally attacked, ridiculed, or even slandered. So > they keep their opinions to themselves, and only > expose them anonymously and/or in private. This all > gives an overall impression that most people don't > have a problem with homosexuality, when in fact > quite a lot of people do, but don't say so. I think > you'd be surprised to realise just how many people > around you, in your real life, only pretend to go > along with your opinions. Magpie: Actually, I would suggest that the "outing" of Dumbledore proves differently. There are many people all over the place who have no problem saying they have a problem with homosexuality. I'm not denying saying that can be met with being verbally attacked, ridiculed or slandered, just as any opinion can do that. It depends on what group you're in what opinion is going to be controversial. But I don't think we've entered a world yet where it's swung so far the other way that having a problem with gay people is in most places something you'd have to hide. I, personally, have never gotten the impression that "most people don't have a problem with homosexuality." Most of my friends don't, and my family doesn't, but that's my friends and people I know. This whole discussion on the list has included plenty of people openly stating or heavily implying they or others have a problem with it. I mean, why would JKR be afraid to out Dumbledore in the book (which many think she was) in a world where people have to hide their problems with it? The huge reaction to her revelation seems to me to suggest that opposite, that for some people it was controversial for her to make the character gay. (I do agree that she could have easily put gay people into the books as easily as she did bi-racial couples etc.) Tonks: Susan:> > Yes, Magpie, good point...it's okay if a cowardly, prissy, pompous, unethical Lockhart is gay...or if a old fat admirer of Riddle Slytherin is gay....THAT jives with people's stereotypical view of gay men...but for the bravest and best wizard in the world to be gay? Tonks: I just want to point out that what you have just said above is also, what was the word we are not going to use? The B word. You are implying here that someone who is old, or over weight is seen as less that human. Slughorn, in your eyes, isn???t 'good enough' to be the gay one. You are saying that someone like Lockhart who is cautious, and cares about their appearance, is prissy and cowardly. Do you see my point? No one is without some prejudges against some group or other. The problem for me in all of this bickering back and forth is that truth gets lost. Whoever is not like US, is ???them???. We are all discriminated against one way or another. Like it or not, it seems to be a fact of life. I wish it were not so, but it is what it is. Magpie: I think that's a bit of a dodge. The point is that someone said that "they could see" Lockhart or Slughorn being gay, that it would be okay for those characters to be outed. It's an obvious question to ask what these characters have that make them okay to be gay where Dumbledore isn't. She didn't say those characters weren't "good enough" she questioned why those characters are okay to be gay in ways Dumbledore isn't. Perhaps we're wrong in thinking it's that they conform to a stereotype, but it seemed the most obvious reason. Some people fit the stereotype and that's fine, but the point is why must it be a problem to have someone who doesn't fit the stereotype. Lockhart and Slughorn are morally inferior characters as per canon. Both of them are marked as being outside the circle of heroes, so anybody saying they're not as good as someone else would have a case there in canon. Neville is early on also described as being a bit pudgy (and looked down on for that) and he's a crybaby, but he's also a kickass hero. Slughorn and Lockhart are not admirable while Neville is. As for being fat and prissy being a bad thing--it seems like if one had a problem with that one would have a hard time with HP. I've been made very uncomfortable by the fat jokes in canon and being prissy isn't a good thing in this universe either. Tonks: It has been a learning experience for me to discover, here on this list, that for the younger people in our society, who do not remember the way things use to be, that it is apparently is a whole different world out there. Or maybe all of you are just from New York. ;-) Magpie: I believe that in US society at least (we're not all from the same society) that is a trend, that gay people are not as big a deal for younger generations as they are for older ones. I don't mind saying I like this particular trend and think it would be great if in a few generations the furor over gay people marrying goes the same way as interracial marriages and is no longer something people associate with people marrying animals or something that destroys the world. I do find it kind of interesting to hear references to the 1950s for instance as being a time when gay people didn't exist when of course they did, and before that too. Hope: He was never unreasonable, without a good excuse anyway, and he was always one that Harry or any student at Hogwarts could go to with any problem that they had, and he'd give his words of advice. Magpie: Err...no he wasn't. Harry was about the only student who ever saw the guy. And that was because he was pulling strings as part of his plan. Btw, I really like Mike's distinction about the reactions to the subject. There is a difference between a belief and what you are, I think. -m (from NYC--which I assume is what you mean--yes, and happy about it;-) From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 16:08:27 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 08:08:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <408666.15311.qm@web52708.mail.re2.yahoo.com> delwynmarch wrote: > Katie: It's true that they are too young to have read > Potter yet, but I certainly don't plan to open > my first reading of it to them by saying, > "Mommy's going to read Harry Potter to you now, > and by the way, before we begin, Dumbledore is > gay like grandpa." It's just not necessary for > a reading of the book. As you and I agree, > there is no reference to gayness in the books, > so why bother with it? Del: I was seeing things from the other way around: the parents of kids who have already read HP, and who now learn that DD is gay. If homosexuality is an issue for those parents, then this outing of DD has put them into "damage control" mode without any advance warning. > I have plenty of other opportunities to > discuss gayness with them. HP does not need to > be the platform. Precisely! There are parents out there who don't appreciate being put on the spot of having to discuss gayness here and now with their kids, by JKR outing DD out of the blue. If JKR had written DD as gay, those parents could have chosen whether and when to let their kids read HP, and they would have been able to plan a discussion on homosexuality. Instead, out of the blue, they find themselves *having* to have that discussion *right now*. I can understand that they are pissed. Del ***Katie: Ahhh. The sweet wind of peace and pleasantness. :) I feel much more comfortable with this conversation, now that we're lightening the mood a bit. Now, I can't understand why they are pissed off, but I can understand why they wouldn't want to discuss it with young children. I still don't think gayness is something to be upset about, and I never will understand that POV, but I *do* understand not feeling something is appropriate to talk about with little kids. Of course, then again, I don't think little kids should be reading books about death, suffering, child abuse, torture, evil, and obsession, either. : ) Katie, just happy we've (not just me and Del, but the whole group) toned down the rhetoric and we're actually *talking* to each other . __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Nov 9 18:18:14 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:18:14 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "susanmcgee48176" > wrote: > > > Magpie: > Why are those the two "you could > > > see" but there's a problem with Dumbledore? Because Lockhart's a > > > vain pompous guy obsessed with appearance and Slughorn's a > prissy glutton? > > Susan:> > > Yes, Magpie, good point...it's okay if a cowardly, prissy, > pompous, unethical Lockhart is gay...or if a old fat admirer of > Riddle Slytherin is gay....THAT jives with people's stereotypical > view of gay men...but for the bravest and best wizard in the world > to be gay? > > > Tonks: > I just want to point out that what you have just said above is also, > what was the word we are not going to use? The B word. You are > implying here that someone who is old, or over weight is seen as > less that human. Slughorn, in your eyes, isn???t 'good enough' to be > the gay one. You are saying that someone like Lockhart who is > cautious, and cares about their appearance, is prissy and cowardly. > Do you see my point? No one is without some prejudges against some > group or other. The problem for me in all of this bickering back and > forth is that truth gets lost. Whoever is not like US, is ???them???. We > are all discriminated against one way or another. Like it or not, it > seems to be a fact of life. I wish it were not so, but it is what it > is. > > Tonks_op > old, fat, and prissy. > Tonks, there's a different between prejudice (an unreasoned dislike of someone) and oppression (which is prejudice backed up by the power of the state)....and some of us think that there IS something that can be done about oppression...it's NOT the way of the world everywhere and change CAN and HAS happened....women can now own property, vote and speak in public in the U.S. and African Americans are not held as slaves... BTW, I am prejudiced, but against skinny, tall and beautiful people..being old, fat and dumpy myself...but I have no state power to back up my prejudices... Lockhart and Slughorn are portrayed as very unsympathetic characters.. I'd find them both very pleasant but Lockhart steals people's stories and memories, and is sneaking out of school rather than try to rescue Ginny..Slughorn is portrayed as a manipulative, not too brave spider...trading influences... Susan From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 19:36:12 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 13:36:12 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: free speech and free thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40711091136v2d6c8912h795dc3b7a4e51686@mail.gmail.com> > > susanmcgee wrote: > > > Some day we'll live in a world where who you > > love is not grounds for being hated or > > discriminated against. > > Del: > I sure hope NOT, I'd hate to live in a world > where, say, pedophiles are not being > discriminated against. montims: Del - do you not understand what paedophilia is? It has nothing to do with love. Quite the opposite. And besides which - if paedophilia (or name your bete noir) is a crime, then the people taking part should not be discriminated against - they should be processed as criminals. I should love to live in a world where nobody is discriminated against, but people who hurt others are punished legally for it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Churchmouse365 at aol.com Fri Nov 9 20:47:10 2007 From: Churchmouse365 at aol.com (constant2chatter) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:47:10 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Katie wrote: > > Well, I did [think that homosexuality is less > > controversial than witchcraft]. Until recently. > > Del replies: > > That's true of adults who don't have kids who read > HP and who have heard about the gay comments. As > much as parents might manage to "forget" about it, > they can't just tell their kids to forget about it > too: they have to deal with it, even if they don't > want to. > > Del > This is exactly my point, I have three kids who EACH have a set of the books and share a set of family movies, that's well over a thousand dollars investment. I have also been on the boards since 1997-98 and have a very personal investment here too. The actual interview is censured here, but I gather from boards like muggle net, snitch seekers Etc. I have 5 listed right from JKR official site in honored web sites and fan clubs. that she did have a chapter edited out of the last book. I wish someone would find the thing and tell me where to get it. I understood that is where these thoughts, enlightenments, statements are coming from. I don't personally care what anyone's orientations are. I believe it is my right as a parent to introduce this knowledge to my children as I see fit, 11 is too young, 8 is ridiculous. I will say this board moves fast, it took awhile to go through the posts. There was some verbal abuse about my secondary choice of Slughorn or Lockheart, well you are an age bigot. Believe me you will all grow old and die, it is not exclusive to people you do not agree with. Really someone said Black and Lupin as a choice, Black yes because in the memory Harry saw from Snape there was a girl trying to get Black's attention and he was having none of it. He had his reasons; I think that Lupon will raise objections because of his "hairy little problem." I have to say to Del, that I thought some of the stuff I was getting was because of my email of churchmouse. Truth be told we bought an account with 7 email and we are all mice of one kind or another, computer mice, we thought it was cute the kids were little. I do receive abuse from people jumping to conclusions about my religious faith. Thank you Del you have taught me to be more proud of whom I am. This is me on the subject of sexual orientation; In the 1980's TIME magazine ran a story about gay men in San Francisco, one interview stuck out, the interviewer asked how many partners over the past year and one guy said 540. There are only 365 days in a year. Moving forward by 1983 I was in class with a Gay man, we had more than a few conversations, he was a female impersonator and brought in nude photos of himself. He made a very pretty girl, they were taken on a door frame so you couldn't see that he wasn't female, then as he would say his hair began falling out and he had to change professions. At lunch one day his father walked into the restrant and the seen was heartbreaking. Dad was there with his nearing home group and was surprised too. They had not been in contact for a long time. Time passed I graduated and went to work and met the 2ed Gay man, Yes they have names but let's respect their privacy. This man was married (to a woman) had a child and divorced, he then became gay, she broke his heart. More time passed AIDS was in full swing, a bunch of Gay men fled to the Catholic Church, joined as priests because they were dieing and knew they would receive care there. Which they did and that is why today you have to pass a physical to join a seminary, the cost nearly bankrupted the diocese. I was involved with the medical profession, a lab Tec discussed a Gay man that moved on to stuffing rodents up his rectum, the animals try to get away and crawl deeper and then die, he came in to have them removed. And was warned to stop that because of the damage he was sustaining. He didn't listen and ended up wearing a bag (colostomy). The only Gay woman I knowingly met was in SAM"S Club 4 years ago, she tried to pick me up, I still can't believe it, my husband's head was stuffed in the egg case and I yelled "Vince you got those eggs yet?" and he was angered for the next two isles because I yelled at him. She was a cute blond too, and ran the other way thank God. When my oldest was 12, she came home from school one day and said "mom, I think I am Gay." Why do you think that? She said" because on the bus all the girls have boyfriends and most are having sex" I made sure she knew what sex is, and told here that the reason she did not have a boy friend yet was because she was 12, and 12 was still a child. Also that in this state and this country even if you wore a black nightgown and said come on big boy, if you are under age it is statutory rape and is a crime and somebody is going to jail. This is a brief history of what shaped my opinions, I have left lots out but you get the picture. The Catholic Church and the pope say that being Gay may be genetic, but those that are should not act on it, and those that are not should treat everyone fairly and without persecution. I don't have to know anything else. I know they (scientists) just mapped the gene code. There was a great piece on PBS, it took years. Assuming the data is all correct, I don't think there has been enough time to understand it. There is a doctor that Ann Landers quotes on the subject, but that man has an agenda being gay himself. I don't depute the research, but the conclusion needs conformation by an unbiased source. Good luck finding one. So maybe the better question is what makes someone gay? Because being sensitive, creative, artistic are HUMAN traits and are shared to some extent with everyone. To me what makes you Gay is having sex with the same gender; if you are not having sex then you are abstinent. So you can choose to be gay. Constant2Chatter From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 21:04:41 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:04:41 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "constant2chatter" wrote: > This is me on the subject of sexual orientation; In the 1980's TIME magazine ran a story about gay men in San Francisco, one interview stuck out, the interviewer asked how many partners over the past year and one guy said 540. There are only 365 days in a year. Alla: I only want to reply to this small part, because I am just not sure what the implication seems to be. YES, from what I heard a SEGMENT of gay population likes to have sex all the time with many many partners. Just as the SEGMENT of straight population likes to have sex all the time with many many many partners. It does not mean that ALL gays and lesbians have sex all the time with many many partners as I read the implication of this part. And same for straight people of course. Many have one partner for many many years just as straight couples do. Alla From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 21:06:06 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:06:06 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "constant2chatter" wrote: > I don't personally care what anyone's > orientations are. ***Katie: Of course you do. If you didn't care, it wouldn't be such a big deal to you. If you didn't care, we wouldn't be having this conversation. >Churchmouse: This is me on the subject of sexual orientation; In the > 1980's TIME magazine ran a story about gay men in San Francisco, one > interview stuck out, the interviewer asked how many partners over >the past year and one guy said 540. There are only 365 days in a >year. ***Katie: So, because of a singular interview of a singular person, you assume that all gay people are promiscuous? What about all the promiscuous people that are heterosexual? Is that person's lifestyle a comment on all heterosexuals? No. And neither is this. That's like saying, "Well, I read that a lot of black people are in jail, so all black people are criminals." I mean, come on. IMO, that is just plain silly. All the gay people I know are in monogamous relationships or looking for a monogamous relationship...just like straight people. My father was in a monogamous gay relationship for more than 20 years before he passed away. If he was alive, he would still be in that relationship. My father's partner is like a second father to me, and a grandfather to my children. Gay people value relationships and family just as much as straight people. That's just incredibly insulting,IMO, to basically accuse all gay people of being sexually promiscuous. Del and I had just come to a nice peace, where name-calling had ended. Let's please remember to be polite to one another. : ) We can disagree without being insulting. Churchmouse:The Catholic Church and the pope say that being Gay may be genetic, but those that are should not act on it, and those that are not should treat everyone fairly and without persecution. I don't have to know anything else. ***Katie: Um...I'm Catholic. And my church has a gay and lesbian ministry. And there are gay and lesbian couples who have kids that attend mass every Sunday. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Churchmouse: So maybe the better question is what makes someone gay? Because being sensitive, creative, artistic are HUMAN traits and are shared to some extent with everyone. To me what makes you Gay is having sex with the same gender; if you are not having sex then you are abstinent. So you can choose to be gay. > Constant2Chatter ***Katie: I think an awful lot of people would disagree with you here. So, if you are heterosexual, but not in a sexual relationship, does your sexuality disappear? Do you no longer have a sexual identity, just because you are not actively having sex? Of course not. Sexual orientation is an identity, not an activity. Being gay is NOT a choice. Did you or I choose to be heterosexual? No. We were born that way - hard-wired to like the opposite sex. Gay people are hard-wired to like the same sex. That's how God made them, so how on earth could he disapprove? That's my opinion, anyway. As far as addressing your "human" traits, I agree with you completely. You're absolutely right. Gay people and straight people share being human...so what's the big deal? Katie From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Nov 9 21:17:24 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:17:24 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Churchmouse: > This is exactly my point, I have three kids who EACH have a set of the > books and share a set of family movies, that's well over a thousand > dollars investment. I have also been on the boards since 1997-98 and > have a very personal investment here too. The actual interview is > censured here, but I gather from boards like muggle net, snitch > seekers Etc. I have 5 listed right from JKR official site in honored > web sites and fan clubs. that she did have a chapter edited out of the > last book. I wish someone would find the thing and tell me where to > get it. I understood that is where these thoughts, enlightenments, > statements are coming from. Magpie: They're not anywhere. The closest thing to what you're saying is that JKR said the epilogue chapter as first written was longer--but with nothing about anybody being gay. That chapter doesn't exist and isn't online. And who knows what was in it? More names of Weasley children, it seems. Most of this future stuff she's just tossing out in interviews and sometimes contradicting herself. That's where they're coming from. Q&As where people ask JKR random questions and she answers, sometimes seemingly making something up off the top of her head. None of it is in any chapter anywhere, and is no more true canonically than stuff she threw out earlier that changed (Hermione's name turned out not to be Jane, there was no person who did magic later in life). In this case, someone asked her if Dumbledore had ever known love and she said she thought he was in love with Grindelwald when he was young. She didn't say whether they had any sort of affair, if Grindelwald returned the love or not. She said she "always thought of him as gay" I believe. And she said that in the HBP movie the screenwriter had started to write something where Dumbledore was reminiscing about some girl he'd known and was into and she wrote on the script that Dumbledore was gay (so that line's not in--they didn't just change it to a guy). churchmouse: > This is me on the subject of sexual orientation; In the > 1980's TIME magazine ran a story about gay men in San Francisco, one > interview stuck out, the interviewer asked how many partners over the > past year and one guy said 540. There are only 365 days in a year. > Moving forward by 1983 I was in class with a Gay man, we had more than > a few conversations, he was a female impersonator and brought in nude > photos of himself. He made a very pretty girl, they were taken on a > door frame so you couldn't see that he wasn't female, then as he would > say his > hair began falling out and he had to change professions. At lunch one > day his father walked into the restrant and the seen was > heartbreaking. Dad was there with his nearing home group and was > surprised too. They had not been in contact for a long time. Time > passed I graduated and went to work and met the 2ed Gay man, Yes they > have names but let's respect their privacy. This man was married (to a > woman) had a child and divorced, he then became gay, she broke his > heart. More time passed AIDS was in full swing, a bunch of Gay men > fled to the Catholic Church, joined as priests because they were > dieing and knew they would receive care there. Which they did and > that is why today you have to pass a physical to join a seminary, the > cost nearly bankrupted the diocese. I was involved with the medical > profession, a lab Tec discussed a Gay man that moved on to stuffing > rodents up his rectum, the animals try to get away and crawl deeper > and then die, he came in to have them removed. And was warned to stop > that because of the damage he was sustaining. He didn't listen and > ended up wearing a bag (colostomy). The only Gay woman I knowingly > met was in SAM"S Club 4 years ago, she tried to pick me up, I still > can't believe it, my husband's head was stuffed in the egg case and I > yelled "Vince you got those eggs yet?" and he was angered for the > next two isles because I yelled at him. She was a cute blond too, and > ran the other way thank God. Magpie: So you're just sharing what shaped your opinions on gay people? I'm not sure if this is supposed to add up to something specific or if it's just a mish mosh. I mean, I'd say looking at this list that Dumbledore makes a good addition to your understanding of gay people, since he's just a regular guy. You are, I assume, aware that there are straight people out there who are also engaging in strange sexual fetishes, being incredibly promiscuous, getting estranged from their parents, getting AIDS and scamming insurance people, as well as "trying to pick up" women at the supermarket and "thank god" running away when their husbands show up. Some of these things sound like just the regular kind of nasty stories you hear about groups that are mistrusted. churchmouse: When my oldest was 12, she came home > from school one day and said "mom, I think I am Gay." Why do you > think that? She said" because on the bus all the girls have > boyfriends and most are having sex" I made sure she knew what sex is, > and told here that the reason she did not have a boy friend yet was > because she was 12, and 12 was still a child. Magpie: Not sure why this is part of what shapes your view on gay people. I assume you just explained to your daughter that she was confused on this point since not having a boyfriend does not make you a lesbian. churchmouse: To me what makes > you Gay is having sex with the same gender; if you are not having sex > then you are abstinent. So you can choose to be gay. Magpie: Being gay is that you are attracted to your own gender and not the opposite gender imo. Just as what makes you heterosexual is that you are attracted to members of the opposite sex and not your own. You choose to be sexually active or not, but you don't choose your orientation. I don't think gay people have any more reason to choose to be abstinent their whole life than straight people do. If they do choose it that's fine too, but I think there's lots of things both orientations' (and bisexuality) shoudl consider it making sexual choices that are the same for both. -m From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Nov 9 21:18:09 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:18:09 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > This is exactly my point, I have three kids who EACH have a set of the > books and share a set of family movies, that's well over a thousand > dollars investment. I have also been on the boards since 1997-98 and > have a very personal investment here too. The actual interview is > censured here, but I gather from boards like muggle net, snitch > seekers Etc. I have 5 listed right from JKR official site in honored > web sites and fan clubs. that she did have a chapter edited out of the > last book. I wish someone would find the thing and tell me where to > get it. Would you mind posting the citation for this? I am interested.. I understood that is where these thoughts, enlightenments, > statements are coming from. I don't personally care what anyone's > orientations are. I believe it is my right as a parent to introduce > this knowledge to my children as I see fit, 11 is too young, 8 is > ridiculous. I will say this board moves fast, it took awhile to go > through the posts. Do your children go to school? Do they watch television? My kids go to school, and they are teh children of two women, and the Dumbledore is gay thing was not mentioned at all by the HP kid fans..they have no real interest in it... There was some verbal abuse about my secondary > choice of Slughorn or Lockheart, well you are an age bigot. Believe > me you will all grow old and die, it is not exclusive to people you do > not agree with. It's interesting..what I actually said was an analysis that it was "okay" for unattractive characters (morally and physically) to be gay, but not for a hero. I have called no one a bigot, but this is the second or third time I've been called names. Interesting... Really someone said Black and Lupin as a choice, > Black yes because in the memory Harry saw from Snape there was a girl > trying to get Black's attention and he was having none of it. He had > his reasons; I think that Lupon will raise objections because of his > "hairy little problem." I have to say to Del, that I thought some of > the stuff I was getting was because of my email of churchmouse. Truth > be told we bought an account with 7 email and we are all mice of one > kind or another, computer mice, we thought it was cute the kids were > little. I do receive abuse from people jumping to conclusions about > my religious faith. Thank you Del you have taught me to be more proud > of whom I am. > This is me on the subject of sexual orientation; In the > 1980's TIME magazine ran a story about gay men in San Francisco, one > interview stuck out, the interviewer asked how many partners over the > past year and one guy said 540. There are only 365 days in a year. > Moving forward by 1983 I was in class with a Gay man, we had more than > a few conversations, he was a female impersonator and brought in nude > photos of himself. He made a very pretty girl, they were taken on a > door frame so you couldn't see that he wasn't female, then as he would > say his > hair began falling out and he had to change professions. At lunch one > day his father walked into the restrant and the seen was > heartbreaking. Dad was there with his nearing home group and was > surprised too. They had not been in contact for a long time. Time > passed I graduated and went to work and met the 2ed Gay man, Yes they > have names but let's respect their privacy. This man was married (to a > woman) had a child and divorced, he then became gay, she broke his > heart. More time passed AIDS was in full swing, a bunch of Gay men > fled to the Catholic Church, joined as priests because they were > dieing and knew they would receive care there. Which they did and > that is why today you have to pass a physical to join a seminary, the > cost nearly bankrupted the diocese. I was involved with the medical > profession, a lab Tec discussed a Gay man that moved on to stuffing > rodents up his rectum, the animals try to get away and crawl deeper > and then die, he came in to have them removed. And was warned to stop > that because of the damage he was sustaining. He didn't listen and > ended up wearing a bag (colostomy). The only Gay woman I knowingly > met was in SAM"S Club 4 years ago, she tried to pick me up, I still > can't believe it, my husband's head was stuffed in the egg case and I > yelled "Vince you got those eggs yet?" and he was angered for the > next two isles because I yelled at him. She was a cute blond too, and > ran the other way thank God. When my oldest was 12, she came home > from school one day and said "mom, I think I am Gay." Why do you > think that? She said" because on the bus all the girls have > boyfriends and most are having sex" I made sure she knew what sex is, > and told here that the reason she did not have a boy friend yet was > because she was 12, and 12 was still a child. Also that in this state > and this country even if you wore a black nightgown and said come on > big boy, if you are under age it is statutory rape and is a crime and > somebody is going to jail. This is a brief history of what shaped my > opinions, I have left lots out but you get the picture. The > Catholic Church and the pope say that being Gay may be genetic, but > those that are should not act on it, and those that are not should > treat everyone fairly and without persecution. I don't have to know > anything else. I know they (scientists) just mapped the gene code. > There was a great piece on PBS, it took years. Assuming the data is > all correct, I don't think there has been enough time to understand > it. There is a doctor that Ann Landers quotes on the subject, but > that man has an agenda being gay himself. I don't depute the > research, but the conclusion needs conformation by an unbiased source. > Good luck finding one. So maybe the better question is what makes > someone gay? Because being sensitive, creative, artistic are HUMAN > traits and are shared to some extent with everyone. To me what makes > you Gay is having sex with the same gender; if you are not having sex > then you are abstinent. So you can choose to be gay. > Constant2Chatter > Well, Constant, I think we should all thank you for revealing the true attitudes of SOME people who have a problem with Professor Dumbledore being gay. If JKR had said DD was in love with Gloria instead of Gellert, it might have made more sense to be worried about his molesting the children....most child rapists are men who rape girls (although there are certainly a subset of victims who are male)..and there are a few female perpetrators. The research (which I actually checked out recently as part of some work I was doing) is quite clear that these are adults who molest children...they are not really heterosexual or gay.. I find your comments totally offensive. There are a range of behaviors among heterosexuals and among gay men and lesbians. Let's take a look at the behavior of heterosexuals like Paris Hilton..people who get married and get divorced a month later....tons of heterosexual people with multiple partners, etc. My partner and I are in a long term committed relationship, we have been in one for 14 years, and will be in that relationship until we die. I don't go to parties, I didn't particularly like them when I was young. I don't have multiple partners. I've been "hit on" or sexually approached by hmmmmm probably 100 men in my life..while sitting reading in the park, or on an airplane, or in class....I think maybe one or two women have initiated a cautious conversation with me....I know dozens of lesbians and gay men, mostly parents these days, who are pillars of the community. I ask the other women on this list -- how many times have you been approached by men and how many times by women? I'm sure that there will be one or two people who will now attack me for not tolerating your opinions. I find them abhorrent. Susan From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 22:33:03 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:33:03 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Constant2Chatter: > > This is exactly my point, I have three kids who EACH have a set of > the > > books and share a set of family movies, that's well over a thousand > > dollars investment. I have also been on the boards since 1997-98 > and > > have a very personal investment here too. The actual interview is > > censured here, but I gather from boards like muggle net, snitch > > seekers Etc. I have 5 listed right from JKR official site in honored > > web sites and fan clubs. that she did have a chapter edited out of > the > > last book. I wish someone would find the thing and tell me where to > > get it. > Susan: > Would you mind posting the citation for this? I am interested.. > Annemehr: I think Constant2Chatter is talking about how JKR changed the epilogue. Here's the relevant bit from the Toronto Press Conference, 22 October 2007 (though as I recall, she said this sometime earlier also): JKR: How much I had to tweak in the Epilogue? The changes I... Not so much, actually. Most of the tweaking was done to reveal less information, rather than more. As originally conceived, the Epilogue pretty much crowbarred in every possible piece of information I could give you about their future lives just because that was where I always knew I was heading. So I knew I had a lot of information and I when I first wrote that all down, that was the point I'm saying it for. The big tweak, I suppose, was Lupin's son. Because until the 5th book in the series, Order of the Phoenix, I had intended Lupin to stay alive. So then it became a focus of the epilogue - one of the focuses - to make sure that he knew, even if he doesn't physically appear, that he was okay. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/1022-torontopressconf.html But note how she said it was originally about people's future lives -- which means there would have been nothing about DD anyway as he was dead. Annemehr From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 22:54:04 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:54:04 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan wrote: > Oh, okay, so you're fine with the people who say that Africans have smaller brains and are less intelligent than Europeans/white people...after all, it's their opinion, right? They're not bigots? > > And by the way, the constant statements that homosexuality is immoral or abnormal ARE attacks on me and every lesbian and gay man. Carol responds: Forgive me, Susan, but you're combining unrelated concepts here. One is a statement about brain size that can easily be disproved through scientific evidence (which also shows that there's no exact correlation between brain size and intelligence); the other is a moral judgment (which I am not making) regarding human behavior (not the emotion of love but the sexual relationship). I hope you'll forgive me for dealing with this discussion on an intellectual level, but to me that's better than hurt feelings and namecalling. (Which is worse, being called a bigot or being called immoral? Which is worse, being called "Snivelus" or being called a "Mudblood"? Namecalling on any level, for any reason, hurts people's feelings. So I'm trying to keep the discussion on a calm, rational level, about ideas rather than feelings.) I'm wondering whether there are any actions that you think are immoral, for example, spanking, that other people might think are acceptable behavior. I'm not talking about crimes, just things other people do that disturb you and that you wouldn't want your children to do. Is spanking immoral? Smoking in a house full of children? Closet alcoholism? Reading porn magazines or visiting porn sites? Adultery? Incest between consenting adults? Is any noncriminal behavior justifiably called immoral, or is the word only used by religious conservatives to pass judgment on those they disapprove of? Just wondering what your view is on the subject. And don't worry. I'm not going to argue with any of your judgments. I only want to know what you think. Thanks for reading this post. And please don't mistake my intentions. I'm not trying to be inflammatory. Quite the opposite. Carol, who is interested only in the concept of immorality and its validity, not in condemning the behaviors that popped into her head as possible examples From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Nov 9 23:23:05 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:23:05 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Susan wrote: > > Oh, okay, so you're fine with the people who say that Africans have > smaller brains and are less intelligent than Europeans/white > people...after all, it's their opinion, right? They're not bigots? > > > > And by the way, the constant statements that homosexuality is > immoral or abnormal ARE attacks on me and every lesbian and gay man. > > Carol responds: > Forgive me, Susan, but you're combining unrelated concepts here. One > is a statement about brain size that can easily be disproved through > scientific evidence (which also shows that there's no exact > correlation between brain size and intelligence); the other is a moral > judgment (which I am not making) regarding human behavior (not the > emotion of love but the sexual relationship). I hope you'll forgive me > for dealing with this discussion on an intellectual level, but to me > that's better than hurt feelings and namecalling. (Which is worse, > being called a bigot or being called immoral? Which is worse, being > called "Snivelus" or being called a "Mudblood"? Namecalling on any > level, for any reason, hurts people's feelings. So I'm trying to keep > the discussion on a calm, rational level, about ideas rather than > feelings.) > > I'm wondering whether there are any actions that you think are > immoral, for example, spanking, that other people might think are > acceptable behavior. I'm not talking about crimes, just things other > people do that disturb you and that you wouldn't want your children to > do. Is spanking immoral? Smoking in a house full of children? Closet > alcoholism? Reading porn magazines or visiting porn sites? Adultery? > Incest between consenting adults? Is any noncriminal behavior > justifiably called immoral, or is the word only used by religious > conservatives to pass judgment on those they disapprove of? > > Just wondering what your view is on the subject. And don't worry. I'm > not going to argue with any of your judgments. I only want to know > what you think. > > Thanks for reading this post. And please don't mistake my intentions. > I'm not trying to be inflammatory. Quite the opposite. > > Carol, who is interested only in the concept of immorality and its > validity, not in condemning the behaviors that popped into her head as > possible examples > Okay, what do I consider immoral.... Let me think about this..the things that jump to my mind are hurting other people, assaulting someone, being verbally abusive, There are things that I find distasteful....things like certain sexual practices....I find the idea of incest even between consenting adults distasteful... I don't think spanking (I'm talking here about swatting a child on the rear end, not beating a child) is per se immoral, although I don't consider it an effective means of child guidance....I don't smoke and have a very hard time with cigarette smoke....yes, I think adultery's wrong...but it's one of those judge not lest ye be judged things....I have the hardest time with people who are unnecessarily harsh or unkind to their partners or children...not criminal behavior...just lack of compassion....I find all kinds of injustice immoral.people being punished who don't deserve to be punished....littering, befouling a scene of natural beauty, more later...I have to go take my son to get a haircut.. Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 9 23:42:19 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:42:19 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [Carol earlier, unattributed in Susan's post]: > > If, for example, someone on this list were to argue that women should not be allowed to stay home and be housewives because housework is degrading, I would probably consider that person an idiot, but I wouldn't use the word on this list. He or she has the right to be wrong (assuming that I'm right in this instance). Or if I want to say that illegal immigrants should be sent back over the border (just as an example of an opinion some people might consider "intolerant"), I have the right not only to write those words but to defend them without being attacked. Perhaps we should respond to the ideas themselves rather than to the speaker. ("I disagree because . . ." not "You're a bigot and you're hurting my feelings.") Susan responded: > Well, it would be nice if someone would address me directly, but I guess that people who are abnormal and who have chosen a sinful lifestyle don't deserve simple courtesy. > > I said that my feelings were hurt, that this kind of commentary is upsetting in order to humanize the discussion. > > If I were an undocumented worker, and someone said I should be sent back over the border, I would be understandably upset as well. > > I'm trying to make the point that we are dealing with real peoples' lives here, and to say "well, you're just getting upset, we're having an intellectual discussion, everyone's entitled to their opinion." > > Everyone IS entitled to their opinion. My opinion is that the type of nonsense that is being spouted by people about lesbians and gay men is based in bigotry and ignorance. Someone might want to take a look at the scientific research about "changing" someone's sexual orientation. Or at the research that is finding that children of lesbians and gay men do just as well emotionally as the children of heterosexuals. > > Otherwise, a poor young kid who is gay or who is a lesbian is going to read this stuff, and say (gosh, I don't want to live a life where everyone thinks I'm abnormal and immoral, maybe I can change?) or worse yet, thinks about killing themselves because they can't imagine leading a happy or normal life. > > It really seems as if people would like me to be silent. It seems to me that it's okay for YOU to have YOUR opinions about the abnormality and immorality of "homosexuality" but it's not okay for me to have MY opinions about injustice and intolerance. Carol: Since you quoted me without identifying me and then asked me to address you directly, I'll do so (in fact, I just did so in the previous post). Please don't attribute bias to me that I have not expressed. I have not said and will never say that you are "abnormal and have chosen a sinful lifestyle." Please do me the courtesy of not putting words in my mouth. And I do believe that you, Del, and everyone else on this list deserves simple courtesy. It's what I'm arguing for. The illegal immigrant example (I didn't say "undocumented worker"; it's not the same thing since not all illegal aliens come here to work) was just an illustration of a remark that a person has the right to say and support without being attacked. I'm not going to express my views on the subject even though I live in Southern Arizona, where it's an important political issue and many people hold that view. I'm merely saying that a person who makes such a statement should be allowed to make it without having his character attacked. The person who opposes such a view can present rational counterarguments that are more likely to persuade the person to change his view, assuming that he's wholly or partially wrong, than being called a bigot. (Did you know, BTW, that Islamic terrorists are among the people who sneak over the border from Mexico into Arizona? But I don't want to argue politics, particularly issues with no connection to HP.) I respect your point that we're dealing with real people's lives here, but I disagree. We're dealing with the HP books and JKR's revelation, which is about her fictional character, and with her statement. "He's my character. He is what he is." My main concern is her view that she owns the characters and her evident feeling that she can control the interpretation of the books after the fact. Nothing to do with you and your lifestyle at all. In fact, the only person who has any cause to be upset with my opinions is JKR herself because she's the one I'm saying is mistaken with regard to authorial intention. Her imagined view of a character and what she has put on the page are two different things, and even the words on the page are subject to interpretation. I realize that I'm approaching the issue from an intellectual standpoint, but that's what I'm concerned about: intellectual issues--the right to interpret, the right to civil debate, the right to express ideas. I also have the right to use hypothetical examples. I'm not, after all, really defending those ideas. And I confess that I would be upset by someone whose "ideas" included, say, the right or duty to be a suicide bomber. I'm not defending the right to spread hatred or give kids instructions on bomb-making. (Again, a *hypothetical example* of the point at which the right to free speech ends, IMO.) to return to your concerns. Rather than accusing others of spouting "nonsense" (and I can think of only one post that would qualify for that label, but I'm not naming names), perhaps you could provide links to the scientific research that supports your claims, which those who oppose your views could answer by providing links of their own. Notice that I'm not including myself in this debate. I have no idea whether your views are correct. My impression is that the jury is still out on the causes of homosexuality (which is not a bad word but a technical term comparable to heterosexuality, also not a bad word but simply a technical term for a person's sexual preference). Someone might, indeed, "want to take a look at the scientific research about "changing" someone's sexual orientation." Perhaps you could help us by providing links to exactly that sort of information, assuming that it's relevant to the discussion. (I may have mentioned the point as a hypothetical reason why someone might be opposed to homosexuality, but I don't think it has actually been raised as a point of discussion in this thread. As for the issue of lesbians and gay men as parents, I'm not sure where it fits in at all. Nothing to do with Dumbledore or reasons whey certain readers might object to his presence in the books that I can see. I think it's your own concern that somehow got brought into this discussion without having been raised, even hypothetically, as a possible objection to gay!DD.) As for a young kid of any sexual orientation reading this list, it's a list for grownups. And killing themselves because someone is advocating freedom of speech? You're charging me with a pretty grave crime here, and I haven't charged you with anything or asked you to do anything except stop using the word "bigot." And, yes, of course, it's okay for me to have my opinions. It's okay for you to have your opinions. It is not, however, okay to attribute to me opinions that I have not expressed. No one is saying that gay people have not suffered from misunderstanding and injustice and prejudice. What we are saying is that everyone has the right to express their opinions and that labeling some opinions as bigotry is, in itself, a form of intolerance. Carol, making one more plea for civility and rational arguments before bowing out, permanently and irrevocably, from this discussion From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 00:00:17 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 00:00:17 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > --- "constant2chatter" > wrote: > > > This is me on the subject of sexual orientation; In the > 1980's TIME magazine ran a story about gay men in San > Francisco, one interview stuck out, the interviewer asked > how many partners over the past year and one guy said 540. > There are only 365 days in a year. > > > Alla: > > I only want to reply to this small part, because I am just > not sure what the implication seems to be. YES, from what > I heard a SEGMENT of gay population likes to have sex all > the time with many many partners. > > Just as the SEGMENT of straight population likes to have > sex all the time with many many many partners. > > bboyminn: Didn't some really big time famous straight basketball star claim to have had sex with over 3,000 women in his lifetime? Further doesn't at least one very well know basketball star have AIDS. I also agree that just because you can find one guy who is sexually indiscriminate doesn't mean all guys are. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 00:25:58 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 00:25:58 -0000 Subject: Etymology: "black-and-white" (Was: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan: > > Now you say I'm in favor of a black and white (a racist phrase, by the way).. > Del: > No it's not. Every single phrase that mentions the words "white" and "black" is not a racist phrase. If it's racist, then tell me: which colour is it in favour of? Black or white? Carol: As I understand it, the term, which dates to 1612, derives from printing--black letters being sharply distinct from the white background of the page. Its figurative use, which can mean either meaning judging everything as either all-good or all-bad with nothing in between or just sharply defined, has no more to do with race than does a black-and-white photograph (generally sharper and clearer than a color photo) or a black-and-white-striped zebra. black?and?white Function: adjective Date: 1612 1: partly black and partly white in color 2: being in writing or print 3: executed in dark pigment on a light background or in light pigment on a dark ground 4: monochrome 2 5 a: sharply divided into good and evil b: evaluating or viewing things as either all good or all bad c: sharply defined: clear-cut Carol, playing Hermione here and looking it up From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 01:09:59 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:09:59 -0000 Subject: On being skinny (Was: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan wrote: > BTW, I am prejudiced, but against skinny, tall and beautiful people..being old, fat and dumpy myself...but I have no state power to back up my prejudices... Carol responds: I realize that you're joking here, but one of my pet peeves is the association between between tall and skinny, both of which I am, and beautiful, which I am not (though maybe I was sort of cute once upon a time). Skinny is not the same as slim, which is a neutral term, or slender, which is generally a compliment and is associated with youth. "thin" is also neutral. "Skinny," however, is what I am--my hand and wristbones show and my arms look like they'd be the righ size if they were three inches shorter. Not because I'm unhealthy or don't enjoy eating--I just don't gain weight. (I did buy three-pound dumbbells in the forlorn hope of putting a little muscle on my arms.) In the nineteenth century, plumpness was fashionable (except in the waist--those corsets must have been instruments of torture), and young women who were too thin by the standards of the day were likely to end up as skinny old maids. These days, the confusion between "slender" and "skinny" leads young girls to become anorexic. Anyway, there's no reason to be prejudiced against skinny people like Professor Trelawney and me. We may be prettier than Umbridge, but that's because she looks like a toad. We're no prettier than Molly Weasley, even if we do weigh less than she does. Carol, tall, skinny, and too old to give her age, but not prejudiced against pretty young women of any build even if she does envy their youth From Schlobin at aol.com Sat Nov 10 01:12:59 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:12:59 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > As for a young kid of any sexual orientation reading this list, it's a > list for grownups. And killing themselves because someone is > advocating freedom of speech? You're charging me with a pretty grave > crime here, and I haven't charged you with anything or asked you to do > anything except stop using the word "bigot." Carol, I am not charging you with ANY sort of crime. I am stating that the ideas that lesbians and gays are immoral and/or abnormal when they are expressed and said over and over again (as they have on every listserve that I've been on) tie into, contribute to and perpetuate the idea that there is something wrong with lesbians and gay men. It creates an atmosphere that supports and legitimizes discrimination. When youth who are being thrown out of their families for being gay hear and read this, it contributes to their low self- esteem and feelings of being forsaken by their families, by God, and by society as a whole. Internalized homophobia is probably the major factor in the suicide rates for teenagers and young adults who are lesbians and gay men. I am not disputing your right to SAY anything, NOR am I charging anyone with a crime. I cannot tell you how upset I became reading the constant associations between being gay and molesting children on countless lists. And I'm not a teenager. When someone equates me (Me, I'm a lesbian) with a deviant individual (straight, gay, bi or whomever) who puts rodents up their anus, I get very, very upset. This is very personal. I'm denied rights because I'm a lesbian. I'm discriminated against. It's no fun. I'm terribly intolerant of bigotry...that's the bottom line. You (and others on the list) think that makes me just as bad as those who are bigots. You have the right to that opinion. We disagree. By the way, I DID post the links to research about "changing lesbian and gay male orientation?" Or did that post get lost? I posted information from the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. I'm happy to post other links to research about these issues, if anyone is interested. Susan > From Schlobin at aol.com Sat Nov 10 01:15:26 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:15:26 -0000 Subject: Etymology: "black-and-white" (Was: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > Susan: > > > Now you say I'm in favor of a black and white (a racist phrase, by > the way).. > > > Del: > > No it's not. Every single phrase that mentions the words "white" and > "black" is not a racist phrase. If it's racist, then tell me: which > colour is it in favour of? Black or white? > > Carol: > As I understand it, the term, which dates to 1612, derives from > printing--black letters being sharply distinct from the white > background of the page. Its figurative use, which can mean either > meaning judging everything as either all-good or all-bad with nothing > in between or just sharply defined, has no more to do with race than > does a black-and-white photograph (generally sharper and clearer than > a color photo) or a black-and-white-striped zebra. > > black?and?white > Function: > adjective > Date: > 1612 > > 1: partly black and partly white in color 2: being in writing or print > 3: executed in dark pigment on a light background or in light pigment > on a dark ground 4: monochrome 2 > 5 a: sharply > divided into good and evil b: evaluating or viewing things as either > all good or all bad c: sharply defined: > clear-cut > > Carol, playing Hermione here and looking it up > So, when we say this situation is not black and white? We're saying that something is not totally good nor totally bad. The guy on the white horse with the white hat. This is where "black" is associated with bad and "white" is associated with good. Remember all the complaints about Star Wars? Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Sat Nov 10 01:16:46 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:16:46 -0000 Subject: On being skinny (Was: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Susan wrote: > > BTW, I am prejudiced, but against skinny, tall and beautiful > people..being old, fat and dumpy myself...but I have no state power to > back up my prejudices... > > Carol responds: > > I realize that you're joking here, I was joking. And by the way, I think JKR is joking about Aberforth, too. I personally (just my opinion here) do not think that he was having sex with the goats. Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 01:54:00 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 01:54:00 -0000 Subject: What constitutes immorality? (Was: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > I'm wondering whether there are any actions that you think are immoral, for example, spanking, that other people might think are acceptable behavior. I'm not talking about crimes, just things other people do that disturb you and that you wouldn't want your children to do. {Oops, I meant wouldn't want your children to be exposed to because you consider them immoral.] Is spanking immoral? Smoking in a house full of children? Closet alcoholism? Reading porn magazines or visiting porn sites? Adultery? Incest between consenting adults? Is any noncriminal behavior justifiably called immoral, or is the word only used by religious conservatives to pass judgment on those they disapprove of? > > > > Just wondering what your view is on the subject. And don't worry. I'm not going to argue with any of your judgments. I only want to know what you think. Susan responded: > Okay, what do I consider immoral.... > Let me think about this..the things that jump to my mind are hurting other people, assaulting someone, being verbally abusive, Carol: Thanks very much for answering. I meant actions that aren't crimes, so that would eliminate assault, just actions that you would pass moral judgment against because they violate your standards or right and wrong. Is being verbally abusive immoral or just, well, rude? In your view, I mean. > Susan: > There are things that I find distasteful....things like certain sexual practices....I find the idea of incest even between consenting adults distasteful... Carol: Distasteful or abhorrent? Would you be willing to pass moral judgment on incest between consenting adults (I'm not talking about incest involving children, which is a form of rape and a terrible crime) and label it as immoral? > Susan: > I don't think spanking (I'm talking here about swatting a child on the rear end, not beating a child) is per se immoral, although I don't consider it an effective means of child guidance....I don't smoke and have a very hard time with cigarette smoke....yes, I think adultery's wrong...but it's one of those judge not lest ye be judged things.... Carol: So adultery isn't immoral in your view even though it hurts the faithful partner and can break up a marriage? Susan: I have the hardest time with people who are unnecessarily harsh or unkind to their partners or children...not criminal behavior...just lack of compassion.... Carol: But is lack of compassion morally wrong or just, say, unkind or thoughtless? Would you use the word "immoral" in relation to, say, a kindergarten teacher who sent a child to the principal's office for wetting her pants? (Made-up example, but such things happen.) Susan: I find all kinds of injustice immoral. people being punished who don't deserve to be punished....littering, befouling a scene of natural beauty, more later...I have to go take my son to get a haircut.. Carol: But there's a big difference between sending someone to prison for a crime they didn't commit and littering. I hate littering, too, but it's actually a misdemeanor, so I'm not sure that it should be on this list. I was going to add one of my own, arson that causes huge fires like the ones in California, but then I realized that that's a crime no sane person could approve of. So I'm back to littering and wondering what moral standard it violates. It's wrong, certainly, but is it immoral? In essence, whatever we consider immoral violates our standard of morality. But what is morality? I mean, how do we determine what's right and what's wrong? What standard can we judge by that everyone will agree on? Carol, thinking of Pilate's question, "What is truth?" and not knowing the answer > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 02:02:27 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:02:27 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > bboyminn: > > Didn't some really big time famous straight basketball star > claim to have had sex with over 3,000 women in his lifetime? Carol: "Magic" Johnson, I assume you mean? http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/17/cnn25.tan.johnson/index.html C. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 02:08:57 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:08:57 -0000 Subject: On being skinny (Was: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan: > > I was joking. > > And by the way, I think JKR is joking about Aberforth, too. I personally (just my opinion here) do not think that he was having sex with the goats. > Carol responds: Hooray. A point we agree on. After having sex with a goat does not require magic (and has, IMO, no place in a children's book). But what *were* those "inappropriate charms on goats"? I always figured they were a way of getting the goats to produce more bezoars (which, I hope, can be removed without killing the goat). Carol, who still doesn't think that "skinny" should be used as a synonym for "slender" because they're not the same thing From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 02:12:00 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:12:00 -0000 Subject: UK Politics / Reply to Ann (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Ann: > Well, I had a vague idea that the 1992 election had been close, > and looking it up on Wikipedia I saw that the Tories only won > by 1,241 votes - but you're right, scrolling a bit further down > I see they had a majority of 65. This country could really do > with a bit of democracy. Goddlefrood: Another convert then? I live as far as it's humanly possible to live away from the place while still being on dry land, partly for this very reason. Unfortunately proportional representation probably wouldn't work there, there'd be too many hung Parliaments with the Liberals holding the balance of power, and would you really want that? > Ann: > Speaking of useless Tories, it looks like you keep an eye on UK > politics. Goddlefrood: I do, partly on the net and also through Private Eye, which despite being occasionally vilified, often gets its politics right. The Liberals have been shuffling leaders quite regularly already, it was only Paddy Pantsdown that held the job for any length of time in recent years, until he was caught with his ashes down. The venerable Ming was more or less a museum piece. Ann: > Thanks for recommending Agatha Christie to me, by the way; I > just read "Murder on the Orient Express" and it's great fun - > certainly made a change from "The Silmarillion". Goddlefrood: Had you been reading The Silmarilion for many years? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 02:12:27 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:12:27 -0000 Subject: On being skinny (Was: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > Hooray. A point we agree on. After having sex with a goat does not > require magic (and has, IMO, no place in a children's book). Carol again. Oig. That was supposed to be, "After *all,* having sex with a goat does not require magic." Carol, who thinks that JKR was just teasing her fans, both in canon and in the interview, with regard to Aberforth's goats From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Nov 10 02:16:01 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:16:01 -0000 Subject: On being skinny (Was: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > > I realize that you're joking here, but one of my pet peeves is the > association between between tall and skinny, both of which I am, and > beautiful, which I am not (though maybe I was sort of cute once upon a > time). Skinny is not the same as slim, which is a neutral term, or > slender, which is generally a compliment and is associated with youth. > "thin" is also neutral. "Skinny," however, is what I am--my hand and > wristbones show and my arms look like they'd be the righ size if they > were three inches shorter. Not because I'm unhealthy or don't enjoy > eating--I just don't gain weight. (I did buy three-pound dumbbells in > the forlorn hope of putting a little muscle on my arms.) > > In the nineteenth century, plumpness was fashionable (except in the > waist--those corsets must have been instruments of torture), and young > women who were too thin by the standards of the day were likely to end > up as skinny old maids. These days, the confusion between "slender" > and "skinny" leads young girls to become anorexic. > > Anyway, there's no reason to be prejudiced against skinny people like > Professor Trelawney and me. We may be prettier than Umbridge, but > that's because she looks like a toad. We're no prettier than Molly > Weasley, even if we do weigh less than she does. > > Carol, tall, skinny, and too old to give her age, but not prejudiced > against pretty young women of any build even if she does envy their youth Magpie: One of the things I always find interesting on the Internet is how often (I'm not referring to this list now btw, but elsewhere) people will make this point as well. I mean, where they'll complain about how skinny people have all the admiration but also go on about how they don't deserve it because "real women" don't look like that, and they're anorexic looking, and look like boys etc. The funny thing being that everyone tends to assume they're talking to other non-skinny people. It's amazing how many times I've heard my own body type described to me as being totally ugly with somebody expecting some sort of "Right on, sister!" and instead they get, "Yeah, that's me. Built like a number 2 pencil. Not anorexic. Thanks!" :-) In real life it's sometimes just more hostile--either predictions of how any minute how I'm going to get hugely fat or a cheerful "I hate you!" from strangers. Not oppressed, but it tends to be bizarre. -m From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Nov 10 02:37:51 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:37:51 -0000 Subject: What constitutes immorality? (Was: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol earlier: > > > > I'm wondering whether there are any actions that you think are > immoral, for example, spanking, that other people might think are > acceptable behavior. I'm not talking about crimes, just things other > people do that disturb you and that you wouldn't want your children to > do. {Oops, I meant wouldn't want your children to be exposed to > because you consider them immoral.] Is spanking immoral? Smoking in a > house full of children? Closet alcoholism? Reading porn magazines or > visiting porn sites? Adultery? Incest between consenting adults? Is > any noncriminal behavior justifiably called immoral, or is the word > only used by religious conservatives to pass judgment on those they > disapprove of? Magpie: I admit, this is much more what I'm used to in discussing the "morality" of homosexuality. And I like this kind of discussion anyway, where you have to figure out exactly what values you're basing the morality on and then see how different things stack up. For adultery, for instance, I can see plenty of reasons that can be hurtful and immoral, but I can imagine situations where I wouldn't consider it totally immoral. In general I tend to judge morality on the context rather than the act itself, though some acts are not going to be justified in any context. I've actually had a lot of discussions about homosexuality in this way, mostly very civil, sometimes with very nice people who had real problems with it and were trying to honestly explain why. I admit that in *my* experience nobody has ever been able to come up with any real reason why it's immoral except for an arbitrary distinction. In my experience, objections to homosexuality come mostly in 3 categories. First, there's the argument based on the idea that it's not how things are "supposed" to be done, which imo is like saying it's immoral to play the piano because fingers could not have evolved to play the piano, right? Since I don't base my ideas of right and wrong on this kind of distinction it makes no sense to me. Second, and this can sometimes get troubling, is where being gay itself doesn't really seem to have any problems so actual immoral acts (or at least acts I agree are/can be immoral or at least can lead to problems) are attached to gay people as if the two are part of the same thing. For instance, gay people are all promiscuous, they spread disease, they rape children to turn them gay, they molest children. These are all arguments I've heard. To me, I admit, they're real arguments in favor of of the morality of homosexuality, because you have to hang other crimes on the person to make it a problem. And of course the many heterosexual people who also do these things are judged differently. Third there are religious concerns. There's there's a gap between one person and another. It's only an argument for immorality if you already share a belief in the same god(s) as the first person, and also interpret the god's words the same way. Of course, as people on this list prove, you can belong to the same religion as someone else and not have the same interpretation. In speaking with religious people I've often found that if a person believes God thinks something is wrong, they can usually argue God's logic for you. It must be difficult to believe that God is telling you to take a position that seems blatantly wrong to a person. -m From maritajan at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 03:24:14 2007 From: maritajan at yahoo.com (MJ) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 19:24:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <207045.93852.qm@web36815.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Actually, that was Wilt Chamberlain, and he claimed to have had sex with over 20,000 women. MJ - who once sat next to a woman on a plane who introduced herself by saying she was one of the 20,000 -- the other woman, not MJ Carol wrote: > > bboyminn: > > Didn't some really big time famous straight basketball star > claim to have had sex with over 3,000 women in his lifetime? Carol: "Magic" Johnson, I assume you mean? http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/17/cnn25.tan.johnson/index.html C. ------------------------------- http://www.myspace.com/maritajan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Schlobin at aol.com Sat Nov 10 04:01:39 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 04:01:39 -0000 Subject: On being skinny (Was: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Susan: > > > > I was joking. > > > > And by the way, I think JKR is joking about Aberforth, too. I > personally (just my opinion here) do not think that he was having sex > with the goats. > > > Carol responds: > Hooray. A point we agree on. After having sex with a goat does not > require magic (and has, IMO, no place in a children's book). But what > *were* those "inappropriate charms on goats"? I always figured they > were a way of getting the goats to produce more bezoars (which, I > hope, can be removed without killing the goat). > I'm guessing that there weren't any...that the whole thing was a joke...Susan From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 05:44:18 2007 From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra Pan) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 05:44:18 -0000 Subject: Star Wars: Robot Chicken parody Message-ID: Allow me to interrupt the threads already meandering... A friend of mine pointed me to the Robot Chicken parody of Star Wars that Seth Green and pals did at http://tinyurl.com/yqbocw (aka http://www.adultswim.com/shows/robotchicken/ stuff/rcsw/ivcp/index.html) I must admit that I fervently hope that he is an HP fan and that Robot Chicken will take on the HP universe in similar style! Petra a n :) P.S.: Please be sure to feed and water the kiddies (either the two- or the four-legged variety) before clicking on the above link. The extras were quite engrossing.... From predigirl1 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 05:55:15 2007 From: predigirl1 at yahoo.com (Alex Hogan) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:55:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Outing DD and Kids In-Reply-To: <408666.15311.qm@web52708.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <171095.1378.qm@web53005.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Oh, Heck! My girls, who are 8 and 4 have a wonderful gay uncle that they (and I) love very, very much. The 8 year old "gets it" from watching "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" for 2 years now (Willow [her favorite character]and Tara's relationship made her go "Awww, they love each other SO much!" ), and knowing that people of the same sex can love each other as much as anyone else can. I told her about Dumbledore, and she just said that it was sad that that guy hurt him. It's time that everyone grows up with gay awareness. It's not going away, so children should learn at an early age that love is love, and acceptance is one of the most important qualities in life. Alex (Friend to the Friends of Dorothy) Hogan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kempermentor at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 05:55:31 2007 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kemper mentor) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:55:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations Message-ID: <30662.69396.qm@web90401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > wrote: > This is me on the subject of sexual orientation; In the > 1980's TIME magazine ran a story about gay men in San > Francisco, one interview stuck out, the interviewer asked > how many partners over the past year and one guy said 540. > There are only 365 days in a year. > Alla: > I only want to reply to this small part, because I am just > not sure what the implication seems to be. YES, from what > I heard a SEGMENT of gay population likes to have sex all > the time with many many partners. > > Just as the SEGMENT of straight population likes to have > sex all the time with many many many partners. bboyminn: Didn't some really big time famous straight basketball star claim to have had sex with over 3,000 women in his lifetime? Further doesn't at least one very well know basketball star have AIDS. I also agree that just because you can find one guy who is sexually indiscriminate doesn't mean all guys are. Kemper now: On average, gay men have more sexual partners over their life time than breeders or lesbians. It's because they're male. Males are more inclined to have enhanced libido due to the testosterone secreted into their system. Thus, it is much easier to get a man in the mood to make sweet love. Someone who has more partners does not mean they have less morality. Nor does it mean they are 'indiscriminate' which may suggest that gay men don't care who they bed. Kemper __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From kempermentor at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 05:59:48 2007 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kemper mentor) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:59:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Star Wars: Robot Chicken parody Message-ID: <520108.98569.qm@web90402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Petra: Allow me to interrupt the threads already meandering.. . A friend of mine pointed me to the Robot Chicken parody of Star Wars that Seth Green and pals did at ...snip... I must admit that I fervently hope that he is an HP fan and that Robot Chicken will take on the HP universe in similar style! Kemper now: Hi Petra! It already happened. Check it out: http://www.noob.us/humor/robot-chicken-harry-potter/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From predigirl1 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 06:03:05 2007 From: predigirl1 at yahoo.com (Alex Hogan) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:03:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Saturday Night Live skit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <25718.89611.qm@web53010.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I thought I was gonna DIE!!!!!! I wish my hubby had been awake for it, and I hope all of the sketch is on youtube somewhere! Alex Hogan stacygalore wrote: "stacygalore" wrote: > > > > Anybody see the Dumbledore skit on Saturday Night Live last night? I > laughed so hard I > > cried! > > > > Tonks: > Oh, shoot. I missed it. I had it on, but wasn't watching. Can you tell > us more about what we missed? Is there any replays on the net? Thanks. I've been searching You Tube for it, but nobody has posted it. There were two Harry Potter references in that episode. First, they mentioned it on the Weekend Update. This is the clip for that short bit: http://youtube.com/watch?v=UYWNbmV29VI As for the skit, here's a rough rundown: JKR is being interviewed on Larry King Live. He asks her about "outing" Dumbledore. She says that there were some scenes cut from OOTP film that would have showed how Dumbledore was obviously gay. They show the cut scenes. The first one is of McGonnagal and DD in his office. DD is forlorn because of his ex-boyfriend. The next scene DD mentions getting a "booty owl" from his ex. The last scene is of DD and McGonnagal at a gay club in Hogsmeade. It was so rediculous that it had me cracking up on the couch. I'm sure it will eventually wind up on You Tube. I also found this on You Tube. it is an old SNL Harry Potter Skit starring Lindsay Lohan: http://youtube.com/watch?v=a-r-z8Pp0F8 Enjoy, Stacy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 07:27:56 2007 From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra Pan) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 07:27:56 -0000 Subject: Star Wars: Robot Chicken parody In-Reply-To: <520108.98569.qm@web90402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Petra, previously: > I must admit that I fervently hope that [Seth Green] is > an HP fan and that Robot Chicken will take on the HP > universe in similar style! Kemper: > Hi Petra! It already happened. Check it out: > http://www.noob.us/humor/robot-chicken-harry-potter/ Petra: Nice! Many variations on the one theme of Pubertus. I was rather hoping for more than one theme though - the Star Wars one had more than one stone to rub...... and the extras were hilarious. Petra a n :) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Nov 10 14:46:04 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:46:04 -0000 Subject: UK Politics / Reply to Ann (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > > Ann: > > Well, I had a vague idea that the 1992 election had been close, > > and looking it up on Wikipedia I saw that the Tories only won > > by 1,241 votes - but you're right, scrolling a bit further down > > I see they had a majority of 65. This country could really do > > with a bit of democracy. > > Goddlefrood: > > Another convert then? I live as far as it's humanly possible to > live away from the place while still being on dry land, partly > for this very reason. Unfortunately proportional representation > probably wouldn't work there, there'd be too many hung Parliaments > with the Liberals holding the balance of power, and would you > really want that? Geoff: I think I would probably disagree there. The suggestion of a hung parliament to many people produces symptoms of shock, horror and a sharp intake of breath which I feel is perhaps unwarranted. The fact is that many mainland European countries function perfectly well in a coalition situation. Perhaps our UK politicians suffer from a folk memory of disastrous so-called National Governments in the early 1930s. The reality is that that, under the first past the post system, many MPs are elected with way under 50% of the support of their constituencies and the representation of the parties does not reflect their share of the vote. By way of example, in the May 2005 election, Labour polled 35.19% of the vote which should give them 227 seats out of the 646 in the House of Commons; they hold 355. The LIberal Democrats gained 62 seats but, with 22.05% of the vote, should have 142. So the system is basically flawed. Additionally, we have, as a result, a confrontational style of politics where two parties cannot put forward similar policies without one accusing the other of swiping their ideas, as happened after the Queen's Speech this week, when David Cameron, who - to explain for the benefit of non-UK readers - is the Conservative leader, launched an attack on Gordon Brown in the House over a number of Labour proposals. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Nov 10 16:15:54 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:15:54 -0000 Subject: Outing DD and Kids In-Reply-To: <171095.1378.qm@web53005.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Alex: > Oh, Heck! My girls, who are 8 and 4 have a wonderful gay uncle that they (and I) love very, very much. The 8 year old "gets it" from watching "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" for 2 years now (Willow [her favorite character]and Tara's relationship made her go "Awww, they love each other SO much!" ), and knowing that people of the same sex can love each other as much as anyone else can. I told her about Dumbledore, and she just said that it was sad that that guy hurt him. It's time that everyone grows up with gay awareness. It's not going away, so children should learn at an early age that love is love, and acceptance is one of the most important qualities in life. Magpie: That's the way I look at it as well. I honestly don't think there's anything inherently disturbing or confusing to a kid about the idea that two people of the same sex can love each other. I can remember when I learned of the concept and it wasn't disturbing to me at all. I think I was probably around 7 at the time. -m From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 16:27:21 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:27:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Outing DD and Kids In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <140447.23524.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com> sistermagpie wrote: Alex: > Oh, Heck! My girls, who are 8 and 4 have a wonderful gay uncle that they (and I) love very, very much. The 8 year old "gets it" from watching "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" for 2 years now (Willow [her favorite character]and Tara's relationship made her go "Awww, they love each other SO much!" ), and knowing that people of the same sex can love each other as much as anyone else can. I told her about Dumbledore, and she just said that it was sad that that guy hurt him. It's time that everyone grows up with gay awareness. It's not going away, so children should learn at an early age that love is love, and acceptance is one of the most important qualities in life. Magpie: That's the way I look at it as well. I honestly don't think there's anything inherently disturbing or confusing to a kid about the idea that two people of the same sex can love each other. I can remember when I learned of the concept and it wasn't disturbing to me at all. I think I was probably around 7 at the time. -m ***Katie: Growing up with a gay father in a monogamous long-term relationship, I can attest that it is not at all inherently disturbing to children. My mother, who had good reason to resent my dad, had she wished to, just explained that my dad and his partner loved each other the way she and my dad used to, and that it was perfectly normal. I never felt upset or like an outcast because of it, and was very proud of my dad when I got to be teenager, because he did lots of gay rights work and outreach work in the HIV/AIDS community. My dad and his partner always came to events at my school (which was a Catholic school, BTW!! : )) and none of my friends ever thought it was strange, nor were they overly curious. Just, "Katie has two daddies." No big deal. Anyway, just wanted to throw that in the discussion. : ) Katie . __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 18:14:52 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:14:52 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Churchmouse: The Catholic Church and the pope say that being Gay may be genetic, but those that are should not act on it, and those that are not should treat everyone fairly and without persecution. I don't have to know anything else. > > > ***Katie: Um...I'm Catholic. And my church has a gay and lesbian > ministry. And there are gay and lesbian couples who have kids that > attend mass every Sunday. I'm not sure what you're trying to say > here. Tonks: The teaching of the RC church and what it might practice in some more liberal parishes are two different things. > ***Katie: > Being gay is NOT a choice. Did you or I choose to be heterosexual? > No. We were born that way - hard-wired to like the opposite sex. Gay people are hard-wired to like the same sex. That's how God made them, so how on earth could he disapprove? That's my opinion, anyway. Tonks: Actually being gay is a very complex thing involving things that happen before birth and after. But I agree that it is not a choice. On the subject of choice, I wonder why no one has picked up on the problem with DD being gay and his pronouncement on 'choice'. I can see some people putting two and two together and saying that yes, DD was born gay and when he realized it, and it went badly, he chose to be celibate. Like the teaching of the RC church. I would think that this would take the whole subject in a direction that JKR did not intend. From kkersey at swbell.net Sat Nov 10 19:15:24 2007 From: kkersey at swbell.net (kkersey_austin) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:15:24 -0000 Subject: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Tonks: > I can > see some people putting two and two together and saying that yes, DD > was born gay and when he realized it, and it went badly, he chose to > be celibate. But it makes a *whole* lot more sense (IMO) to say that what "went badly" for DD was being blinded by love (or infatuation), not being "born gay". Not the least because not acting in accordance with one's true nature seems contrary to at least one theme or plotline in the series, i.e. Harry's "coming out" as a wizard in spite of the Dursley's attempting to enforce a sort of magical celibacy on him - but also because the danger of obsessive love is another recurring theme, going way back to DD's warning to Harry in front of the Mirror of Erised back in the first book. DD's big mistake was being seduced - intellectually and morally - by Grindlewald, *not* being born gay. JMO, of course. Elisabet From swartell at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 19:51:56 2007 From: swartell at yahoo.com (Sue Wartell) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:51:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Outing DD and Kids Message-ID: <226402.49940.qm@web53211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Alex: > Oh, Heck! My girls, who are 8 and 4 have a wonderful gay uncle that they (and I) love very, very much. The 8 year old "gets it" from watching "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" for 2 years now (Willow [her favorite character]and Tara's relationship made her go "Awww, they love each other SO much!" ), and knowing that people of the same sex can love each other as much as anyone else can. I told her about Dumbledore, and she just said that it was sad that that guy hurt him. It's time that everyone grows up with gay awareness. It's not going away, so children should learn at an early age that love is love, and acceptance is one of the most important qualities in life. Magpie: That's the way I look at it as well. I honestly don't think there's anything inherently disturbing or confusing to a kid about the idea that two people of the same sex can love each other. I can remember when I learned of the concept and it wasn't disturbing to me at all. I think I was probably around 7 at the time. -m . I have stayed out of this discussion, and will continue that way. However, I want to recommend a song by Sally Fingerett, titled "Home Is Where the Heart Is" http://www.peterpaulandmary.com/music/18-04.htm Sue __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 20:29:16 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:29:16 -0000 Subject: On being skinny (Was: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Magpie wrote: > One of the things I always find interesting on the Internet is how > often (I'm not referring to this list now btw, but elsewhere) people > will make this point as well. I mean, where they'll complain about > how skinny people have all the admiration but also go on about how > they don't deserve it because "real women" don't look like that, and > they're anorexic looking, and look like boys etc. > > The funny thing being that everyone tends to assume they're talking > to other non-skinny people. It's amazing how many times I've heard my > own body type described to me as being totally ugly with somebody > expecting some sort of "Right on, sister!" and instead they > get, "Yeah, that's me. Built like a number 2 pencil. Not anorexic. > Thanks!" :-) > > In real life it's sometimes just more hostile--either predictions of > how any minute how I'm going to get hugely fat or a cheerful "I hate > you!" from strangers. Not oppressed, but it tends to be bizarre. > > -m >Carol responds: But "skinny" isn't beautiful and it shouldn't be anyone's goal, and I speak as someone who knows what skinny is, having lost any pleasing plumpness in my face, arms, and hands without having any idea how to get it back. You're certainly right, however, about non-skinny people assuming that they're talking to other non-skinny people. For the record, here's a skinny woman: http://www.thebrooklynrail.org/arts/jan04/images/CurrinSKINNYWOMAN.jpg Here's an anorexic woman: http://www.legendsofamerica.com/photos-ghosts/VerySkinnyWoman.jpg Here's a slender woman (Blythe Danner in a bikini from some time back): http://hometown.aol.com/dannerfan/clown2.gif BTW, despite being more than sixty years old, Danner is still a good example of a woman who is healthily slender but not skinny (like her daughter, Gwyneth Paltrow). But, of course, she has the right bone structure for her weight. Some women look better with a few more pounds. Carol, just saying that "skinny" is not a desirable state and using it as a compliment, especially in front of susceptible young girls, is (IMO) probably unwise From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Nov 10 20:45:32 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:45:32 -0000 Subject: On being skinny (Was: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > >Carol responds: > > But "skinny" isn't beautiful and it shouldn't be anyone's goal, and I > speak as someone who knows what skinny is, having lost any pleasing > plumpness in my face, arms, and hands without having any idea how to > get it back. Magpie: Oh, I don't think it should be a goal, either. It's just funny how often the person is basically saying that they shouldn't feel badly for having the natural body type that they have, but they're doing it by insulting another body type. Ideally women should be able to celebrate different types of beauty. I would consider myself slender, actually, but know that when people describe me as "skinny" or "anorexic" the idea is to be insulting--just as, if I were talking to a woman with an hourglass figure, if I called her "fat" it wouldn't be a compliment. It's sometimes about putting one body type over another by exaggerating. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 10 20:58:06 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:58:06 -0000 Subject: DD's intellectual attraction to GG (Wa: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Elisabet wrote: > DD's big mistake was being seduced - intellectually and morally - by > Grindlewald Carol responds: Not to argue with you as it's a matter of interpretation, but I don't think that Albus was morally and intellectually seduced by Grindelwald. He was already attracted to the same ideas; he just wasn't willing to take them quite so far (an army of Inferi, for example). His mistake, IMO, was blinding himself to Gellert's darker side (rather like the young Severus Snape blinding himself to the darker side of Slytherin). If you see someone as a mirror of yourself, as I think Albus saw Gellert, you don't want to see their flaws (or your own). Of course, once Ariana was killed and Gellert fled the scene (whether or not he actually cast the spell that killed her), it was harder (maybe impossible) for Albus to hide the truth from himself (which he should already have known or guessed if only because of Gellert's expulsion from, of all places, Durmstrang). Of course, actually liking or being attracted to GG would have made him all the more reluctant to see faults in his new friend. That he was attracted by GG's ideas I don't for a moment deny. I just don't think that he was seduced by them. IMO. he just liked the idea of finding an intellectual equal (especially one who was charming and lively and amusing) who shared his dreams of dominating the Muggles, with the difference that Albus at least gave lip service to the concept of ruling responsibly, whereas Gellert already believed that might makes right. Just my view of the matter. Carol, wondering what Albus's views would have been if the Muggle boys had left Ariana alone From editor at texas.net Sat Nov 10 21:10:04 2007 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:10:04 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Etymology: "black-and-white" (Was: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <451DD6DAE4A84ABCA90BBF4FBA59D70D@AmandaPC> The McGee: So, when we say this situation is not black and white? We're saying that something is not totally good nor totally bad. The guy on the white horse with the white hat. This is where "black" is associated with bad and "white" is associated with good. Remember all the complaints about Star Wars? Amanda now: Well, when I say something isn't black-and-white, I mean it can't easily be reduced to primary causes-that more than one principle is involved, or that there are contributing factors that prevent a simple or easy explanation. I have no connotation of good or bad associated with the colors. The usage involves the simplicity and clear contrast between black and white-and I apply it as such. And I can't really think of any recent usage of this expression from others where the connotation was a good/bad value rather than what I've just said. A lot of times white does mean positive and black does mean negative. But not in this case, at least not for me. Trying to think of other expressions, I found "don't paint it entirely black," where black has a negative connotation. I'm not sure of the point, though. As diurnal animals, we are more comfortable with light than dark, and the resultant carriage of that connotation into linguistic expression does not surprise me. What happened with Star Wars? ~Amandageist [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at texas.net Sat Nov 10 22:05:42 2007 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:05:42 -0600 Subject: Sex! Love! Writing! (I just got tired of the old subject line)--> One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: References: <8ee758b40711081117y5bbf75c5p3fa3f6461864c2ee@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Del: Can you point me to a single animal species where life-long exclusive same-sex couples are "normal"? Amanda now: Not to muddy the waters, but life-long exclusive pairings of any kind are comparatively rare, except in a few species. When you include other species, you have to recognize the distinction---which nobody seems to be making here---between love (enjoying the company of) and sex (physical act). Other species generally have sex to reproduce, and pair-bonds of whatever duration are usually temporary to further that end. Pair-bonding for the enjoyment of company is not unheard of, but doesn't usually involve sex. Because human behavior has such a strong cultural component, I don't think you can look to other species. Unless you want to start looking at humans from a primatologist's point of view, which can show certain adaptive advantages to various non-reproductive sexual behaviors, both homo- and hetero-sexual. And which points up life-long exclusive same-sex couples as pretty clearly cultural and not a species behavior. Del: If she thought of DD as gay from back before she even started writing the books, how come she didn't actually write him AS gay? Amanda now: I have to ask--what would "writing him as gay" have looked like? I mean, if she always thought of him as gay, and she wrote him, then she *did* "write him as gay" because that was part of his character for her. She could not have written him as anything else. Quite possibly she doesn't think being gay has standard characteristics; quite possibly she thinks it's one of many facets of character and personality. I agree with whoever it was-and I'm sorry I can't remember, because it made me laugh out loud-about the total irrelevance of a side comment by Dumbledore to Harry, "Oh, by the way." Dumbledore's orientation wasn't terribly relevant to the *story,* and so was not explicitly mentioned. No more is Snape's, McGonagall's, or several other major characters. Del: Or maybe, oops, she was actually PANDERING to the unspoken wishes of a good deal of her readers, by keeping such a controversial issue as homosexuality out of her books? . Can you give me another reason? Amanda now: Well, I think the interaction of author and character had something to do with it, too. Characters can take on a character of their own after a few years, and I'd bet the interaction of JKR with her main characters (the ones we saw in any relationship) was simply that they didn't "feel" that way to her, it wasn't part of the character as it developed. I personally don't think she would have had a problem depicting a gay relationship--but the depiction of a relationship by the characters who were gay was not required by the story. This is all character and story-driven. Conversely, in the comic strip For Better or For Worse, one of the main characters started to "feel" as if he were gay to the writer, and because he was a main character, she explored it. She had a little more leeway to-her story was not as prescribed, a comic strip can ramble. My point is, after characters become established, they are not simply clay to be molded any way the author wants; it's a little more interactive. ~Amandageist [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Schlobin at aol.com Sat Nov 10 22:18:28 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:18:28 -0000 Subject: Sex! Love! Writing! (I just got tired of the old subject line)--> One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Amanda now: > > Not to muddy the waters, but life-long exclusive pairings of any kind are > comparatively rare, except in a few species. When you include other species, > you have to recognize the distinction---which nobody seems to be making > here---between love (enjoying the company of) and sex (physical act). Other > species generally have sex to reproduce, and pair-bonds of whatever duration > are usually temporary to further that end. Pair-bonding for the enjoyment > of company is not unheard of, but doesn't usually involve sex. > > Because human behavior has such a strong cultural component, I don't think > you can look to other species. Unless you want to start looking at humans > from a primatologist's point of view, which can show certain adaptive > advantages to various non-reproductive sexual behaviors, both homo- and > hetero-sexual. And which points up life-long exclusive same-sex couples as > pretty clearly cultural and not a species behavior. > So, Amanda, this is not really my area of expertise, is this not accurate? (oh, but a more careful reading of your post states that life long pairings in any species are rare, not non-existent)..and your use of the word usually or rarely... Same-Sex Pair Bonding in Animals Just as in humans, animals often form long-term same-sex relationships. In species in which this normally occurs in heterosexual couples, that shouldn't come as a great surprise, but it does come as a surprise in species where heterosexual pair-bonds don't normally form for long if at all. This is true of bottlenose dolphins, which are not known to form heterosexual pair bonds, but which do in fact form homosexual pair bonds, including sex, and often lasting for life. In animals in which "bachelor groups" form, such as bison, gazelles, antelope, sage grouse and Guinean cocks-of-the-rock, it is not uncommon for same sex pair bonds to form and last until one or the other member of the pair departs the relationship and breeds. It is also not uncommon for homosexual preference to form among members of such bachelor groups; when offered the opportunity to breed unencumbered with members of the opposite sex or the same sex, they choose the same sex. The human pattern of bisexuality also appears in animals. In some cases, animals prefer same sex at one point in their lives, and change preference later. They may even change back and forth. In some cases, animals may seek sex with partners of either sex at random. In animals with a seasonal breeding pattern, homosexuality can even be seasonal. Male walruses, for example, often form homosexual pair bonds and have sex with each other outside of the breeding season, but will revert to a heterosexual pattern during the normal breeding season. Not At All Unusual Lest you are tempted to believe that all of this is highly unusual and well out of the ordinary, you're in for quite a surprise. Homosexual behavior is not only common, but even more common in other species than in humans. While numbers are hard to come by, there are a few that present some interesting patterns. In ostriches, male homosexuality is much more common than bisexuality, but among mule deer, bisexuality is more common than homosexuality. Among our closest living relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees, few if any are either exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. Indeed, all that have been observed are exclusively permanently bisexual. As for numbers, here are a few: species % homosexual % bisexual % heterosexual silver gulls (females) 10 11 79 black headed gulls (both sexes) 22 15 63 Japanese macaques (both sexes) 9 56 35 bonobo chimpanzees (both sexes) 0 100 0 galahs (both sexes) 44 11 44 source: Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D., Biological Exhuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 2000, page 35 Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Sat Nov 10 22:20:58 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:20:58 -0000 Subject: Sex! Love! Writing! (I just got tired of the old subject line)--> One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Del: Or maybe, oops, she was actually PANDERING to > the unspoken wishes of a good deal of her readers, > by keeping such a controversial issue as > homosexuality out of her books? . Can you give me another reason? > pan?dered, pan?der?ing, pan?ders 1. To act as a go-between or liaison in sexual intrigues; function as a procurer. 2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses Interesting that you used that word, Del...and how would she have known that her readers had "unspoken wishes" if they didn't speak them? Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Sat Nov 10 22:36:39 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:36:39 -0000 Subject: Sex! Love! Writing! and Dumbledore and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: . > > Del: If she thought of DD as gay from > back before she even started writing the books, how > come she didn't actually write him AS gay? > > Amanda now: > > I have to ask--what would "writing him as gay" have looked like? I mean, if > she always thought of him as gay, and she wrote him, then she *did* "write > him as gay" because that was part of his character for her. She could not > have written him as anything else. Quite possibly she doesn't think being > gay has standard characteristics; quite possibly she thinks it's one of many > facets of character and personality. Yes, this has puzzled me throughout this discussion and many others. Does "writing him as gay" mean that he would swish or be effeminate, or have multiple sex partners, or have any kind of sex? This seems to me to be playing into (usually derogatory) stereotypes of gay men in particular. It seems that many people have real difficulty in distinguishing orientation from sexual contact or activity (hence the many people decrying JKR for suddenly putting "sexuality" into the books, which I don't understand because she didn't change the books at all)...It's like saying she put sexuality in the books because she revealed that Snape was in love with Lily. By revealing Snape to be heterosexual, is she putting sex into the books? It's like saying -- well, why didn't she write Snape as hetersexual if she thought of him that way... IF she had in fact included that DD was in love with GG in the books that still wouldn't have introduced sexuality into the books anymore than Snape being in love with Lily introduced it. Orientation means IF you were to become romantically/intimately involved with someone it would be someone of the opposite gender or someone of the same gender. It does not mean you have ANY sexual contact, nor does it mean you have multiple parters, or one committed relationship (or serial monogamy which seems, at least in the U.S. to be more of the pattern than "mating for life," going back to your discusion earlier, Amanda...) In fact, I see some parallels between the two men. When I think about DD, here's a 17 year old in the midst of hormonal uproar who falls in love...with someone brilliant, and (sounds like) beatiful. DD becomes inflamed with his ideas, and flirts with evil. As a result of his falling in love, he neglects his family. Aberforth reproaches him, there's a fight, GG puts the cruciatus curse on Aberforth...and DD's sister lies dead. Does GG stick around? No, he flees. This is a tragedy that shapes and mars DD's whole life. He fell in love with the wrong person, who turned out to be evil, and who abandoned him. He became complicit in the death of his sister. We know from what he said when he drank the poison in the cave that that experience haunted him throughout his entire life. >From someone who plotted muggle overthrow, he becomes a lifelong defender of muggles, elves, giants, werewolves, and anyone who is being discriminated against. From someone who wanted to be the glorious leader of the revolution, he becomes a teacher and refuses (how many times?) to become the Minister of Magic... This is not a great way to start out one's romantic/intimate life. I wonder if DD didn't also renounce personal intimacy and romance? It's possible he found some solace later in life with some adult relationships, but I dunno...... Then we move to Snape...he falls in love as a boy with a wonderful girl, and desperately wants to be involved with her. Snape decides to follow Voldemort and become a Death Eater, she is a Gryffindor who becomes a member of the Order of the Phoenix. Their paths irretrievably part. Snape then overhears the prophecy, tells Lord Voldemort and BECAUSE OF HIS ACTION Lily is murdered by Lord Voldemort. Not a great way to start out one's romantic/intimate life. I seriously doubt that Snape was ever involved with anyone else -- he was so angry and embittered..but like DD, he dedicated his life to a different goal because of this tragic love. The two men had something in common after all. Susan From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Nov 11 00:01:53 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:01:53 -0000 Subject: UK Politics / Reply to Ann (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Geoff: > The reality is that that, under the first past the post system, > many MPs are elected with way under 50% of the support of their > constituencies and the representation of the parties does not > reflect their share of the vote. Goddlefrood: That tends to happen where there's more than two parties contesting elections, there's not much wrong with it. The expressed view that many European countries function perfectly well with coalitions is not a position I could agree with. Constitutionally they have to have coalitions, because in certain countries they have to allocate a number of seats in Government, as opposed to in Parliament, to any party getting a particualr proportion of the vote (usually over 10 % of the seats). Anyway, sovereignty has been all but taken away by the EU or EC or whatever they are calling themselves these days. > Geoff: > Additionally, we have, as a result, a confrontational style > of politics where two parties cannot put forward similar > policies without one accusing the other of swiping their > ideas. Goddlefrood: It used to be called playing politics (although what exactly politicians are supposed to do except play politics is a moot point). There's actually been somewhat of a consensual situation in British politics since the Labour Party restyled itself and borrowed the Conservative's policies. I'm now off to clear a pub by talking some more about politics :-O. From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Sun Nov 11 00:03:31 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:03:31 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Sex! Love! Writing! and Dumbledore and Snape In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA0994A@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Susan: Yes, this has puzzled me throughout this discussion and many others. Does "writing him as gay" mean that he would swish or be effeminate, or have multiple sex partners, or have any kind of sex? This seems to me to be playing into (usually derogatory) stereotypes of gay men in particular. Sharon: I agree. These kinds of stereotypes are born of attitudes handed down via Judeo-Christian values in western society, which clearly disaproves of homosexuality. Howevr, apart from that tradition, homosexuality has been regarded highly throughout various eras in history, the Ancient Greeks being one that comes immediately to mind. In that era, love between men was considered the highest form of beauty, something to be cherished. men still married women and produced children but the love between men was seen as something purer, even when accompanied by sex. Plato's "Symposium" describes the different kinds of love and beauty and comes to this conclusion. The ancients greeks did not distinguish between sexual "orientations". It was all just "normal" no matter who you loved. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Nov 11 01:33:00 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:33:00 -0000 Subject: Excessive long replies to the excessively long topic (Tolerance) Message-ID: Susan wrote in : << When Fred Phelps pickets the funerals of dead Iraqi soldiers with signs that say "God Hates Fags", it gives credence and credibility to those who believe just that. >> No,it doesn't. Sadly, there are many people who react differently to Fred Phelps picketing the funerals of dead gay people than to Fred Phelps picketing the funerals of dead heterosexual-or-didn't-tell US service members who died in US wars. ('Sadly' because the survivors of the dead gay person deserve as much compassion as the survivors of the dead soldier. The soldier may have died serving his/her country rather than as a crime victim, accident victim, disease patient, whatever, but the family members are equally bereaved.) Many people who tsk-tsk in passing at the pain the picketing causes to family members of the dead gay civilian but feel supportive of a right to hate same-sex attraction, feel angry outrage at picketing the funerals of dead soldiers, and in some cases this angry outrage spreads so wide that it causes them to question the root cause, hatred of same-sex attraction. Susan wrote in : << one CAN control what one believes, and one can control what one DOES..... >> One can control what one does, but one cannot control what one believes. People change their beliefs only as a result of some experience, or perhaps of a long process of thought about 'Why this? Why that? Is that a contradiction?". People can not change their beliefs just by an act of willpower: "I will believe that the sky is yellow, I will believe that the sky is yellow, I will..." Del wrote in : << WHO ASSIGNED YOU AS THOUGHT POLICE OFFICER??? >> And who assigned you to ask who assigned Susan as Thought Police Officer? (I felt a need to say that even tho' Katie said it in the next post.) It seems to me that all of us in this conversation feel that Truth and Goodness assigned us to state the true facts and good beliefs ('if not me, who? if not now, when?'). Unfortunately, we don't agree which facts are true and which beliefs are good. Katie wrote in : << I don't think it's any better to say, "I disapprove of homosexuality, but it's not okay to deny them jobs, housing, or medical care...etc." than it is to just be openly prejudiced and bigoted against them. Tolerating those kinds of belief systems are what opens the door to ACTS of bigotry. It's just a lesser form of it. >> I disagree with you. Being a lesser form of bigotry is not good, but it is better than being a bigger form of bigotry. (As Tonks wrote in .) Del wrote in : << OK, so *what* would you have people who hold those beliefs DO? Not exist? Deny their own beliefs? Go through some brain-washing treatment to adopt the current PC beliefs? What?? >> While everyone who disagrees with me about anything SHOULD realise that disagreeing with me is proof that they are wrong, and should therefore seek out whatever brain-washing treatment is needed for them adopt MY beliefs (regardless of whether my beliefs are currently PC or not), in the case of people who loved all seven Harry Potter books until Rowling said Dumbledore is gay, but since she made that statement, they can't stand to re-read the books and won't let their children read the books, I think they should brain-wash themselves to forget that Rowling ever said anything about sexual orientation in any of her interviews. Then they could be happy again and cease whining, and cease paining people who are pained by the content of their whining. [Del wrote in : << That's true of adults who don't have kids who read HP and who have heard about the gay comments. As much as parents might manage to "forget" about it, they can't just tell their kids to forget about it too: they have to deal with it, even if they don't want to. >> I think they can tell their kids that that was just a stupid thing Rowling said in an interview and it has nothing to do with the books. They can even say that Rowling said it just to get headlines. I *suppose* your next argument is that the kids would then ask something like "How could anyone have said that Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald? Men never fall in love with men, only with women?" To me, that is not Rowling's fault. I can't imagine that kids would never hear of men falling in love with men somewhere else, maybe in political arguments about same-sex marriage.] And I have always questioned how much of a virtue tolerance really is. Like Tonks, I have friends with whom I disagree on some fairly important subjects, and I don't bring those subjects up in conversation. When the friends bring those subjects up in conversation, sometimes I just change the subject. Other times I feel the need to gently remind them that I disagree. I inwardly question whether it is bad of me to be friends and tolerant of people who believe such things. Katie wrote in : << I just wonder why tolerance and acceptance suddenly stops when it comes to sexuality. >> A good real-world question, but a thought-world intro to my questioning of whether tolerance is a virtue (in my reply to Del, immediately above). Where should tolerance stop? Should I be tolerant of people who are prettier than me? Of course! Even if they spend a lot of time working on and talking about ways to be pretty, like exercise, diet, make-up, clothing, underwear, cosmetic surgery... Of course I should be tolerant. Even if they say that supervisors writing annual reviews of employees should think that people are sloppy in their work because of being sloppy in their clothing, and are stupid in their work because of being fat? Only if they change 'should' to 'unconsciously will'. (At this point I think Del would accuse me of being Thought Police for nagging them into changing their statement.) If they advocate that fat, ugly, and sloppy employees should be fired, regardless of how good at the job, so that the workplace will look more 'professional'? This is the point where my tolerance and acceptance of them 'suddenly stops'. If they get into a position of power from which they actually do fire good workers for being fat, ugly, or sloppy? I think this is the point where Del's tolerance (Del?) would suddenly allow her to say she disapproved of that behavior of theirs. If they formed a gang to go around killing fat, ugly, sloppy people so that the world will be a more beautiful place? Most people would say that extrajudicial killing should not be tolerated, altho' some will insist that advocacy of extrajudicial killing is speech not actions and therefore should be tolerated. Most of those will agree that counter-advocacy should be tolerated for the same reasons, including yelling nasty things at them along their parade route. Should we be tolerant of purebloods who keep track of their pure genealogy? When they talk about purebloods being superior and deserving special-good treatment? When they descriminate in hiring? When they fire good employees just for having too much Muggle 'blood' in their ancestry? When they take away the wands of Muggle-borns? When they kill the Muggle-borns 'for resisting'? If they kill the Muggle- borns officially, having passed a law making it a capital crime to be a Muggle-born wizard? [credit to Susan for having already posted something similar: Susan wrote in : << After all, the DeathEaters had the right to believe that being a mudblood made you inferior, right? And they could say it all they liked as long as they didn't DO anything about it, right? That IS the argument? And if they believe that, I'm supposed to be tolerant of their beliefs? >>] Del wrote in : << She pandered to the wishes of those readers throughout the 7 books, by creating a strictly heterosexual society, and by writing DD as an asexual character. AFTER the 7 books were out, and AFTER a good deal of those aforementioned readers had BOUGHT and read the books, she outed DD. >> I acknowledge that for some listies, it is a matter of Rowling has their permission write anything she chooses in the books but is forbidden by them to say anything about the story or the characters anywhere but in the text of the books. But, if she had outed DD in the 7th book, after 6 books of asexual DD and strictly heterosexual WW, most of 'those readers' (the ones who wanted a book with no homosexual characters in it) would have been just as angry. Most of them would think she had tricked them by writing 6 books the way they wanted and suddenly being different in the last book. Many of them would have already bought all 7 books, buying DH as soon as it was released, before the news media reported The Big Outing. Del wrote in : << I don't think it's wise to drag Aberforth into this discussion. I mean, in a WW where only heterosexuality is ever mentioned, we have two brothers, one gay and one apparently into bestiality... Unless you consider it a complete coincidence that the ONLY character versed into bestiality happens to be the brother of the ONLY gay character, you can't help but wonder about the message JKR is sending here. I do, at least. >> I got the 'inappropriate charms on a goat' joke from writer to reader, but I never thought it was inside the story. I thought 'inappropriate charms on a goat' might be to make it speak in English, thus amazing Muggles and risking the Statute of Secrecy. Then I believed someone else's suggestion that he was trying to remove bezoars from goats' stomachs without harming the goats. Where my mind is dirty is where each brother revealed that his heart was incurably broken for life by the little sister's death. Especially in Albus's telling, I said: "Don't make me think he was an incestuous pedophile!" When Rowling said he was gay, that was a big relief to me. Del wrote in : << I'd hate to live in a world where, say, pedophiles are not being discriminated against. >> People can control their actions, but they can't control to what they are sexually attracted. If a person is sexually attracted to little children, but controls him/her/self and lives a celibate and asexual life, I don't think it's fair to discriminate against him/her. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Nov 11 01:52:31 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:52:31 -0000 Subject: Changing canon in the 7th book/Christian elements/LOL/Umbridge Message-ID: Del wrote in : << She pandered to the wishes of those readers throughout the 7 books, (snip) AFTER the 7 books were out, and AFTER a good deal of those aforementioned readers had BOUGHT and read the books, she outed DD.>> (As I said in my previous post, but am repeating lest sensible people have deleted my previous post because of its subject matter, I acknowledge that for some listies, it is a matter of Rowling has their permission to write anything she chooses in the books but is forbidden by them to say anything about the story or the characters anywhere but in the text of the books.) But, if she had outed DD in the 7th book, after 6 books of asexual DD and strictly heterosexual WW, most of the readers who are currently angry would have been just as angry. Most of them would think she had tricked them by writing 6 books the way they wanted and suddenly being different in the last book. Many of them would have already bought all 7 books, buying DH as soon as it was released, before the news media reported The Big Outing. I myself have a problem with 6 books being one way and the last being different. On Main List, Lee Kaiwen used the phrase that readers are 'co-creators' (with the author) of the characters (and everything else) in the book being read. I want to use the phrase 'co-creator' and ignore the rest of his post. I think it's pretty clear on list that even tho' readers can agree what words were on the page, they can get very different images in their minds about e.g. Snape's character, or even whether Hogwarts Castle looks more like an old, rough-hewn rock castle or like Neuschwanstein (spelling?), or even like Neuschwanstein modelled in sparkling sugar crystals. So I co-created a certain image of Albus Dumbledore in my mind through the first 6 books. My image didn't make a big deal about his sexual orientation (altho' I preferred him to be bisexual and have descendents, possibly including Lily and Petunia Evans), but it did imagine that he was a loving person, having loved romantically/ erotically again after the normal heartbreaks, and loving some people in brotherly and paternal (non-erotic, non-romantic) ways. Instead, DH gave us a very cold Albus, who had loved Harry, and MAYBE Ariana, but no one else in a paternal way (and not enough to shed more than one tear about planning to kill Harry), and who had loved Grindelwald but no one else in a passionate way. I was just SHOCKED at how cold he was to reformed Severus. My image of Albus was that he refused to be Minister of Magic and instead remained Headmaster of Hogwarts because he didn't want to be tied up with a bunch of bureaucracy and he thought that educating the young was more important. Instead, DH gave us Albus who refused to be Minister of Magic because he was afraid that he couldn't be trusted with power, and who didn't seem to care much about educating the young. I could have dealt with him being afraid to be Minister lest he abuse the power except he seemed not to notice how much he abused, or at least strongly used, the other powers he had. My life and these lists have been too busy for me to digest this new image of Albus, such as whether it makes any sense for this bloke who doesn't feel love to keep preaching about love. (It's pretty close to one of Pippin's annoying suggestions: suppose Albus was born with sociopathic tendencies, an inability to feel love, but developed good values from intellectual analysis, and suddenly was shocked when he found that he loved little Harry as he had never loved before.) And I wonder whether it makes any sense that his mother was Muggle- born. Unless she was an abused child like Harry who was overjoyed to flee cruel parents/guardians and live only in the wizarding world, I would have expected her to be in contact with her children's grandparents or some other relatives, so that her children should have grown up having some contact with their Muggle relatives and therefore knowing about Muggles without taking a Muggle Studies class. And one thing they would know is that Muggles aren't all alike, so not all Muggles are like the nasty ones who physically abused Ariana. He could have fallen for an idea that Muggles would be better off ruled by wizards from actually knowing Muggles and seeing their problems with blizzards and hurricanes, diseases, transportation, and other things that could be 'solved' by magic (or technology), rather than from ignorance of Muggles except the dangerous ones. Lizzyben wrote in : << She remained quiet about any possible Christian elements to the series until after DH was published. Then she announced that it was a Christian story all along. >> No, she didn't. She mentioned that it was a Christian story in that long ago interview with, was it the Vancouver SUN? And she had Christmas and Easter in all seven books, and Bible quotes *in* DH. If you said she kept quiet about Christian elements until *inside* DH, I might not have bothered to nitpick about one easily missed newspaper interview and some secular seasonal celebrations. I have a personal issue with things inside DH as mentioned in the reply immediately above. David Frankis wrote in : << Can a backwater be arid? >> This is a forbidden LOL post. Carol wrote in : << The idea has to come from somewhere and relate to something. >> Of course I, as an American, assumed that Rowling, as a former teacher, intended Umbridge as a comment on government interference in the classroom (as well as a villain needed for the plot), but as long as I'm replying to the next bit of your post, I want to say that authors are *supposed* to have good imaginations and be able to invent villains that are not a comment on Current Events nor even History. The idea *could* come from 'what do I need for my plot? I need Harry to get close enough to Ginny, Luna, and Neville that they'll join the Trio in the adventure in the Department of Mysteries ... Luna isn't a Gryffindor, so it can't be something in the common room ... they could get that close by being in a class that Harry teaches ... all Harry is good at is Defense and Quidditch ... why will Harry teach a Defense class? Because the real Defense class is no good and Hermione wants to pass her OWLs. Why is the real Defense class no good? I've already done Lockhart as a teacher who doesn't teach... << (There's an apparent connection to the Spanish Inquisition--which I realize was not the only inquisition) in her title and tactics, IMO, but no one ever responds when I raise that point.) >> Of course her title is a reminder of the Spanish Inquisition. I don't recall having ever noticed you raising that point, but if I had noticed it, what would I say to respond? Argue that 'Spanish Inquisition' is so much all one word in most people's mind that it never occurs to them that it had something to do with Spain? From Schlobin at aol.com Sun Nov 11 01:53:20 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:53:20 -0000 Subject: Excessive long replies to the excessively long topic (Tolerance) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Susan wrote in > : > > << one CAN control what one believes, and one can control what one > DOES..... >> > > CatLady responded: One can control what one does, but one cannot control what one > believes. People change their beliefs only as a result of some > experience, or perhaps of a long process of thought about 'Why this? > Why that? Is that a contradiction?". People can not change their > beliefs just by an act of willpower: "I will believe that the sky is > yellow, I will believe that the sky is yellow, I will..." > > Well, I agree that you don't do it by an act of will, but I do think one can commit oneself to undoing racism for example..I've tried very hard in my life to eradicate the racism I learned in my life..by listening to people of color, reading, thinking, analyzing, going to trainings, etc.. That's what I mean by having the ability to change what one believes... Susan From editor at texas.net Sun Nov 11 02:11:43 2007 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:11:43 -0600 Subject: Math, was--> Re: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2CC9BA15BD1D4040916CA0F50C7FEA42@AmandaPC> The churchmouse said I have three kids who EACH have a set of the books and share a set of family movies, that's well over a thousand dollars investment. Amanda now: This was not the main point, but I just can't make this work. Say each book is $30; that's $210 for a set. Times three is $630. Four movies at $25 each is another $100. That's well short of a grand-how are you getting to over $1000? (and why a set *each,* if I can ask.?) ~Amandageist [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 11 02:15:27 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 02:15:27 -0000 Subject: Sex! Love! Writing! Message-ID: Del: If she thought of DD as gay from back before she even started writing the books, how come she didn't actually write him AS gay? Amanda: I have to ask--what would "writing him as gay" have looked like? I mean, if she always thought of him as gay, and she wrote him, then she *did* "write him as gay" because that was part of his character for her. She could not have written him as anything else. Quite possibly she doesn't think being gay has standard characteristics; quite possibly she thinks it's one of many facets of character and personality. Susan (The McGee): Yes, this has puzzled me throughout this discussion and many others. Does "writing him as gay" mean that he would swish or be effeminate, or have multiple sex partners, or have any kind of sex? This seems to me to be playing into (usually derogatory) stereotypes of gay men in particular. Mike: I don't know if this was Del's point, nevertheless, here's my answer. Dumbledore wasn't written as gay, he wasn't written as straight, as Tonks_Op has said many times DD was written as asexual - he had no sexual orientation in canon. Whether or not JKR always thought of him as gay, she put nothing in writing for the reader to make that determination. Yes, Susan, had JKR attached those stereotypical, effiminate qualities you've enumerated to DD, we would have been clued in to his orientation, even if (as you've also said) it would have been through those usually derogatory clues. But she didn't do that, nor did she give us any descent clues to DD's sexual orientation. Did anyone ever guess that DD was written as gay before JKR's statement/answer? I know of nobody that can claim to have ventured that guess. Susan: IF she had in fact included that DD was in love with GG in the books that still wouldn't have introduced sexuality into the books anymore than Snape being in love with Lily introduced it. In fact, I see some parallels between the two men. When I think about DD, here's a 17 year old in the midst of hormonal uproar who falls in love...with someone brilliant, and (sounds like) beatiful. DD becomes inflamed with his ideas, and flirts with evil. As a result of his falling in love, he neglects his family. Aberforth reproaches him, there's a fight, GG puts the cruciatus curse on Aberforth...and DD's sister lies dead. Does GG stick around? No, he flees. This is a tragedy that shapes and mars DD's whole life. He fell in love with the wrong person, who turned out to be evil, and who abandoned him. He became complicit in the death of his sister. We know from what he said when he drank the poison in the cave that that experience haunted him throughout his entire life. Mike: This is a very good explanation of why things happened if Dumbledore was gay, it does change the reading a little. But it only changes it marginally from the reading that I daresay many of us came away with after just reading the book. To wit; Dumbledore was enamoured of GG's ideas and with the boy himself for his mind. This does not preclude a sexual attraction, but there isn't sufficient evidence in canon to make that leap. There is nothing to suggest a romantic attraction, IMO, because there doesn't seem to have been enough time for that to have developed. I disagree with those that say there was no place to insert DD's sexual orientation if JKR wanted to. Here's one possibility: DH, Ch 35, p 716 in US Ed.: "Grindewald. You cannot imagine how his ideas caught me, Harry, inflamed me. Muggles forced into subservience. We wizards triumphant. Grindewald and I, the glorious young leaders of the revolution." [I fell in love with the man as well as the ideas] Or however JKR's writing style would have phrased it. One sentence, that's all it would have took. I'm not even sure that younger readers would have caught the implication. But she didn't do it! I suppose to one such as Susan, JKR might appear as Lincoln appeared to the abolitionists. It was said that "Lincoln came late to the fight, but he persevered in the end." (I don't remember who to attribute that quote to, but that's OK, it's not an exact quote in any case) But for some of us non-believers, JKR's post-publication pronouncements have no effect on how we've read the series. I didn't read any sexuality in the DD character and I didn't need any to understand his motivations. As I've said, long before the Gay!DD storyline, I don't include JKR's interviews as canon. Since she has contradicted her own canon too many times with her spoken word. So, the Gay!DD answer changed nothing for me. Mike From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Sun Nov 11 04:35:15 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:35:15 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Sex! Love! Writing! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA0994B@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Mike: Did anyone ever guess that DD was written as gay before JKR's statement/answer? I know of nobody that can claim to have ventured that guess. Sharon: It occurred to me when I read DH that the relationship between DD and Grindlewald seemed rather close and possibly deeper than mere friendship. DD seemed to be smitten with Grindlewald. And of course we never ever hear about anyone else that DD has loved like that, so yes, I did think that there was something there. Of course, she wouldn't spell it out in the books possibly becuase children read them and it might be controversial, but it seemed to me she gave enough of a hint that a thoughful adult could put two and two together. From heidi8 at gmail.com Sun Nov 11 13:43:56 2007 From: heidi8 at gmail.com (Heidi Tandy) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:43:56 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Sex! Love! Writing! In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA0994B@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> References: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA0994B@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: <1194788639.1673C25A@bf11.dngr.org> > Mike: > Did anyone ever > guess that DD was written as gay before JKR's statement/answer? I > know of nobody that can claim to have ventured that guess. Oh yes, lots! Apart from the fact that there's a large and vibrant community of slash writers, there are a number of people who aren't slashers who wondered and posited this. Two days after DH came out, for example, a friend of mine who's not in fandom but who reads my livejournal asked me whether there were Dumbledore/Grindlewald fics yet and I gave him links to two, It's subtextual but it's there and many - but not all - people saw it. It's similar to anything else that's subtextual in the series - some people see Umbridge as a commentary on British government, or on British education in the abstract while others see a representation of a very mean person. Seeing the subtext in the Dumbledore/Grindlewald relationship as written in the book is similar, IMO. - heidi From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Nov 11 15:20:59 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:20:59 -0000 Subject: Sex! Love! Writing! In-Reply-To: <1194788639.1673C25A@bf11.dngr.org> Message-ID: > > Mike: > > Did anyone ever > > guess that DD was written as gay before JKR's statement/answer? I > > know of nobody that can claim to have ventured that guess. Heidi: > Oh yes, lots! Apart from the fact that there's a large and vibrant > community of slash writers, there are a number of people who aren't > slashers who wondered and posited this. > > Two days after DH came out, for example, a friend of mine who's not in > fandom but who reads my livejournal asked me whether there were > Dumbledore/Grindlewald fics yet and I gave him links to two, > It's subtextual but it's there and many - but not all - people saw it. > It's similar to anything else that's subtextual in the series - some > people see Umbridge as a commentary on British government, or on British > education in the abstract while others see a representation of a very > mean person. Seeing the subtext in the Dumbledore/Grindlewald > relationship as written in the book is similar, IMO. Magpie: Yeah, I saw it, but it never occurred to me that I was 'right.' I just thought I was totally shipping DD/GG after DH. -m From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sun Nov 11 16:40:20 2007 From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com) Date: 11 Nov 2007 16:40:20 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 11/11/2007, 11:00 am Message-ID: <1194799220.10.66472.m47@yahoogroups.com> Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal Weekly Chat Sunday November 11, 2007 11:00 am - 12:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Nov 11 18:34:11 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:34:11 -0000 Subject: On the Nature of Normal Message-ID: Well as usual, I'm off on my own side track. Some one in the discussion of gay people said that being Gay was not /normal/. Well, first, how do you define normal? Biological Imperative? Statistics? What? And as a side note, gay people really are offended by the word 'homosexual' mostly because it is the preferred term of those intent on persecuting or generally opposing us. Using it in a non-clinical setting, brands you as such. True, since it is technically a correct term, most gay people will not call you on it. But it is in the very least annoying to most, and offensive to some. Back to Normal. So, if we let 'most people' define normal then certainly being gay is not normal because gay people are in a small minority. But consider that people with red hair are extremely not normal. There are far fewer people with red hair than there are gay people, so statistically speaking that makes Red Heads more not normal than gay people. Maybe we shouldn't allow them to marry. Maybe we should deny them tax advantages allowed to others. Maybe we should disallow them death bed visits to loved ones. So, if normal is only defined by what is statistically common, then a lot of people are very abnormal. For example, a vast majority of the world has varying shades of Dark Skin, that would imply that white people are abnormal. A substantial majority of the world population has brown eyes thereby making people with blue eyes abnormal. Of course, those with gray, green, other colored eyes are absolute freaks if statistics are our only standard. So, I will concede that gay people, red heads, white people, people who have blue eyes, and also people who have brown or blond hair are not normal. But will also add that red heads are probably more not normal than gay people, as there are more of us than there are of them. So, maybe your argument is 'Nature'. Being gay is not natural. But if that were true then how do you explain it having occurred in human and animal nature since the beginning of natural time? So, in my opinion any appeal to nature falls far short of a reasonable explanation. Maybe you argument is based in Biology. That God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. An argument that always makes me laugh because my name is Steve and I'm pretty sure God, with a little help from my parents, created me too. That the purpose of man and woman is to procreate, to make babies. God or nature, as you choose, has instill in us the natural desire to make babies, and there for that is the grand design. Except, God or nature, did /not/ instill in us the nature or instinctive desire to make babies, it instilled in us the natural or instinctive desire to HAVE SEX, which quite logically, does result in a lot of babies being made. All animals including humans are driven by an ingrained sexual urge. That urge is directed in each human according to a random process that results in personal preferences. Logically, we should all be drawn to the best attributes of ourselves, since, somewhat metaphorically, it is ourselves that we seek to perpetuate. So, following this reason, the best of blue-eyes blonds should logically only seek out the best of other blue- eyed blonds. But we know that isn't true. Everyone has their own innate 'sexual preference'. There are not incapable of mating with others, but they do have a preference. Some people prefer blonds, they are instinctually and biologically draw towards blonds, other are drawn toward red heads, some are drawn outside their race. Personally, I think Asians are really hot. Some are drawn to the beefy and brawny, others are drawn to the intellectual. Biology favors diversity; it's part of evolution and natural selection. The more variations there are, the more likely some of those variations are likely to succeed. Some people ask, how can gay people exist. I ask, statistically and biologically, how could they not? How could this variation not be a logical and re-occurring natural variation? With all the biologically driven natural preferences, how could this one very likely preference not present itself? Keep in mind that while nature on one hand seeks to perpetuate, it also seeks on the other hand to balance. Yes, the natural process seek for us to be a prolific as possible, but excess procreation is the means to distruction. When population, whether animal or human, outstrips natural resources, something must befall that population to bring it more in balance with available resouces. When deer are scarce, wolves will some be rare, when deer are plentiful, wolves will some be common. It is nature in balance. In this sense, gay people could just as easily be God and natures plan for controlling and balancing population growth. Perhaps your objection is 'moral'. To that I can only say that morally speaking gay people are doing no more or less on the average Saturday night than their straight counter- parts are doing on the same night. The action of those gay people is no more right or wrong that the actions of their straight counterparts. That doesn't make it right by most formal standards, but it makes it an action that is consistent with the actions of a very substantial portion of the population. I don't see the actions of gay people as anymore morally right or wrong than the actions of their straight counterparts. Biological imperative, that is the instinctive urge to have sex, is an urge that most people are unable to resist, and once again, babies are a secondary aspect of the true biological imperative which is to have sex. So, yes gay people are not normal, they are as not normal as any of the other very many statistically not normal aspects of everyday life. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 11 20:11:05 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:11:05 -0000 Subject: Sex! Love! Writing! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > Mike: > > > Did anyone ever guess that DD was written as gay > > > before JKR's statement/answer? I know of nobody that > > > can claim to have ventured that guess. > > > Heidi: > > Oh yes, lots! Apart from the fact that there's a large and > > vibrant community of slash writers, there are a number of people > > who aren't slashers who wondered and posited this. Mike: LOL! I should have caveated the slash writers since it seems there are enough of them to Ship anyone or anything. But writing DD into slash is not like making a canon assumption that he's gay. After all, there are plenty of Harry and Draco slashes written and there is zero canon that either of them is anything other than Het, is there? As to others that posited this, I suppose there were those like Magpie, who said: > Magpie: > Yeah, I saw it, but it never occurred to me that I was 'right.' I > just thought I was totally shipping DD/GG after DH. Mike: Rumaging the idea through your head is different than seeing some good enough clues to want to posit out loud that one thinks DD is gay. Not to disparage Magpie, because I don't doubt she suspected... something. In fact, I don't doubt that a lot of people wanted to read something into those scenes. But I do doubt that those scenes were suspiciously suggestive enough to make someone confident enough to post that they saw gay!DD. > > Heidi: > > It's subtextual but it's there and many - but not all - > > people saw it. > > > > Seeing the subtext in the Dumbledore/Grindlewald > > relationship as written in the book is similar, IMO. Mike: I will say that, given more time to digest the book, some may have come up with gay!DD with no prompting from Ms Rowling. In fact, you may know of some that were confident enough in the subtext, as you've said, to come forward and be counted as sure that DD was gay. I saw no-one on this list posit that, well, none that I saw as a result of reading DH. But I must give some props to our dear friend Kemper. In a pre-DH thread on possible homosexual characters, Thu Jun 15, 2006 : Kemper now: Again, I rule out Remus. One who I think is never mentioned is also the most obvious: Dumbledore. I believe it was Carol who suggested that for an argument to exist many people from both sides have to see it (see any Snape thread). My canon support are, his office his opening speeches his demeanor his creativity his courage http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/153891 Mike again: I can't say that no-one else said it on-list. I searched for "gay" and only scanned through about half of the 850, pre-Oct '07 posts, taking me back to 2003. Almost all of those posts were speculations on Sirius, Remus, Snape, or James. Those of you that can remember back further may also remember open gay!DD speculation, I don't go back that far. I guess my point is, the subtext may give enough of a hint for some to have speculated. Most, I suspect, would have come to the same conclusion that Magpie admits to, 'It must be me'. And that is perfectly logical to me because the hints, subtext, or clues were insufficient to give anyone a solid feeling that their intuition on this was correct. So I still think that Dumbledore wasn't written as gay. Mike From random832 at fastmail.us Sun Nov 11 23:07:33 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:07:33 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47378B35.70903@fastmail.us> susanmcgee48176 wrote: > Next, being gay should not be equated with child sexual abuse. > This is bigotry. It is slander. It is disgusting. All true. It is also _not happening_, at least not on this list. --Random832 From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Nov 11 23:16:07 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:16:07 -0000 Subject: Sex! Love! Writing! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Mike again: > I guess my point is, the subtext may give enough of a hint for some > to have speculated. Most, I suspect, would have come to the same > conclusion that Magpie admits to, 'It must be me'. And that is > perfectly logical to me because the hints, subtext, or clues were > insufficient to give anyone a solid feeling that their intuition on > this was correct. > > So I still think that Dumbledore wasn't written as gay. Pippin: If JKR had answered the question by saying that Dumbledore had outlived two wives, would people be saying he hadn't been written as a double widower? That she should have put double widowers in canon so we'd know what to expect? Pippin From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 11 23:25:34 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:25:34 -0000 Subject: Daniel Radcliffe - My Boy Jack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I am writing this about twenty minutes after the end of "My Boy Jack" on ITV. I always find Remembrance Day here in the UK very moving and the film added to this. It portrayed so much the futility and loss of the First World War trenches and of the sense of loss which must have come to millions of families. I thought Dan acquitted himself very well in this film and would recommend it for those of you who are interested in his career outside Hogwarts and also can get hold of a DVD which is being released very shortly. Geoff From juli17 at aol.com Mon Nov 12 00:17:32 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:17:32 -0000 Subject: Sex! Love! Writing! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > > Mike again: > > I guess my point is, the subtext may give enough of a hint for some > > to have speculated. Most, I suspect, would have come to the same > > conclusion that Magpie admits to, 'It must be me'. And that is > > perfectly logical to me because the hints, subtext, or clues were > > insufficient to give anyone a solid feeling that their intuition on > > this was correct. > > > > So I still think that Dumbledore wasn't written as gay. > > > Pippin: > If JKR had answered the question by saying that Dumbledore had > outlived two wives, would people be saying he hadn't been written as > a double widower? That she should have put double widowers in canon > so we'd know what to expect? > > Pippin > Julie: This would be very suspicious, very suspicious indeed! Men do not usually outlive women, and for a man to outlive *two* wives...this would seem to imply that Dumbledore might well be a wife-killer! Not quite as bad to some as being gay perhaps, but still, could we allow our children to read these books with Dumbledore's unlikely survival suddenly prompting questions we parents don't want to answer? And who wouldn't be angry with JKR for dumping this on us post-canon without so much as a line in the books about those dead wives (perhaps one of those single tears Dumbledore is so good at shedding sliding down his cheek as he laments his sadly departed loves...)? Julie, unsuccessful in fending off a ferocious attack of sarcasm today From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 01:26:27 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 01:26:27 -0000 Subject: Sex! Love! Writing! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Pippin: > If JKR had answered the question by saying that Dumbledore had > outlived two wives, would people be saying he hadn't been written > as a double widower? Mike: Yes, they would, but what's the point? > Pippin: > That she should have put double widowers in canon > so we'd know what to expect? Mike: Actually, I think learning that some women don't outlive their husbands doesn't need to be forshadowed. (Not that it makes a damn bit of difference, but we did have a widower - Xeno Lovegood). Nor do I think that finding out that Dumbledore outlived two wives would be considered controversial. If JKR had made it known that she thought of DD as a double widower, it wouldn't have affected my understanding of the story. First, because I don't care what JKR says but doesn't write. And because nothing was written that would have been affected by Dumbledore's past marriages, there were no children and no mention whatsoever of his wives. Just as nothing was affected by his past sexuality or lack thereof, IMO. Understand, it wouldn't have bothered me in the least if DD was gay. I just didn't read him that way. For six books he was asexual. The short glimpse at his younger self in DH, convinced me of nothing with regards to his sexuality. Susan's hypothetical reasoning (with a gay DD romantically linked to GG) regarding DD's later choices could very well be right, but since it wasn't backed by canon it remains hypothetical, just as are many others that explain things as well. (Carol put forth a couple on Main). Besides, there are more interesting aspects about DD's personality, that *were* shown in DH, that are more deserving of discussion than his unwritten sexuality, IMO. But I'll leave those for discussion on Main. Mike From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Nov 12 02:05:19 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:05:19 -0000 Subject: Sex! Love! Writing! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Mike: > Actually, I think learning that some women don't outlive their > husbands doesn't need to be forshadowed. (Not that it makes a damn > bit of difference, but we did have a widower - Xeno Lovegood). Nor do > I think that finding out that Dumbledore outlived two wives would be > considered controversial. > > If JKR had made it known that she thought of DD as a double widower, > it wouldn't have affected my understanding of the story. First, > because I don't care what JKR says but doesn't write. And because > nothing was written that would have been affected by Dumbledore's > past marriages, there were no children and no mention whatsoever of > his wives. Just as nothing was affected by his past sexuality or lack > thereof, IMO. Magpie: Though it would have if it turned out McGonagall was his ex-wife. The point being just that it would be illuminating a relationship in canon by telling us wait, there's a romance here--or was. Which is basically the only place where DD's gayness comes in--with Grindelwald. Other than that it's just as important as any character's sexuality, which is part of them but might not be something that the author finds a natural way to put in. Had she had DD having a little romance with somebody around the time of the Yule Ball the way Hagrid did, for instance, that would fit in as easily as Hagrid's did. As it stands in story terms the only part that's really relevent that we know of is that DD/GG is slightly different than it seemed to Harry, just as any DD/McG scenes would be in retrospect a bit different than Harry imagined if McG was his ex. -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 04:13:04 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 04:13:04 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > Though it would have if it turned out McGonagall was his ex-wife. > The point being just that it would be illuminating a relationship > in canon by telling us wait, there's a romance here--or was. Mike: Well, Pippin's hypothetical was that DD was a widower, so that would make McGonnagall being one of his exes problematic, wouldn't it? But I understand your premise and ask, wouldn't the DD-McG dynamic been written differently if they were exes? So, yes, that would most likely have affected both the writing and reading of the story. Maybe that would have been thought the reason DD didn't seem to trust McGonnagall with some of his varied secrets. Which would have diluted the famous DD penchant for secrecy in an unhelpful way, imo. > Magpie: > Which is basically the only place where DD's gayness comes in-- > with Grindelwald. Other than that it's just as important as any > character's sexuality, which is part of them but might not be > something that the author finds a natural way to put in. > As it stands in story terms the only part that's really > relevent that we know of is that DD/GG is slightly different than > it seemed to Harry, just as any DD/McG scenes would be in > retrospect a bit different than Harry imagined if McG was his ex. Mike: I'm not sure what more to say that I haven't said before on previous posts and above. So I'll move on to different angle. On the one hand, I wish that JKR had added that one sentence that would have definitely signalled that DD was gay. It not only would have been more courageous way of handling this, it would have been the illuminating canon that you have alluded to above. If JKR had always thought of DD as gay, I've lost respect for her for not making it more obvious to the reader. On the other hand, including DD's gayness really adds nothing to the story for me. I guess in JKR's mind, she wrote a gay!DD and yet I saw nothing in canon that would make me believe that. And since the story doesn't change in any significant manner by making DD gay, what would be the point of including it? Not the social ramifications, mind you, but for the sake of the story. I can understand some people's desire for JKR to include a gay character to make a statement. But I never read these books to get a morality message from JKR, I feel I've got a handle on that all by myself, thank you very much. Besides, I never thought these books were written with the intent to instruct in some moralistic vein. I was already disappointed that she included Christain themes, though she did warn us that she would be doing so. Still, I thought "King's Cross" was a hackneyed portrayal that I'd seen done much better by others. <(Aside: I remember putting the book down after reading the first few sentences of that chapter and saying to myself, "No, tell me she's not going there.")> That's neither here nor there. I do remember that JKR had allowed that she was not writing these books as her way of conveying her moralistic view through wizarding allegories and/or metaphors. That hasn't stopped her public from drawing those parallels in their analysis, but that's nothing that she could control. JKR's mistake, I believe, was not in answering the question. That, people could include or not as part of canon as is their wont. It was, as Carol has pointed out, her declamation that Dumbledore is her character and that he is what she says he is. That was insulting to her readership, IMO, and denies the primary benefit one gets from reading -- of being able to create a world of the mind to illustrate the written word. OK, enough pontificating from me. Mike From cottell at dublin.ie Mon Nov 12 04:41:53 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 04:41:53 -0000 Subject: UK Politics / Reply to Ann (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > The expressed view that many European countries function perfectly > well with coalitions is not a position I could agree with. Sorry for butting in here, but I'm afraid I don't follow this. I am a voting citizen of a European country which has had only coalition government since 1977, apart from one nine month period in 1982. We function rather well, and for some years have been experiencing astonishing economic growth and prosperity. You may be philosophically opposed to the idea of coalition, and there's much to be said for such a position, but it's simply untrue to say that coalitions necessarily function poorly. Mus From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 05:08:43 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 05:08:43 -0000 Subject: UK Politics / Reply to Ann (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Mus: > I am a voting citizen of a European country which has had only > coalition government since 1977, apart from one nine month period > in 1982. We function rather well, and for some years have been > experiencing astonishing economic growth and prosperity. Goddlefrood: That's fantastic, bully for you. I too am a voting member of a European country. > Mus: > You may be philosophically opposed to the idea of coalition, > and there's much to be said for such a position, but it's > simply untrue to say that coalitions necessarily function > poorly. Goddlefrood: Well, that's not exactly what I said, and your example is but one of many European countries. Coalitions generally have to compromise policies of one or another party within the coalition. That's not really controversial, I trust. That coalitions *can* function effectively is not something I would argue against. Giving one example, the country in which I now reside has a forced coalition system enshrined in its constitution. Any party with more than ten percent of seats in the Parliament (it's a preferential voting system that's used, although basically first past the post) has to have a proportionate number of seats in Government. This is a system based on others, and my point had been that a *forced* coalition situation, as prevails here, and indeed elsewhere, is not a good thing because too many policies have to be compromised to accommodate the disparate parties. I hope that's now clear. From cottell at dublin.ie Mon Nov 12 05:24:55 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 05:24:55 -0000 Subject: UK Politics / Reply to Ann (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > This is a system based on others, and my point had been that > a *forced* coalition situation, as prevails here, and indeed > elsewhere, is not a good thing because too many policies have > to be compromised to accommodate the disparate parties. I hope > that's now clear. Ah, that's much clearer. Thank you. There's nothing in our constitution that forces us to have one, and we have had lengthy periods of majority government, but we keep electing coalitions. In a way, it's quite bizarre. :-) Mus From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 06:32:54 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:32:54 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "Mike" wrote: ... > > Mike: > ... > > On the one hand, I wish that JKR had added that one sentence > that would have definitely signalled that DD was gay. It not > only would have been more courageous way of handling this, > it would have been the illuminating canon that you have > alluded to above. ... > bboyminn: Well, I'm taking a different approach too. One thing people keep forgetting is that Dumbledore is well over 100 years old, I think he is past the raging hormones and compelling sexual urges stage of life. Exactly how should a 120 year old man express his gayness in the story? What relevant statement could have been made that would have fit with the story as it stands. Remember this is not Dumbledore's story, it's Harry's. Also, Dumbledore being gay is only very mildly relevant to the story, and is, in fact, completely unnecessary. JKR answered a question about off-page backstory, and I think off-page is exactly where it should be. I'm sure hundreds of Slash writers would be delighted to discover that in the backstory, Sirius and Remus were lovers, but delighted as they may be, it has nothing to do with Harry's story, and it is Harry's story that we are here to read. > Mike: > > JKR's mistake, I believe, was not in answering the question. > That, people could include or not as part of canon as is > their wont. It was, as Carol has pointed out, her declamation > that Dumbledore is her character and that he is what she says > he is. That was insulting to her readership, IMO, and denies > the primary benefit one gets from reading -- of being able > to create a world of the mind to illustrate the written word. > > OK, enough pontificating from me. > > Mike > bboyminn: Once again, I say, people can't both want to know and not want to know. People definitely do want to hear JKR's vision and version of both the back story and the front story. That's why they ask questions. I have tons of question I would like to know the answer to, for example, how does business work in the wizard world? Do the muggle and magic world interchange goods and services through intermediaries? Do magic-aware muggle green grocers sell fruits and vegetables into the wizard world? ..and many more business related questions. But, if I ask, and don't like the answer, is that my fault or JKR's? And does her answer really circumvent my own beliefs? Am I not still free to write my own HP fan fiction in any way I choose? Am I not still free to reject her vision, and envision the characters and setting as I see fit. When people ask JKR for her vision of Off-page aspects of the books, they have to accept that vision. That is, they have to accept it as JKR's vision, but they are free to write their own torrid love stories with Dumbledore having the hots for McGonagall. JKR, in saying that Dumbledore was her character and she is therefore free to envision him as she choses, I think was a defensive statement to questions by muggle reporters that implied, 'how dare she say such a thing'. Her response was 'screw you, I created Dumbledore and this IS his backstory, take it or leave it'. Personally, I think too much is being made of the whole thing, but on the other hand, it has kept the discussion going for days. I mean, if it wasn't for Dumbledore being gay, /what ever would we talk about/? Just a few additional thoughts to the discussion in general. Steve/bboyminn From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 08:01:25 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:01:25 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > bboyminn: > > Well, I'm taking a different approach too. One thing people > keep forgetting is that Dumbledore is well over 100 years old, > I think he is past the raging hormones and compelling sexual > urges stage of life. In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/34190 Mike wrote: Dumbledore wasn't written as gay, he wasn't written as straight, as Tonks_Op has said many times DD was written as asexual - he had no sexual orientation in canon. > bboyminn: > Exactly how should a 120 year old man express his gayness in > the story? What relevant statement could have been made that > would have fit with the story as it stands. Remember this > is not Dumbledore's story, it's Harry's. In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/34190 Mike wrote: I disagree with those that say there was no place to insert DD's sexual orientation if JKR wanted to. Here's one possibility: DH, Ch 35, p 716 in US Ed.: "Grindewald. You cannot imagine how his ideas caught me, Harry, inflamed me. Muggles forced into subservience. We wizards triumphant. Grindewald and I, the glorious young leaders of the revolution." [I fell in love with the man as well as the ideas] > bboyminn: > Also, Dumbledore being gay is only very mildly relevant to > the story, and is, in fact, completely unnecessary. In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/34203 Mike wrote: On the other hand, including DD's gayness really adds nothing to the story for me. > bboyminn: > JKR answered a question about off-page backstory, and I > think off-page is exactly where it should be. I'm sure > hundreds of Slash writers would be delighted to discover > that in the backstory, Sirius and Remus were lovers, but > delighted as they may be, it has nothing to do with > Harry's story, and it is Harry's story that we are here to > read. In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/34196 Mike wrote: But writing DD into slash is not like making a canon assumption that he's gay. After all, there are plenty of Harry and Draco slashes written and there is zero canon that either of them is anything other than Het, is there? > bboyminn: > > Once again, I say, people can't both want to know and not > want to know. People definitely do want to hear JKR's > vision and version of both the back story and the front > story. > > But, if I ask, and don't like the answer, is that my fault > or JKR's? And does her answer really circumvent my own > beliefs? Am I not still free to write my own HP fan fiction > in any way I choose? Am I not still free to reject her > vision, and envision the characters and setting as I > see fit. In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/34190 Mike wrote: I don't include JKR's interviews as canon... So, the Gay!DD answer changed nothing for me. > bboyminn: > JKR, in saying that Dumbledore was her character and she is > therefore free to envision him as she choses, I think was > a defensive statement to questions by muggle reporters > that implied, 'how dare she say such a thing'. Her response > was 'screw you, I created Dumbledore and this IS his > backstory, take it or leave it'. In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/34203 Mike wrote: JKR's mistake... was her declamation that Dumbledore is her character and that he is what she says he is. That was insulting to her readership, IMO, and denies the primary benefit one gets from reading -- of being able to create a world of the mind to illustrate the written word. > Steve/bboyminn: > Personally, I think too much is being made of the whole thing, > but on the other hand, it has kept the discussion going for > days. I mean, if it wasn't for Dumbledore being gay, /what > ever would we talk about/? In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/34201 Mike wrote: Besides, there are more interesting aspects about DD's personality, that *were* shown in DH, that are more deserving of discussion than his unwritten sexuality, IMO. Mike now: Personally, I think there are a lot of things to discuss about Dumbledore specifically and the HP series in general after the last canon, besides some non-essential piece of backstory trivia that sheds little to no light on the story. I think the antagonistic feelings towards DH that were expressed on Main, after the release, drove its share of people off the list. I also wonder how many people left the list because of the vitriolic debate spawned by JKR's gay!DD comment. Short term volume, long term decimation of readership and posting. I think JKR"S utterence has done irreparable harm to the franchise, all aspects of it. JMO, Mike From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 08:02:23 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:02:23 -0000 Subject: Gay Sex Scene Removed From Harry Potter Book Message-ID: I have no idea whether this guy is serious or if he is just being sarcastic. But it still made me laugh. This is supposedly a minister from the Landover Baptist Church YouTube- "Gay Sex Scene Removed From Harry Potter Book" http://youtube.com/watch?v=j_vDvy4z0RU Whether serious or a parody, it still illustrates it's point very nicely, and that point is, some people are just crazy. Steve/bboyminn From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Mon Nov 12 11:07:40 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:07:40 -0000 Subject: UK Politics / Reply to Ann/ The Crouches In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Goddlefrood wrote: > > Another convert then? I live as far as it's humanly possible to > live away from the place while still being on dry land, partly > for this very reason. Unfortunately proportional representation > probably wouldn't work there, there'd be too many hung Parliaments > with the Liberals holding the balance of power, and would you > really want that? > The Liberals have been shuffling leaders quite regularly > already, it was only Paddy Pantsdown that held the job for any > length of time in recent years, until he was caught with his > ashes down. The venerable Ming was more or less a museum piece. Ann: Well, I hadn't really been thinking of Paddy as being "recent", she said, revealing herself to be even shallower than anyone had hitherto guessed. You're being unfair to Ming, though; you make him sound like a vase. I think it was you who mentioned the last Queen's Speech, with all the talking heads sounding like fanboys accusing each others' comics of idea theft. I was rather undismayed by this - I'm OK with a bit of co-operation between the parties - but maybe that's because of the size of Tony's majorities. Maybe you're right. > Goddlefrood: > > Had you been reading The Silmarilion for many years? Ann: Well, it felt like it sometimes... worth the effort, though. It puts a whole different spin on LotR when you realise that Galadriel is Elrond's mother-in-law. More seriously, though: if LotR *is* basically a re-enactment of earlier stories, such as the Silmarillion stuff, that means Aragorn and Arwen are really Tuor and Idril, and so on. Doesn't that also make Frodo and Sam Beren and Luthien? (Note that Beren loses a hand, and Frodo a finger.) No wonder everyone thinks they're slashy. As I've seen a few Crouch!posts on main in the last few days, I think I'll say that they've been done to death not only in canon but also onlist, before OotP came out. See message 47927 and downthread for a huge and fascinating (but TBAY, if that puts anyone off) series of posts on Crouch Sr. by an ex-listie named Elkins, who's archived all her posts at http://www.theennead.com/elkins/hp/. I'm sure there's a ton of other stuff in archive, too. Ann From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Mon Nov 12 12:55:15 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:55:15 -0000 Subject: Out-Posts Message-ID: Has anyone else noticed at HP4GU-OT is now getting more posts than the main group? (as of this point, 205 vs. 176 over the last week). I suppose that's inevitable as the speculative posts that took up so much of HP4GU no longer need to be written. - CMC From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 13:07:21 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 05:07:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations In-Reply-To: <47378B35.70903@fastmail.us> Message-ID: <510757.35609.qm@web52705.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Random832 wrote: susanmcgee48176 wrote: > Next, being gay should not be equated with child sexual abuse. > This is bigotry. It is slander. It is disgusting. All true. It is also _not happening_, at least not on this list. --Random832 ***Katie: Yes, it has been happening on this list. Gay people have been compared to murderers, child molesters...it definitely has happened. I think the rhetoric is dying down, on both sides, and we're actually beginning to talk to each other reasonably now...so I have no wish to stir the pot. I am more than happy to forgive the insults, from both sides, and move on. However, since the topic was broached, I had to point out that it *has* been done. Maybe it's over (hopefully), but it definitely was happening. It's hard to go back and find specific posts, given the volume over the last few weeks, but I can do so if you want. Again, I have no wish to being back unpleasantness to this conversation, but I just couldn't leave that one alone. : ) Katie . __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 13:28:06 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:28:06 -0000 Subject: Out-Posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius" wrote: > > Has anyone else noticed at HP4GU-OT is now getting more posts than the > main group? (as of this point, 205 vs. 176 over the last week). > > I suppose that's inevitable as the speculative posts that took up so > much of HP4GU no longer need to be written. > > - CMC > ***Katie: I think it's mostly because the main list's topics, at least IMO, have been less interesting than what we've been discussing OT. I, for one, cannot resist a socio-political debate of the kind that's been going on since DD's outing. I also enjoy talking about the movies, which we've done some of, and I just think the OT list has been more interesting lately. Certainly, the main list is still necessary to any canon discussion, but we've definitely veered far from canon discussion lately. I, at least, need more time to digest the whole shebang before I can have a really quality canon discussion. But, I agree that it's unusual for the OT list to have more posts than the main list. Katie From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 12 13:54:00 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:54:00 -0000 Subject: Gay Sex Scene Removed From Harry Potter Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > I have no idea whether this guy is serious or if he is just > being sarcastic. But it still made me laugh. > > This is supposedly a minister from the Landover Baptist > Church > Whether serious or a parody, it still illustrates it's > point very nicely, and that point is, some people are just > crazy. > > Steve/bboyminn > Geoff: It's a send up. As a UK Baptist, I was so taken aback and thought 'this guy is round the twist!'. However, all is revealed if you go to Google and search for Landover Baptist Church, the Wikipedia link will answer your questions... From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 12 13:58:19 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:58:19 -0000 Subject: Daniel Radcliffe - My Boy Jack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: Geoff: > I thought Dan acquitted himself very well in this film and would > recommend it for those of you who are interested in his career > outside Hogwarts and also can get hold of a DVD which is being > released very shortly. Geoff (later): Answering myself - a sign of ageing I believe - you should be able to watch the programme by going to : www.itv.com/drama and following the link from there. I can't because the ITV site doesn't like Macs. However, I have got it on VCR until I get the DVD. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Nov 12 14:51:36 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:51:36 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > bboyminn: > > Well, I'm taking a different approach too. One thing people > keep forgetting is that Dumbledore is well over 100 years old, > I think he is past the raging hormones and compelling sexual > urges stage of life. > > Exactly how should a 120 year old man express his gayness in > the story? What relevant statement could have been made that > would have fit with the story as it stands. Remember this > is not Dumbledore's story, it's Harry's. > > Also, Dumbledore being gay is only very mildly relevant to > the story, and is, in fact, completely unnecessary. > > JKR answered a question about off-page backstory, and I > think off-page is exactly where it should be. I'm sure > hundreds of Slash writers would be delighted to discover > that in the backstory, Sirius and Remus were lovers, but > delighted as they may be, it has nothing to do with > Harry's story, and it is Harry's story that we are here to > read. Magpie: Actually, I quibble with this. It may be true but it's no reason for not putting it in the story. The fact is that the relationship between Sirius and Remus and Dumbledore and Grindelwald were both important to the story, so there's no reason to isolate the romantic parts (if they existed) as being off-limits. Harry has witnessed plenty of romance that wasn't really part of his story. It's just there because it's there. I realize that of course there's a balance--it sometimes happens that an author knows something but just never finds a way to put it in smoothly so it stays out. That's what people refer to when they imagine clunky scenes where Dumbledore suddenly says, "Btw, Harry, I like dudes!" And it's hard in looking at the story as it is to see any place where she would do this with Dumbledore's sexuality--but I think that's because it's not there to begin with. I mean, of course there's no place for it since it isn't there. But she does find plenty of places to just stick in people having romantic lives or mentioning past romances, so one can't say that she *couldn't* put it in, or that she was following any sort of rules she'd set out by leaving it out. The story doesn't suffer for leaving this information about Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald out. It really doesn't add anything because it was already presented in a complete way in the story. It becomes more like adding something like Barty Crouch Jr. being illegitimate--it does change the story and the dynamic, but it's not automatically better or more logical than the Jr./Sr. dynamic we have in the book already. It's kind of a "what if," but one that doesn't contradict the canon as it stands. > bboyminn: > > Once again, I say, people can't both want to know and not > want to know. People definitely do want to hear JKR's > vision and version of both the back story and the front > story. That's why they ask questions. I have tons of > question I would like to know the answer to, for example, > how does business work in the wizard world? Do the muggle > and magic world interchange goods and services through > intermediaries? Do magic-aware muggle green grocers sell > fruits and vegetables into the wizard world? ..and many > more business related questions. > > But, if I ask, and don't like the answer, is that my fault > or JKR's? Magpie: And of course, often it's not a case of the person asking the question not liking the answer, it's that we're talking about different people. I want to know the answers to questions *I* want to ask (if I had any to ask--I'm fine not getting any answers to anything), but I don't necessarily want to know the answer to somebody else's question. I just get it because somebody else asked it. -m From muellem at bc.edu Mon Nov 12 15:20:01 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:20:01 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > > > Well, I'm taking a different approach too. One thing people > > keep forgetting is that Dumbledore is well over 100 years old, > > I think he is past the raging hormones and compelling sexual > > urges stage of life. > > In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/34190 > Mike wrote: > Dumbledore wasn't written as gay, he wasn't written as straight, as > Tonks_Op has said many times DD was written as asexual - he had no > sexual orientation in canon. > > colebiancardi: well, then, Snape was also written as asexual - he also had no sexual orientation in canon until DH. Yet, due to his Love Of Lily, he turned out to be straight!! OMG. I do wish JKR would have prepared me better for that bombshell. I don't know why she didn't write Snape's straightness prior to DH. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 15:25:38 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:25:38 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > colebiancardi: > > well, then, Snape was also written as asexual - he also had no sexual > orientation in canon until DH. Yet, due to his Love Of Lily, he > turned out to be straight!! > > OMG. I do wish JKR would have prepared me better for that bombshell. > I don't know why she didn't write Snape's straightness prior to DH. > Alla: I know, I know, I cannot happily imagine Snape hopping to bed with Sirius anymore ;) or with Harry. Forever ruined in my imagination. And it was not a bombshell for me at all, but ruined, oh dear, ruined. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 17:41:55 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:41:55 -0000 Subject: Gay Sex Scene Removed From Harry Potter Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- "Steve" wrote: > > > > I have no idea whether this guy is serious or if he is just > > being sarcastic. But it still made me laugh. > > > > This is supposedly a minister from the Landover Baptist > > Church > > > > > Whether serious or a parody, it still illustrates it's > > point very nicely, and that point is, some people are just > > crazy. > > > > Steve/bboyminn > > > > Geoff: > It's a send up. As a UK Baptist, I was so taken aback and > thought 'this guy is round the twist!'. > > However, all is revealed if you go to Google and search > for Landover Baptist Church, the Wikipedia link will answer > your questions... > bboyminn: Well, I eventually went to the Landover Baptist website and concluded it was parody. But you have to admit, what you see in these videos is scary-close to the truth of a lot of fanato-Baptists (fanatic Baptists). Like I said, some people are just crazy, and when those people have power it is very scary. PS: I know you are a Baptist, but you are certainly NOT a fanatic Baptist; so, please, no offense intended. I'll check out the Landover Wikipedia entry. Despite all the claims of inaccuracies at Wikipedia, you have to admit that there is probably not a large volume of information anywhere else in the world. I suspect a printed versions of Wikipedia would make Encyclopedia Britannica look like a paperback. Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Nov 12 17:49:37 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:49:37 -0000 Subject: Sex! Love! Writing! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Pippin: > > If JKR had answered the question by saying that Dumbledore had > > outlived two wives, would people be saying he hadn't been written > > as a double widower? > > Mike: > Yes, they would, but what's the point? Pippin: The point is the one you touched on later in your reply: Mike: Nor do I think that finding out that Dumbledore outlived two wives would be considered controversial. Pippin: The controversy, then, does not concern the revelation that a seemingly asexual character had a tragic love life in the past. And why take a snappish reply to a rudely persistent reporter as a smack at the fandom in general? It's not like JKR is running for office and needs to impress us with her diplomatic skills. Pippin From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 17:55:50 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:55:50 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Mike wrote: > > Dumbledore wasn't written as gay, he wasn't written as straight, > > DD was written as asexual - he had no sexual orientation in > > canon. > > > colebiancardi: > > well, then, Snape was also written as asexual - he also had no > sexual orientation in canon until DH. Mike: Yep! > colebiancardi: > Yet, due to his Love Of Lily, he turned out to be straight!! Mike: Yeah, that sucked all the way around, didn't it? I mean, how could we have possibly known Snape was straight, unless you count the clues that leaked out between the lines that got the LOLLIPOPS and other like theories started. But,... but wasn't the Snape/Sirius slash just as likely as Snape and any icky girl? Just look at how easily he resisted any temptation from the Black sisters at Spinner's End. Could any straight guy have not proposed a threesome when those two beautiful women showed up at his door? > colebiancardi: > OMG. I do wish JKR would have prepared me better for that > bombshell. I don't know why she didn't write Snape's straightness > prior to DH. Mike: Alas yes, I too wish Snape wasn't written as the soppy, straight syncophant that he was. Wait, wait, he never consumated his love for Lily with sex, did he? Maybe he thought of Lily as just a real good friend that he loved for her mind. Maybe the idea of having sex with her was as TEWW EWW for him as it was for us. Yeah, that's the ticket, Snape couldn't hold onto Lily because he really was gay and Lily needed more in their relationship. That Mudblood crack was a red herring. He knew she was straight and couldn't bear the thought of her with a man, so he lashes out in mis- directed fury to give himself an excuse for not getting intimate with her. Oh yay! another reason to dislike Snape, he's also a cowardly straight-impersonater. Mike, thankful for colebiancardi putting him on the right track ;) From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Nov 12 17:55:48 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:55:48 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake, JKR as evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: big snip > Mike now: > Personally, I think there are a lot of things to discuss about > Dumbledore specifically and the HP series in general after the last > canon, besides some non-essential piece of backstory trivia that > sheds little to no light on the story. > > I think the antagonistic feelings towards DH that were expressed on > Main, after the release, drove its share of people off the list. I > also wonder how many people left the list because of the vitriolic > debate spawned by JKR's gay!DD comment. Short term volume, long term > decimation of readership and posting. I think JKR"S utterence has > done irreparable harm to the franchise, all aspects of it. > > JMO, > Mike > Well, imho, I don't think it was JKR's UTTERANCE, I think it was fan REACTION - the vitriolic debate -- that might have driven people off the list. And I think there was far more "vitriolic reaction" here in the U.S. than in Europe.... But I'm one of the ones who: does think JKR's utterances are canon (after all, to make them canon, all she'd have to do was publish a short story, how is that difference than writing it on her website?) again, a difference of opinion.. and who loved DH.... I was totally turned off by the list, not just by the constant denunciations of DH (and I don't mind criticisms, but had a hard time with denunciations) and THEN even BEFORE JKR revealed that DD was in love with GG, the vitriolic comments about her. I complained to the list elves...to be clear, have no problem with saying she's a poor writer, inconsistent, uses too many adverbs, etc. etc... but I was totally turned off by constant, frequent, off the cuff denunciations of her as publicity hungry (the woman who is guarding her children's privacy zealously), money hungry (the philanthropist), cravenly, cowardly, viciously destroying the story for fans, callously and deliberately letting her fans down.....etc. etc. I actually CAN understand how some people see being lesbian and gay as an issue of morality (although I don't agree), but I CANNOT understand how (to use an easy example) people seeing Harry getting involved with Ginny rather than Hermione as SUCH an issue that it destroys the series. I had a very hard time with people demonizing and denouncing JKR...after all, she is the person who created the universe in which *I* delight in, read, look at movies about, talk to my children and peers about, etc. If you're one of the 27,000 people on HP for Grownups, I assume you're there because there was something you liked about the series -- something magickal, wonderful, something that hooked you...so now the creator is the Devil? Don't get it at all... Again, I don't mean people who "didn't like" or were "disappointed" by DH, or didn't like the endless camping scene, or found the epilogue saccharine (I loved it, but I'm a mushy sentimentalist, and would have loved one 60 pages)...I mean the people who condemned all the books as total trash.... And to go back to the person who asked what it was that hooked us, I think it's a combination of the magick, fantasy, creating a new world, and the mystery elements, as well as the character development and growth... Well, back to work, anyone got any good crock pot recipes? (which is why I like OT) Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Nov 12 18:00:03 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:00:03 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > colebiancardi: > > > > well, then, Snape was also written as asexual - he also had no sexual > > orientation in canon until DH. Yet, due to his Love Of Lily, he > > turned out to be straight!! > > > > OMG. I do wish JKR would have prepared me better for that bombshell. > > I don't know why she didn't write Snape's straightness prior to DH. > > > > > Alla: > > I know, I know, I cannot happily imagine Snape hopping to bed with > Sirius anymore ;) or with Harry. Forever ruined in my imagination. > > And it was not a bombshell for me at all, but ruined, oh dear, ruined. > But I disagree...just because someone's sexual activity or relationships are not mentioned that doesn't mean that they are asexual, and bboymin...sorry, but being old or being celibate doesn't mean you stop being straight or gay....(is that what you meant?) And I would argue and have argued that DD being in love with GG (and since I do accept JKR as canon, I do think he's gay), that has a lot to do with the story and the plot, and his reaction to the one he loved being part of his sister's demise, and being evil, and abandoning him to face the consequences of their actions alone....goodness! it says a lot about DD that instead of becoming nasty and hateful and unhappy (like SS)he becomes an advocate of love and the oppressed. Susan From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Nov 12 18:04:42 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:04:42 -0000 Subject: Crackpot! (wasRe: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake, JKR as evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Susan wrote: > Well, back to work, anyone got any good crock pot recipes? (which is > why I like OT) Potioncat: Oh, me too! (we can do those here, can't we?) I can use all the crockpot meals I can get. Work late, busy family...you know the drill. McCormicks makes some spice packets specifically for the crockpot. I'm not too sure about the sodium content (I'm afraid to look.)There's an Italian Chicken that's very good. You mix the packet with chicken and tomatoes. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 18:17:13 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:17:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Crackpot! (wasRe: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake, JKR as evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <979082.36134.qm@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com> potioncat wrote: > Susan wrote: > Well, back to work, anyone got any good crock pot recipes? (which is > why I like OT) Potioncat: Oh, me too! (we can do those here, can't we?) I can use all the crockpot meals I can get. Work late, busy family...you know the drill. McCormicks makes some spice packets specifically for the crockpot. I'm not too sure about the sodium content (I'm afraid to look.)There's an Italian Chicken that's very good. You mix the packet with chicken and tomatoes. ***Katie: My hubby and I love to make chili in our crockpot. We put in about 1 pound of ground beef, 3 cans of kidney beans (drained), 1 can of pinto beans (drained), 1 16 oz can of stewed tomatoes, and about a cup of salsa. Then add a little water, maybe a 1/4 to a 1/2 cup, and season to taste with chili powder, peppers, and salt and pepper. Put it on low for 6 - 8 hours and it is sooooo yum. We also do a good pot roast, where you sear the meat quickly to lock in the juice, and then basically cover it in the crockpot with red wine, beef stock, and veggies of your choice and let it go on low for 6 hours. The beef will literally melt in your mouth. Enjoy!! Katie . __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From muellem at bc.edu Mon Nov 12 18:23:11 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:23:11 -0000 Subject: Crackpot! (wasRe: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake, JKR as evil In-Reply-To: <979082.36134.qm@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: simple ones: big beef ribs - dump in crockpot with some sliced onions and your favorite BBQ sauce. Simmer all day long. The meat just falls off the bone chicken - cut up some potatoes, carrots, onions, garlic - throw into pot. Add a big can of italian plum tomatoes. A whole chicken - rubbed with salt & pepper - add a can of chicken broth. Add any other spices you may like. Again, simmer all day long. Serve over large, flat noodles and have a nice tossed salad on the side. --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Lambert wrote: > > potioncat wrote: > > Susan wrote: > > Well, back to work, anyone got any good crock pot recipes? (which is > > why I like OT) > > Potioncat: > Oh, me too! (we can do those here, can't we?) > > I can use all the crockpot meals I can get. Work late, busy > family...you know the drill. > > McCormicks makes some spice packets specifically for the crockpot. I'm > not too sure about the sodium content (I'm afraid to look.)There's an > Italian Chicken that's very good. You mix the packet with chicken and > tomatoes. > > ***Katie: My hubby and I love to make chili in our crockpot. We put in about 1 pound of ground beef, 3 cans of kidney beans (drained), 1 can of pinto beans (drained), 1 16 oz can of stewed tomatoes, and about a cup of salsa. Then add a little water, maybe a 1/4 to a 1/2 cup, and season to taste with chili powder, peppers, and salt and pepper. Put it on low for 6 - 8 hours and it is sooooo yum. > > We also do a good pot roast, where you sear the meat quickly to lock in the juice, and then basically cover it in the crockpot with red wine, beef stock, and veggies of your choice and let it go on low for 6 hours. The beef will literally melt in your mouth. > > Enjoy!! Katie > > > . > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 18:25:01 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:25:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter]Oops, P.S. was: Crackpot! (wasRe: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake, JKR as evil In-Reply-To: <979082.36134.qm@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <469168.79810.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Kathryn Lambert wrote: potioncat wrote: > Susan wrote: > Well, back to work, anyone got any good crock pot recipes? (which is > why I like OT) Potioncat: Oh, me too! (we can do those here, can't we?) I can use all the crockpot meals I can get. Work late, busy family...you know the drill. McCormicks makes some spice packets specifically for the crockpot. I'm not too sure about the sodium content (I'm afraid to look.)There's an Italian Chicken that's very good. You mix the packet with chicken and tomatoes. ***Katie: My hubby and I love to make chili in our crockpot. We put in about 1 pound of ground beef (***forgot to mention in my first post that the ground beef has to be fully cooked before putting in the crockpot! Oops!***), 3 cans of kidney beans (drained), 1 can of pinto beans (drained), 1 16 oz can of stewed tomatoes, and about a cup of salsa. Then add a little water, maybe a 1/4 to a 1/2 cup, and season to taste with chili powder, peppers, and salt and pepper. Put it on low for 6 - 8 hours and it is sooooo yum. We also do a good pot roast, where you sear the meat quickly to lock in the juice, and then basically cover it in the crockpot with red wine, beef stock, and veggies of your choice and let it go on low for 6 hours. The beef will literally melt in your mouth. Enjoy!! Katie . __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 12 20:17:14 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:17:14 -0000 Subject: Gay Sex Scene Removed From Harry Potter Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > > > --- "Steve" wrote: > > > > > > I have no idea whether this guy is serious or if he is just > > > being sarcastic. But it still made me laugh. > > > > > > This is supposedly a minister from the Landover Baptist > > > Church > > > > > > > > > Whether serious or a parody, it still illustrates it's > > > point very nicely, and that point is, some people are just > > > crazy. > > > > > > Steve/bboyminn > > > > > > > Geoff: > > It's a send up. As a UK Baptist, I was so taken aback and > > thought 'this guy is round the twist!'. > > > > However, all is revealed if you go to Google and search > > for Landover Baptist Church, the Wikipedia link will answer > > your questions... > > > > bboyminn: > > Well, I eventually went to the Landover Baptist website and > concluded it was parody. But you have to admit, what you > see in these videos is scary-close to the truth of a lot of > fanato-Baptists (fanatic Baptists). Like I said, some people > are just crazy, and when those people have power it is > very scary. > > PS: I know you are a Baptist, but you are certainly NOT a > fanatic Baptist; so, please, no offense intended. Geoff: No offence taken. I said UK Baptist to distinguish us from the US Baptists who do operate in a different way sometimes. The video clip reminds me of what we call the extreme Christian right over here. From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Mon Nov 12 20:35:19 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:35:19 -0000 Subject: Out-Posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Caius Marcius wrote: > > Has anyone else noticed at HP4GU-OT is now getting more posts than the > main group? (as of this point, 205 vs. 176 over the last week). > > I suppose that's inevitable as the speculative posts that took up so > much of HP4GU no longer need to be written. Ann: Notice it? I *predicted* it! From Feedback message 930: > something that's been exercising me pretty much since I joined the > list (in the runup to DH, remember) is what would happen when DH > came out. The list does seem to be dwindling in volume fairly > quickly: there were 3,000 posts in July, 2,445 in August, 1,083 in > September, and 644 so far this month, bidding fair for just under a > thousand at the end of the month. This has been somewhat inflated > because of the gay!Dumbledore reveal, and even so it looks like > we're in the quietest month since May 2002 (909 messages.) [...] > Perhaps when main-list postings become too low they could be folded > back in? Ann From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Nov 12 20:50:37 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:50:37 -0000 Subject: Crackpot! (wasRe: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake, JKR as evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > > simple ones: > > big beef ribs - dump in crockpot with some sliced onions and your > favorite BBQ sauce. Simmer all day long. The meat just falls off the > bone > > chicken - cut up some potatoes, carrots, onions, garlic - throw into > pot. Add a big can of italian plum tomatoes. A whole chicken - rubbed > with salt & pepper - add a can of chicken broth. Add any other spices > you may like. Again, simmer all day long. Serve over large, flat > noodles and have a nice tossed salad on the side. Jen: Mmmm, I'm writing these down and buying a crockpot now. How could I live without one so far? One reason is our grocery store started stocking all these great pre-prepared main courses that you just pop in the oven, like pot roast or pork loin. Course they're probably full of salt, additives etc., that are horrible, but that's why I don't read the labels too closely. The crockpot must be healthier and only slightly more work it sounds like. Jen, not skilled in the domestic arts. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 12 21:22:15 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:22:15 -0000 Subject: Crackpot! - Salsa Chili In-Reply-To: <979082.36134.qm@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- Kathryn Lambert wrote: > > potioncat wrote: > > Susan wrote: > > Well, back to work, anyone got any good crock pot recipes? > > (which is why I like OT) > > Potioncat: > Oh, me too! (we can do those here, can't we?) > > I can use all the crockpot meals I can get. Work late, busy > family...you know the drill. > > ... > > ***Katie: > My hubby and I love to make chili in our crockpot. We put > in about 1 pound of ground beef, 3 cans of ... and about a > cup of salsa. ... > bboyminn: CrAckpot, I'm sure that was a typo, but you have to admit it's funny...crackpot chili recipes. ;) I was making regular cooking pot chili one time and I tend to improvise a bit around a basic recipe. I looked in the refrigerator to see what I had, and saw Salsa. That seemed like the perfect thing to put in chili. But the resulting chili had a terribly overpowering vinegar taste to it that resulted in my throwing away a whole pot of chili. So, do you use special Salsa, does the long cooking reduce the vinegar taste, or do you just not mind the taste of vinegar in this context? Just curious. > We also do a good pot roast, where you sear the meat > quickly to lock in the juice, and then basically cover it > in the crockpot with red wine, beef stock, and veggies of > your choice and let it go on low for 6 hours. The beef will > literally melt in your mouth. > > Enjoy!! Katie bboyminn: Both my mother and my brother use various McCormick Crockpot Spice packs for roast (pork and beef), and the result is fantastic; tasty, moist, and tender as can be. Heaven on the end of a fork. Steve/bboyminn From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Nov 12 21:39:47 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:39:47 -0000 Subject: Crackpot! - Salsa Chili In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > bboyminn: > > CrAckpot, I'm sure that was a typo, but you have to admit > it's funny...crackpot chili recipes. ;) Potioncat: Well, it started out as one, but I thought it sort of went with the previous subject title, so I left it. But after I posted I thought "either no will notice, or those who do will think it's just Potioncat not proofing well enough." So, thanks for noticing!!! ;-) By the way, do you suppose the WW would call a crackpot a leaky cauldron? You know along the line of , "Xenophilius is a bit of a leaky cauldron." bboy: > I was making regular cooking pot chili one time and I tend > to improvise a bit around a basic recipe. I looked in the > refrigerator to see what I had, and saw Salsa. That seemed > like the perfect thing to put in chili. But the resulting > chili had a terribly overpowering vinegar taste to it that > resulted in my throwing away a whole pot of chili. Potioncat: I read once that you have to uses spices differently in a crockpot than in quicker cooking. I'm not sure of the "rule" so I try to use a recipe that's for a crockpot. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 12 22:01:10 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:01:10 -0000 Subject: Out-Posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius" wrote: CMC: > Has anyone else noticed at HP4GU-OT is now getting more posts than the > main group? (as of this point, 205 vs. 176 over the last week). > > I suppose that's inevitable as the speculative posts that took up so > much of HP4GU no longer need to be written. Geoff: Well, if you take me as an example (perish the thought), I've been posting a lot more on OT because we can cover a wider field - and also lighten things up a bit. I have to admit that I have been getting increasingly fed up with Main. Some of the threads are going on interminably with two or more sides going round in circles and repeating their arguments. And everybody is getting so serious... this is fiction, chaps! We can't have members hitting each other round the head with virtual Bludgers in cyberspace; it's just not on. I wish some folk would take an 'agree to disagree' line and let go of the topic. I'm not saying that any particular view is the norm for the group but we are not going to bring people to agree with us by constant repetition. I think that, by now, we must all have decided on our attitude to DH. Views on its impact range from splendiferous to ghastly and all stations in between. And I would expect no less than that. In general terms, I like the book and the series 'warts and all'. There are some things which are missing or I would like to have happened differently. But that is so with, say, LOTR and Narnia. And with real life also... ? Right. now do I expect a shower of flak? Shall I ask Kreacher whether he 'might' bring me a sandwich or would a tin hat be a better request? Or perhaps I should log off.... hmm, that could sound rather improper in the context. With apologies to Steve, just my thoughts... From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 00:44:42 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:44:42 -0000 Subject: Reply to the Brits / Comment on Crock (Was other things) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/34233 > Ann (snipped throughout): > Well, I hadn't really been thinking of Paddy as being "recent", > she said, revealing herself to be even shallower than anyone > had hitherto guessed. Goddlefrood: Or possibly younger. Ann: > I think it was you who mentioned the last Queen's Speech Goddlefrood: It was Geoff, not I. > Ann: > As I've seen a few Crouch!posts on main in the last few days, I > think I'll say that they've been done to death not only in canon > but also onlist. Goddlefrood: Agreed, but then what hasn't? Are there any fresh perspectives out there, now that the end has come? In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/34233 > Geoff: > In general terms, I like the book and the series 'warts and all'. > There are some things which are missing or I would like to have > happened differently. But that is so with, say, LOTR and Narnia. > And with real life also... ? Goddlefrood: The expression in quotation marks has been attributed to a certain Oliver Cromwell. He never said what he is supposed to have saids, which was along the line of: "I want to be painted warts and all". The resulting picture by Lely did show a warty Cromwell, but the first use of the phrase 'warts and all' appeared over a century later. This can be further explored by anyone interested at: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/warts-and-all.html In: Diverse messages > Various posters: > Crockpot Goddlefrood: This usage would not be found in the UK, to revive a little of the US / UK language difference banter from some weeks ago. If I heard this in common speech I would, (i) know that I was in America or talking to an American, and (ii) associate it with something that is best not disclosed on a public forum. Some of the recipes given sound delicious, and I'll add one of my own, although this I would describe as a pot roast: Take a two pound piece of corned silverside and place in an appropriate sized cooking pot (a Bombay pot is what I use). Add water to about 2 inches depth, some parsley, thyme, onion and whatever other spices you have to hand depending on taste. Simmer over a low heat for 3 - 4 hours, basting the meat every hour or so. Enjoy the succulence. Goddlefrood, who has yet to try Carol's biscuit recipe due to time constraints (I will get there eventually). From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Nov 13 01:52:40 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:52:40 -0000 Subject: Out-Posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Geoff: > Well, if you take me as an example (perish the thought), I've been posting > a lot more on OT because we can cover a wider field - and also lighten > things up a bit. Potioncat: Me too. (Two in one day! Pretty soon I'll be back to my old habit of one-liners) Well, for Merlin's sake, where else could you watch a thread go from sex to slow-cooker recipes? Although, as every Suzie Homemaker witch knows, a good recipe makes a great meal which can lead to...well, you know. >Geoff: > I have to admit that I have been getting increasingly fed up with Main. > Some of the threads are going on interminably with two or more sides > going round in circles and repeating their arguments. Potioncat: Having been very active in long running, heated Snape threads in the past, I can hardly suggest any thread be broken before the combatants --erm members-- choose, but it does seem very difficult to get any new topics off the ground lately. That's what I'd to see. > Geoff: > Right. now do I expect a shower of flak? Shall I ask Kreacher whether he 'might' bring me a sandwich Potioncat: Could he perhaps, make it two? Whatever he has on hand. And some tea, please. If it isn't too much trouble. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Nov 13 01:59:29 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:59:29 -0000 Subject: Comment on Crock (Was other things) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > Crockpot > > Goddlefrood: > > This usage would not be found in the UK, to revive a little of > the US / UK language difference banter from some weeks ago. If > I heard this in common speech I would, (i) know that I was in > America or talking to an American, and (ii) associate it with > something that is best not disclosed on a public forum. Potioncat: Crockpot or crackpot? Actually, I think Crockpot is a trade name. The preferred term would be slow-cooker, I think. In the US it's an electric pot that can cook all day long while you're at work. Oh Oh! Not long ago on this list there was mention of the word crumpet for a lady...well, I guess it wouldn't be a "lady", or not said by a gentleman. But anyway, I happened to be reading a British novel this week where one of the men referred to one of the woman as a crumpet. And I knew to blush! > Goddlefrood: > Some of the recipes given sound delicious, and I'll add one of > my own, although this I would describe as a pot roast: Potioncat: Is this on the stove? It sounds great. From Schlobin at aol.com Tue Nov 13 03:18:18 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:18:18 -0000 Subject: crackpot/slow cooker principles..and sex and food In-Reply-To: Message-ID: When we would do social work inservices on issues that included ANY kind of sex, we would notice that people would immediately get hungry.. definite correlation there... Here are some slow cooker/crackpot (I loved the "typo") principles: Tips for Successful Crock Pot Cooking: Before you can adapt your recipes and substitute ingredients, you need to understand a few basic principles of success in slow cooking. 1. When using a slow cooker, the temperature rises very slowly and the food cooks over a period of 4-8 hours for most recipes. Every time you open the pot, the temperature drops and it takes a long time to get back up. Resist the urge to open the crock pot. 2. Seasonings mellow in a crock pot, so if you like to taste strong seasonings, you may need to re-season towards the end. Alternatively, use much more of your favorite spices and flavorings when you start your recipe. 3. When cooking with vegetables and meat, put the vegetables on the bottom, they will take longer to cook. 4. Increase eye appeal when you serve by using fresh herbs, raw vegetables, or fruit garnishes to dress up the plate. Another idea is to serve the entree with mixed wild rice. Any colorful addition will add eye appeal to the plate. 5. Dairy products will curdle in a crock pot all day, they are best added near the end of the cooking time, the last hour or so. 6. Rice cooked with meat usually ends up mushy. Either add rice during the second half of the cooking time, or use a second crock pot to make your rice, the cooking times are very different. unfay, esyay? (my son is just discovering pig latin) From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 03:18:37 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:18:37 -0000 Subject: Comment on Crock (Was other things) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Goddlefrood: > > Some of the recipes given sound delicious, and I'll add one of > > my own, although this I would describe as a pot roast: > > Potioncat: > Is this on the stove? It sounds great. Goddlefrood: Indeed, I do it on the stove top cooking with gas as low as the burners will go. It's my own concoction, but it turns out just fine. (Michelin will be onto me soon enough) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 03:25:13 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:25:13 -0000 Subject: Sex! Love! Writing! In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA0994A@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: Sharon: > I agree. These kinds of stereotypes are born of attitudes handed down via Judeo-Christian values in western society, which clearly disaproves of homosexuality. Howevr, apart from that tradition, homosexuality has been regarded highly throughout various eras in history, the Ancient Greeks being one that comes immediately to mind. In that era, love between men was considered the highest form of beauty, something to be cherished. men still married women and produced children but the love between men was seen as something purer, even when accompanied by sex. Plato's "Symposium" describes the different kinds of love and beauty and comes to this conclusion. The ancients greeks did not distinguish between sexual "orientations". It was all just "normal" no matter who you loved. > Carol responds: Unfortunately, the Greeks (whom do I admire for many reasons, especially therir contributions to art and philosophy), regarded love between men as superior to love between a man and a woman because women were regarded as physically and intellectually inferior to men. The attitude was not universal, forever. Plato's "Symposium" explores the views of a number of young men (who, BTW, have had quite a bit of wine--and one of them, Aristophanes, is a comic playwright whose ideas should probably be taken with a grain of salt). And, of course, we don't know to what degree Plato fictionalized the dialogue, which would have occurred many years before he crafted it as a defense of Socrates (executed for corrupting the youth of Athens). We do know that some Greeks loved their wives. Pericles, who was born nearly seventy years before Plato, loved his wife, Aspasia, an educated and beautiful woman (unfortunately, a "metic" or resident alien, so her children had no rights in Athens). Education was, of course, not the norm for Athenian women, but Aspasia wasn't Athenian. Not sure where I'm going here, except that we should not overlook the inferior status of women in ancient Greece, especially Athens, if we discuss homosexuality in ancient Greece or the frequent disparity in the ages of the homosexual pairs, some of whom were beardless boys. Carol, not sure that fourth- and fifth-century B.C. Athenian culture and values are at all comparable to late the nineteenth-century WW (or even to postmodern European and American culture) From Schlobin at aol.com Tue Nov 13 03:34:13 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:34:13 -0000 Subject: Stalinist realism/perfection/Heinlein/lesbian and gay issues Message-ID: One of the reasons that I have had a hard time with the main list recently (and really, with deep respect to those who disagree) is that everyone has to be perfect. Harry is now damned because he yearned for Kreacher to bring him a sandwich (buying into the institution of slavery). Dumbledore is suspect because he has the glasses of oak-matured mead bouncing on the Dursleys' head...Moody should NOT have turned Draco Malfoy into a ferret.... [the last two were scenes I found hilarious..including Dumbledore saying "But alas, rudeness too often occurs accidentally" (not exact quote from the HBP)]. I'm surprised as to how many people expect the good guys to be perfect! Great heroic leaders are very imperfect; all humans are imperfect. I especially have a hard time with people expecting fiction to incorporate ALL truth..that's kind of like Stalinist/Soviet Realism (they rejected modern styles such as impressionism and cubism, since these movements existed before the revolution and hence were associated with "decadent bourgeois art." Socialist realism was thus to some extent a reaction against the adoption of these "decadent" styles. Also, the non-representative forms of art were not understood by the proletariat and thus could not be used for the state propaganda.)...So only art and literature that included all elements of the national ideology were permitted....YRGHHHH.... Anyone else a Heinlein fan? (someone who certainly does not reflect perfect morality)...when he talks about Captain John Sterling (in the Cat Who Walks Through Walls)...Sterling "had a two-dimensional quality. He neither smiled nor laughed. He was unfailingly polite but always dead serious...." He could not take long lunch hours, as his opponent the Galactic Overlord did not either. Heaven deliver us from one-dimensional characters..it's one of the reasons I like the HP universe. Characters are complex..some are not really great, but not really evil (Snape, Slughorn). People change (RAB). Kids mature. Basically good guys (like Xenophilius Lovegood) do the wrong thing because their kids are threatened.... It's kind of like leaders in the lesbian and gay community not being thrilled with JKR because she didn't include lesbian/gay characters in the book and only outed DD after the fact. I don't look for perfection..yes, (in response to someone), I did think naming DD as gay was a step in the right direction. (that homosexual agenda crops up again)...I DO want lesbian and gay youth, in particular, to not feel invisible, and to see fictional and real lesbian and gay men (both great, mediocre and evil) depicted....so that they know that lesbians and gay men have choices like everyone else, and can strive to keep doing the right thing, or not... Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Tue Nov 13 03:44:20 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:44:20 -0000 Subject: Sex! Love! Writing! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > Unfortunately, the Greeks (whom do I admire for many reasons, > especially therir contributions to art and philosophy), regarded love > between men as superior to love between a man and a woman because > women were regarded as physically and intellectually inferior to men. > The attitude was not universal, forever. Plato's "Symposium" explores > the views of a number of young men (who, BTW, have had quite a bit of > wine--and one of them, Aristophanes, is a comic playwright whose ideas > should probably be taken with a grain of salt). And, of course, we > don't know to what degree Plato fictionalized the dialogue, which > would have occurred many years before he crafted it as a defense of > Socrates (executed for corrupting the youth of Athens). We do know > that some Greeks loved their wives. Pericles, who was born nearly > seventy years before Plato, loved his wife, Aspasia, an educated and > beautiful woman (unfortunately, a "metic" or resident alien, so her > children had no rights in Athens). Education was, of course, not the > norm for Athenian women, but Aspasia wasn't Athenian. > > Not sure where I'm going here, except that we should not overlook the > inferior status of women in ancient Greece, especially Athens, if we > discuss homosexuality in ancient Greece or the frequent disparity in > the ages of the homosexual pairs, some of whom were beardless boys. > > Carol, not sure that fourth- and fifth-century B.C. Athenian culture > and values are at all comparable to late the nineteenth-century WW (or > even to postmodern European and American culture) > yes, Carol, I agree... I have a master's in ancient history, with a specialization in Greek history.. I think that for many years gay men (and lesbians) had so very few positive depictions of same-gender love and attraction, so they fastened on the Greek model as depicted in Plato. The problems with it, of course, is that it portrayed the ideal love as between a man (although probably a man of 25) and a boy of 16 to 18...and I would have real trouble with that, as I think many would today....) The other problem was that love between men was considered superior by Plato and some others to love between men and women who were considered inferior (in Athens, anyway...) In Sparta, there was much more equality among men and women, and in the islands, (Melos, Lesbos..now part of Turkey) women were MUCH freeer and enjoyed greater status.. Aspasia was a courtesan (woman hired for sex)..hetaira. There is no English word to accurately translate hetairai, but they were more than courtesans. They were indeed sexual partners, but they were also companions, better educated than other Greek women. They were educated in philosophy, history, politics, science, art and literature, so that they could converse intelligently with sophisticated men. Aspasia was considered by many to be the most beautiful and intelligent of the city's hetairai. AND she became Pericles' (the most famous and tremendously successful leaders of Greece during their golden age in the 5th century)PARTNER (although they could not marry) and wielded immense political power as such. Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 03:50:01 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:50:01 -0000 Subject: Changing canon in the 7th book/Christian elements/LOL/Umbridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > << (There's an apparent connection to the Spanish Inquisition--which I > realize was not the only inquisition) in her title and tactics, IMO, > but no one ever responds when I raise that point.) >> Catlady: > Of course her title is a reminder of the Spanish Inquisition. I don't recall having ever noticed you raising that point, but if I had noticed it, what would I say to respond? Argue that 'Spanish Inquisition' is so much all one word in most people's mind that it never occurs to them that it had something to do with Spain? > Carol responds: Actually my posts (I think there were two of them) postulated a connection between Dostoevky's doubly fiction Grand Inquisitor and Umbridge as High Inquisitor. No one responded. No doubt they thought I was insane for suggesting it--or, alternatively, had not read "The Brothers Karamzzov." the idea, briefly, is that both considered their tyranny to be for the good of those they ruled (Umbridge's view of the students as helpless children who need her friendship and guidance to see what she postulates as truth). When sweetness and feigned concern fail, apply the blood-letting quill--for the students's own good. (Or authorize whips and chains.) After DH, I wonder if there's a bit of the Grand Inquisitor in the young Albus Dumbledore--though he, of course, would only use force if absolutely necessary for the greater good. Carol, who thinks that "Spanish" is immaterial here and that it's the goals and methosds of the inquisitors that may (or may not) be relevant From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 04:03:28 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:03:28 -0000 Subject: Sex! Love! Writing! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan: > yes, Carol, I agree... > > I have a master's in ancient history, with a specialization in Greek > history.. > > I think that for many years gay men (and lesbians) had so very few > positive depictions of same-gender love and attraction, so they > fastened on the Greek model as depicted in Plato. The problems with > it, of course, is that it portrayed the ideal love as between a man > (although probably a man of 25) and a boy of 16 to 18...and I would > have real trouble with that, as I think many would today....) > > The other problem was that love between men was considered superior > by Plato and some others to love between men and women who were > considered inferior (in Athens, anyway...) > > In Sparta, there was much more equality among men and women, and in > the islands, (Melos, Lesbos..now part of Turkey) women were MUCH > freeer and enjoyed greater status.. > > Aspasia was a courtesan (woman hired for sex)..hetaira. There is no > English word to accurately translate hetairai, but they were more > than courtesans. They were indeed sexual partners, but they were also > companions, better educated than other Greek women. They were > educated in philosophy, history, politics, science, art and > literature, so that they could converse intelligently with > sophisticated men. Aspasia was considered by many to be the most > beautiful and intelligent of the city's hetairai. > > AND she became Pericles' (the most famous and tremendously successful > leaders of Greece during their golden age in the 5th century) PARTNER > (although they could not marry) and wielded immense political power > as such. Alla: Yes Greek history was my love in university as well. Still love, love, love. I first read about hetairas though in the novel by russian writer Ivan Efremov called "Tais Afinskaya" - have no clue if it is even translated, but if it is _ I highly recommend it to any lover of greek history. Susan, have you read Mary Renault's novels? I wonder what you make of them? I found the depiction of the love between two men in them to be very touching, be it trilogy about Alexander or some other stories about Greece, but I wonder what you make of it from the position of the historical accuracy? As I said, I studied Greek history for almost two years, but it was all an undegraduate course and I would imagine your expertise is more in depth. Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 04:09:44 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:09:44 -0000 Subject: Sex! Love! Writing! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Mike: > LOL! I should have caveated the slash writers since it seems there are enough of them to Ship anyone or anything. Carol responds: "Caveat" is a verb now? How about "slash" (in the sense you're using it) and "fic." Are people who write these stories slashing, ficcing, or slash-ficcing? Carol, caveating that she's just joking here From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Nov 13 04:20:41 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:20:41 -0000 Subject: Out-Posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Geoff: > Well, if you take me as an example (perish the thought), I've been posting > a lot more on OT because we can cover a wider field - and also lighten > things up a bit. > > I have to admit that I have been getting increasingly fed up with Main. > Some of the threads are going on interminably with two or more sides > going round in circles and repeating their arguments. And everybody is > getting so serious... this is fiction, chaps! We can't have members hitting > each other round the head with virtual Bludgers in cyberspace; it's just not on. > > I wish some folk would take an 'agree to disagree' line and let go of the > topic. I'm not saying that any particular view is the norm for the group > but we are not going to bring people to agree with us by constant > repetition. Geoff: Well, if you take me as an example (perish the thought), I've been posting a lot more on OT because we can cover a wider field - and also lighten things up a bit. Susan: One of the reasons that I have had a hard time with the main list recently (and really, with deep respect to those who disagree) is that everyone has to be perfect. Harry is now damned because he yearned for Kreacher to bring him a sandwich (buying into the institution of slavery). Dumbledore is suspect because he has the glasses of oak-matured mead bouncing on the Dursleys' head...Moody should NOT have turned Draco Malfoy into a ferret.... [the last two were scenes I found hilarious..including Dumbledore saying "But alas, rudeness too often occurs accidentally" (not exact quote from the HBP)]. Magpie: Just thought I should give a heads up that pretty much my only interest in HP at this point lies in areas like Harry taking his place in the slave owner elite, the Gryffindors considering Barty the DE a hero and Dumbledore and every other Wizard's weird attitude about Muggles--none of which translates into wanting any of them to be perfect. Just a warning to some to skip my posts because these threads that are allegedly bringing down the list are the only ones I find interesting at all. Carol: Carol responds: "Caveat" is a verb now? How about "slash" (in the sense you're using it) and "fic." Are people who write these stories slashing, ficcing, or slash-ficcing? Magpie: Slashing is definitely a verb, and ficcing can be. As can slash- ficcing. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 04:32:59 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:32:59 -0000 Subject: Sex! Love! Writing! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Julie: > This would be very suspicious, very suspicious indeed! Men do not usually outlive women, and for a man to outlive *two* wives...this would seem to imply that Dumbledore might well be a wife-killer! > Carol responds: FWIW, we have a seven-time *widow* in Blaise Zabini's mother (don't know whether they share a last name) and that's exactly what I thought--very suspicious indeed! I immeidiately thought of a black widow spider (no racial allusion intended) murdering her mates, erm, husbands, for their money. She's a Slytherin (I assume) and a pureblood and beautiful and she's had seven husbands, all of whom died mysteriously and left her mounds of gold. Maybe she used one of those undetectable poisons that Snape mentioned on all seven husbands. (No eight. Is that because she shares Voldemort's view of the magical properties of the number seven?) Prejudice against Slytherins on my part? I don't think so. I'm a Snape fan after all. But Slytherins are cunning, and seven husbands who died mysteriously just seems, well, unnatural and sinister. (Innocent until proven guilty, I realize. Appearances are deceiving, especially in the WW. But I'll bet she's guilty, nonetheless.) Carol, wondering why Blaise's mother's reputation would cause Slughorn to want to "collect" her son From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 04:46:13 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:46:13 -0000 Subject: Russian translation again Message-ID: So, and here I thought that the quality of russian translation imporved since OOP. Afraid I am not buying DH one, it is already hit NY stores. Zanooda told me that, so I went and flipped through pages. Are you sitting down folks? Guess what Neville is teaching in Russian translation? One, Two, Three. POTIONS. SHUDDERS. Alla From Schlobin at aol.com Tue Nov 13 05:05:59 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 05:05:59 -0000 Subject: Sex! Love! Writing! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Susan, have you read Mary Renault's novels? I wonder what you make > of them? I found the depiction of the love between two men in them > to be very touching, be it trilogy about Alexander or some other > stories about Greece, but I wonder what you make of it from the > position of the historical accuracy? > > As I said, I studied Greek history for almost two years, but it was > all an undegraduate course and I would imagine your expertise is > more in depth. > > Alla > Hey, Alla.... I have read ALL of Mary Renault's novels (anyone else?) and loved them all.... She took some liberties with history..but a lot of her coverage of Alexander was close to the mark...Although he did take two wives, there is a lot of evidence that he loved men...... Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 05:16:02 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 05:16:02 -0000 Subject: Sex! Love! Writing! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Hey, Alla.... > > I have read ALL of Mary Renault's novels (anyone else?) and loved > them all.... > > She took some liberties with history..but a lot of her coverage of > Alexander was close to the mark...Although he did take two wives, > there is a lot of evidence that he loved men...... > > Susan > Alla: I read six or seven and besides Greek ones, LOVED Charioteer - such a beatiful, beatiful love story and NO SEX at all, which as somebody told me she refused to write in any of her works, sex I mean, LOL. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 05:18:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 05:18:09 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Mike wrote: I can understand some people's desire for JKR to include a gay character to make a statement. But I never read these books to get a morality message from JKR, I feel I've got a handle on that all by myself, thank you very much. Carol responds: That raises an interesting point. It seems to me that many readers these days, not just those on this list, judge a book by the political statements that it makes. If it includes a gay character, for example, or disapproves of racial prejudice or pollution or global warming or abuse of animals or shows women as equal to men or whatever cause you choose (to name only liberal causes--I'm sure conservative readers have their own list but their not as vocal) it's a good book. If it doesn't advocate those values or seems to advocate the "wrong" values, it's a bad book. I don't know about most members of this list, but I don't read fiction to see whether the author shares my values. Very often he or she doesn't. ("Moby Dick" is about killing whales and Starbuck, who kills whales for his living, is a good guy. Does that make me want to stop rereading "Moby Dick"? Of course not. Of course, Melville was sending a few messages with, among other things, his humanitarian cannibal, but I don't reread the book for its moral messages. I read it for its beauty and its many layers of meaning and because I find the characters and their dilemma fascinating. Tolkien was a Catholic and a nature lover, opposed to the industrialization of England, and traces of those views come through in his writing, but the books are not *about* his beliefs. They are not moral or religious or political statements. And I doubt that I would read them if they were. I can't stand "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" and never bothered to read the other Narnia books because I didn't want to be hit over the head with a message.) Anyway, I simply do not understand this idea of passing judgment on a book based on its content, and particularly passing moral judgment based on political content. (It's politically correct; therefore, it's a good book.) I, OTOH, judge a book by its entertainment value (its re-readability, if that's a word), its style, its ability to move me to laughter or tears, its characters (are they memorable? Do they have individual voices and distinctive personalities? Do I care about them?), its appeal to universal concerns (love, death, growing up, growing old, joy, suffering, courage, hope, despair ad infinitum). I absolutely do not want to be preached at (which is one reason that I hated SPEW) even if it's an imaginary cause. Thank goodness, I have no idea how JKR feels about, say, global warming. I get the idea that she disapproves of child abuse, but so does virtually every intelligent reader, and we can see the Dursleys' treatment of Harry as a plot device, not a reason for getting upset. (Someone call child Protective Services!) Obviously, she approves of interracial dating, but thank goodness, it's just quietly there in the books, not leaping off the page as a *noble cause*. I can't say that I don't sometimes find an author's views congenial, but I'd rather not know those views at all. I'd rather read "Gone with the Wind" than "Uncle Tom's Cabin" regardless of its romanticized depiction of the antebellum South. Why? Because it's better written and more entertaining. And, as I said, I don't want to be preached at no matter how good the cause. Does JKR's announcement that she has always imagined Dumbledore as gay somehow make the books better (or worse) than they were? How so? It's not in the books at all. It just makes the author's political views a little more visible--as if her membership in Amnesty International didn't already do that. I guess that's why some readers are upset that she didn't free the House-Elves. Me? I wish she'd just leave politics out of both the books and the discussions. That's not how *I* judge a good book. Carol, who would (almost) rather eat mud than listen to a political debate From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 05:23:13 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 05:23:13 -0000 Subject: UK Politics / Reply to Ann (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Goddlefrood wrote: Any > party with more than ten percent of seats in the Parliament > (it's a preferential voting system that's used, although > basically first past the post) has to have a proportionate > number of seats in Government. Carol responds: Forgive me for snipping essentially your whole post. (Anyone interested in the topic, please go upthread.) I can't speak intelligently on the topic and just want to ask what "first past the post" means. I'm unfamiliar with the term. Carol, hopelessly apolitical and American to boot From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 05:28:14 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 05:28:14 -0000 Subject: Stalinist realism/perfection/Heinlein/lesbian and gay issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Susan wrote: > > One of the reasons that I have had a hard time with the main list > recently (and really, with deep respect to those who disagree) is > that everyone has to be perfect. > > Harry is now damned because he yearned for Kreacher to bring him a > sandwich (buying into the institution of slavery). Dumbledore is > suspect because he has the glasses of oak-matured mead bouncing on > the Dursleys' head...Moody should NOT have turned Draco Malfoy into > a ferret.... [the last two were scenes I found hilarious..including > Dumbledore saying "But alas, rudeness too often occurs > accidentally" (not exact quote from the HBP)]. Mike: Those and a few other non-PC moments provided by the twins all had me in stitches. I really don't care if I'm not *supposed* to think they're funny, and I don't buy that 'this signifies that it's OK to torture the "other" or the Slytherins'. To me, this signifies that JKR has a sense of humor and knows how to write it. The Dursleys are cartoon characters for me, I laughed at their misfortunes like I laughed when Wile E. Coyote fell off the cliff and beat the boulder to the ground. And for chrissakes, it wasn't Moody that transformed Malfoy, it was Barty Jr. I agree with your attitude towards the series. It was fun for me to try to figure out what drove her plots, it still is. JKR is not Chekov, Lewis, or Tolkien. Her genius was intertwining her story lines and her character development. It wasn't in formulating a new/true morality for her plot or characters to convey. I'm no literary genius, but I saw that right off and was fine with that. That's why I didn't need Slytherin to be redeemed, I just needed Voldemort to assume room temperature. Not only did that wrap up or reluctant hero's quest, it gave me reason to believe things would improve for Slytherin with the lead cancer gone. > Susan: > It's kind of like leaders in the lesbian and gay community not > being thrilled with JKR because she didn't include lesbian/gay > characters in the book and only outed DD after the fact. I don't > look for perfection... Mike: It seems those leaders suffer under the same delusion as most politicians -- nothing is ever good enough and everything the other side says is wrong because the other side said it. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 13 07:41:08 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:41:08 -0000 Subject: UK Politics / Reply to Ann (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Goddlefrood wrote: > Any > > party with more than ten percent of seats in the Parliament > > (it's a preferential voting system that's used, although > > basically first past the post) has to have a proportionate > > number of seats in Government. > > Carol responds: > > Forgive me for snipping essentially your whole post. (Anyone > interested in the topic, please go upthread.) I can't speak > intelligently on the topic and just want to ask what "first past the > post" means. I'm unfamiliar with the term. > > Carol, hopelessly apolitical and American to boot Geoff: Carol, it's precisely what it says. The person with the highest number of votes, regardless of the number of candidates is the winner. I dislike it because ot produces skewed results. Let's take a hypothetical example. In an election, there are 100 voters and three candidates A, B and C. In the voting, A gets 31 votes, B gets 35 and C gets 34. Under 'first past the post', B is declared elected. But he or she has only attracted 35% of the vote. In the UK system, this produced a large number of MPs who are elected with less than 50% of the vote. It's not as drastic as my example but, about three elecions ago, I spent time analysing the entire 650+ seats and found that 150 of them had MPs elected with less than 50% - the lowest was 38%. Which to me is not a representative result. Hope that makes it clearer. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 13 07:43:31 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:43:31 -0000 Subject: Reply to the Brits / Comment on Crock (Was other things) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: Geoff: > > In general terms, I like the book and the series 'warts and all'. > > There are some things which are missing or I would like to have > > happened differently. But that is so with, say, LOTR and Narnia. > > And with real life also... ? Goddlefrood: > The expression in quotation marks has been attributed to a certain > Oliver Cromwell. He never said what he is supposed to have saids, > which was along the line of: "I want to be painted warts and all". > The resulting picture by Lely did show a warty Cromwell, but the > first use of the phrase 'warts and all' appeared over a century > later. Geoff: Ah. Interesting. Puts it in the same category as "Lead on, MacDuff" then. From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Tue Nov 13 08:07:43 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:07:43 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Reply to the Brits / Comment on Crock (Was other things) In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA09953@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Geoff: > > In general terms, I like the book and the series 'warts and all'. > > There are some things which are missing or I would like to have > > happened differently. But that is so with, say, LOTR and Narnia. > > And with real life also... ? Goddlefrood: > The expression in quotation marks has been attributed to a certain > Oliver Cromwell. He never said what he is supposed to have saids, > which was along the line of: "I want to be painted warts and all". > The resulting picture by Lely did show a warty Cromwell, but the > first use of the phrase 'warts and all' appeared over a century > later. Geoff: Ah. Interesting. Puts it in the same category as "Lead on, MacDuff" then. Sharon: ...and "play it again, Sam" :-) From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Tue Nov 13 10:12:45 2007 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:12:45 -0000 Subject: Comment on Crock (Was other things) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Goddlefrood: > > Indeed, I do it on the stove top cooking with gas as low as the > burners will go. It's my own concoction, but it turns out just > fine. (Michelin will be onto me soon enough) > You did say this thread had moved on from sex, right? David From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 13 12:53:39 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:53:39 -0000 Subject: Comment on Crock (Was other things) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" wrote: > > > Goddlefrood: > > > > Indeed, I do it on the stove top cooking with gas as low as the > > burners will go. It's my own concoction, but it turns out just > > fine. (Michelin will be onto me soon enough) > > > > You did say this thread had moved on from sex, right? > > David > Geoff: When I was an experienced teacher, one thing I used to say to newcomers was "Be very careful how you use the word 'it' when speaking to a class - expecially mid-teens boys'!" :-) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Nov 13 16:03:33 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:03:33 -0000 Subject: Stalinist realism/perfection/Heinlein/lesbian and gay issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Susan: > > It's kind of like leaders in the lesbian and gay community not > > being thrilled with JKR because she didn't include lesbian/gay > > characters in the book and only outed DD after the fact. I don't > > look for perfection... > > Mike: > It seems those leaders suffer under the same delusion as most > politicians -- nothing is ever good enough and everything the other > side says is wrong because the other side said it. Magpie: I wouldn't go that far. I mean, I can't imagine why people would be thrilled about it. She had a single gay character and she left him out of the book for some reason. Why should they be praising her for that as leaders of the lesbian and gay community when this way of handling a gay character is actually a throwback? It just seems a bit much to say "nothing is ever good enough" about somebody not putting any gay characters in their series. -m From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Nov 13 16:29:41 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:29:41 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Mike wrote: > I can understand some people's desire for JKR to include a gay > character to make a statement. But I never read these books to get a > morality message from JKR, I feel I've got a handle on that all by > myself, thank you very much. > > Carol responds: > That raises an interesting point. It seems to me that many readers > these days, not just those on this list, judge a book by the political > statements that it makes. If it includes a gay character, for example, > or disapproves of racial prejudice or pollution or global warming or > abuse of animals or shows women as equal to men or whatever cause you > choose (to name only liberal causes--I'm sure conservative readers > have their own list but their not as vocal) it's a good book. If it > doesn't advocate those values or seems to advocate the "wrong" values, > it's a bad book. Magpie: I would think most people just read for pleasure and that the only people who judge books based on certain beliefs are people who are very focused on those beliefs. A person who might read HP and be annoyed at the way something is done might happily read Moby Dick and never have the same qualms. I don't buy any claim that JKR is just telling a story and not trying to impart any moral messages-- she imparts them all the time and is sometimes even more didactic in interviews. Anybody can see what values she likes reading her books, at least in the context of her story, and perhaps what values she thinks she ought to like. Many instances that others find funny, I don't--some I do. If the Dursleys had knocked Dumbledore over the head with mead I might have found it funnier than him doing it--or else I'd just find it satisfying, which seems like another draw of the scene. Everybody likes to see characters they want to see humiliated humiliated. We're just not always on the same page of who it would be satisfying to see smacked down. So basically, I don't think it's going to usually be about whether or not a reader demands everything conform to his/her political beliefs. People would rarely read anything if that was the case. People who are like that usually make that pretty well known, like someone who won't read anything unless it's about Jesus or won't read anything unless there are a certain amount of minorities shown in very specific ways. But those are extremes. I think most people just read the book for entertainment and only get annoyed by its politics or values if the story makes them feel that way. One can enjoy GWTW and still be uncomfortable or discuss the romanticized version of the antebellum South in it. Carol: > Anyway, I simply do not understand this idea of passing judgment on a > book based on its content, and particularly passing moral judgment > based on political content. (It's politically correct; therefore, it's > a good book.) I, OTOH, judge a book by its entertainment value (its > re-readability, if that's a word), its style, its ability to move me > to laughter or tears, its characters (are they memorable? Do they have > individual voices and distinctive personalities? Do I care about > them?), its appeal to universal concerns (love, death, growing up, > growing old, joy, suffering, courage, hope, despair ad infinitum). I > absolutely do not want to be preached at (which is one reason that I > hated SPEW) even if it's an imaginary cause. Magpie: Well, sure, but just because you're reading for entertainment doesn't mean you can't wind up being annoyed by something in a book. You might not like what a book has to say about love, death, growing up, growing old, joy, suffering, courage, hope or despair. You can pass judgment on a book based on just about anything. I remember reading Seventeenth Summer when I was a kid and not being able to stand it. I didn't like what it had to say or how it said it, or the characters. Was I passing judgment based on some politica agenda I shouldn't have been applying to the book when I was ten? Or was I just reading a book that annoyed me and I wanted to say why? To me this is all a normal part of reading. I've never read just to say "Well, that was vaguely amusing." It's not a videogame where I'm just finding something skillful to do for a while. Carol:> > Thank goodness, I have no idea how JKR feels about, say, global > warming. I get the idea that she disapproves of child abuse, but so > does virtually every intelligent reader, and we can see the Dursleys' > treatment of Harry as a plot device, not a reason for getting upset. > (Someone call child Protective Services!) Obviously, she approves of > interracial dating, but thank goodness, it's just quietly there in the > books, not leaping off the page as a *noble cause*. Magpie: Are there people who want her to run down a list of specific causes and giving her views on them in the books? I think she gives views on quite a lot of things in the story. I thought it was pretty clear the Dursleys treatment of Harry was supposed to be bad. And then Hagrid comes and smacks them down. It seems like this is somehow tied to the gay issue, but I'm not sure how. Pointing out that JKR did not include any gay people in the book that she showed doesn't mean one judges books only on whether they show support for gay people. Carol: I guess that's why some readers are upset that > she didn't free the House-Elves. Me? Magpie: I couldn't care less that she didn't free the House-Elves, myself, but I consider it a perfectly valid analysis to look at what she actually did do with the House-Elves and give me reaction to it. I don't know whether I'd really consider that a political discussion, since it's not part of modern day politics. If it's GWTW rather than Uncle Tom's Cabin it seems fine to just say that. -m From juli17 at aol.com Tue Nov 13 19:44:08 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:44:08 -0500 Subject: Sex! Love! Writing! In-Reply-To: <1194951013.1277.88756.m46@yahoogroups.com> References: <1194951013.1277.88756.m46@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C9F444B0ABD147-A8C-64FE@webmail-md11.sysops.aol.com> 3.6. Re: Sex! Love! Writing! Posted by: "susanmcgee48176" Schlobin at aol.com susanmcgee48176 Date: Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:06 pm ((PST)) > > Susan, have you read Mary Renault's novels? I wonder what you make > of them? I found the depiction of the love between two men in them > to be very touching, be it trilogy about Alexander or some other > stories about Greece, but I wonder what you make of it from the > position of the historical accuracy? > > As I said, I studied Greek history for almost two years, but it was > all an undegraduate course and I would imagine your expertise is > more in depth. > > Alla > Hey, Alla.... I have read ALL of Mary Renault's novels (anyone else?) and loved them all.... She took some liberties with history..but a lot of her coverage of Alexander was close to the mark...Although he did take two wives, there is a lot of evidence that he loved men...... Susan Julie: I too have read all of Mary Renault's novels set in Ancient Greece. In fact I own them, as they are among my all-time favorites. I particularly loved The Persian Boy (part of the Alexander trilogy) and The Praise Singer. She was certainly a very gifted writer. Julie ________________________________________________________________________ Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 20:28:13 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:28:13 -0000 Subject: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jen wrote: > Mmmm, I'm writing these down and buying a crockpot now. How could I live without one so far? One reason is our grocery store started stocking all these great pre-prepared main courses that you just pop in the oven, like pot roast or pork loin. Course they're probably full of salt, additives etc., that are horrible, but that's why I don't read the labels too closely. The crockpot must be healthier and only slightly more work it sounds like. > > Jen, not skilled in the domestic arts. Carol responds: Do I dare confess that I mostly live on yogurt, fishsticks, and frozen dinners? It's not that I can't cook, it's that I don't see the point of cooking a real meal when I don't have company and could be doing something else (like composing elaborate posts for HPfGu). My crackpot, erm, crockpot, is about thirty years old and the control has been dangling dangerously out of the metal part of the pot for, oh, ten or eleven years now. I think I last used the crockpot about fifteen years ago, when I moved into an apartment with virtually no counterspace (not the same one I live in now). Maybe I should drag it out again and try to fix it, or, failing that, actually buy a new one? Carol, who thinks microwaveable bacon is the best invention of the last decade From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 21:10:52 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:10:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <728941.40439.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Carol wrote: Do I dare confess that I mostly live on yogurt, fishsticks, and frozen dinners? It's not that I can't cook, it's that I don't see the point of cooking a real meal when I don't have company and could be doing something else (like composing elaborate posts for HPfGu). ***Katie: My hubby and I exist primarily on bagels, fruit, and cold cereal! About twice a week, we make beef and bean burritos and on the weekends, I like to really cook...but during the week, it's all food that can be peeled, poured, or toasted! So, fear not, you are not alone! : ) Katie . --------------------------------- Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 21:11:22 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:11:22 -0000 Subject: UK Politics / Reply to Ann (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > > > I . . . just want to ask what "first past the post" means. I'm unfamiliar with the term. > Geoff: > Carol, it's precisely what it says. The person with the highest number of votes, regardless of the number of candidates is the winner. > > I dislike it because ot produces skewed results. Let's take a > hypothetical example. > > In an election, there are 100 voters and three candidates A, B > and C. In the voting, A gets 31 votes, B gets 35 and C gets 34. > Under 'first past the post', B is declared elected. > > But he or she has only attracted 35% of the vote. > Hope that makes it clearer. > Carol: Well, yes and no. I take it that "first past the post" refers to a candidate who receives a plurality rather than a majority and that you consider such a result unrepresentative. (I agree.) However, the meaning of the term was not immediately obvious to me upon reading it since I have no idea which "post" you're talking about (I thought "post" meant "mail") or in what sense the candidate is going "past" the post (whatever the post may be). I'm imagining a horse race in which the first horse to pass the post that marks the finish line is the winner. IOW, what is the etymology of the phrase? I've never heard it used in the U.S. even though Congressional candidates and others can be elected without earning a majority of the votes. (I won't even get into Presidential elections, which are a political nightmare.) Carol, still not understanding the literal meaning of the phrase though I do understand the concept you've presented and why you object to it From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 22:03:02 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:03:02 -0000 Subject: James Potter and the Hall of Elders Crossing! (Moved from Main) Message-ID: From: winnston_1985 at yahoo.com Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 2:06 am (PST) I've seen this on some other sites, but nobody seems to KNOW anything. All I know is this trailer is way too professional to be done as fanart, and the site-- well, if you've seen it already, you know what I mean. Is this a tes teaser for a new series written by someone else??? Or a new movie??? If you haven't seen the trailer or the site, you can check them both out: www.elderscrossing.com Here's a screengrab I found of the website: http://www.geocities.com/winnston_1985/grab1.jpg winnston_1985 **************************************************** Was HPforGrownups/message/179044 From: potterheads at aol.com Date: Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:17 am (EST) http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22729949-1702,00.html potterheads From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 22:22:49 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:22:49 -0000 Subject: Comment on Crock (Was other things) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Goddlefrood: > > Indeed, I do it on the stove top cooking with gas as low as the > > burners will go. > David: > You did say this thread had moved on from sex, right? Goddlefrood: Just ensure you have flame retardant trousers on at the time. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 22:37:28 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:37:28 -0000 Subject: UK Politics / Reply to Ann (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol earlier: > > > I . . . just want to ask what "first past the post" > > > means. > Carol later: > I'm imagining a horse race in which the first horse to pass the > post that marks the finish line is the winner. Goddlefrood: That's exactly what it refers to, the analogy is with horse racing. The sorry nags that lead us, both sides of the Atlantic, and even those in the Pacific, must be due for the glue factory soon enough. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Nov 13 23:19:00 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:19:00 -0000 Subject: UK Politics / Reply to Ann (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Carol: > Well, yes and no. I take it that "first past the post" refers to a > candidate who receives a plurality rather than a majority and that you > consider such a result unrepresentative. (I agree.) However, the > meaning of the term was not immediately obvious to me upon reading it > since I have no idea which "post" you're talking about (I thought > "post" meant "mail") or in what sense the candidate is going "past" > the post (whatever the post may be). I'm imagining a horse race in > which the first horse to pass the post that marks the finish line is > the winner. > > IOW, what is the etymology of the phrase? I've never heard it used in > the U.S. even though Congressional candidates and others can be > elected without earning a majority of the votes. (I won't even get > into Presidential elections, which are a political nightmare.) > > Carol, still not understanding the literal meaning of the phrase > though I do understand the concept you've presented and why you object > to it Geoff: You've really put your finger on it by comparing it to a race. If I may offer two definitions from my excellent dictionary: first past the post Brit. (of an electoral system) in which a candidate or party is selected by achievement of a simple majority. post 2 (the post) a starting post or winning post In the first definition, the simple majority is just having the largest number of votes, i.e. being in front. It is not a majority over the aggregated results of all other candidates. Hope that makes sense. Geoff From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com Tue Nov 13 23:33:24 2007 From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:33:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: musical spoof: Harry Patter... Message-ID: <718859.50704.qm@web51905.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Lamplighters Music Theatre of San Francisco is having a Gala / fundraiser: Harry Patter & the Willing Suspension of Disbelief or A Series of Unfortunate Musical Numbers It's a wacky musical spoof being staged just once at the Herbst Theatre which for that one afternoon only will be the Hogwash School of Witchery and Wizardcraft. Set to the music of Sir Arthur Sullivan, the original lyrics may make Sir William Gilbert turn in his grave or be the stuff of filkers' dreams...you decide. http://www.lamplighters.org/news2.html Sunday, November 18, 2007, 4:00 PM curtains If anyone here is going (or wishes they can afford to attend) let me know! Petra a n :) PS: I'm going regardless but I can't imagine anyone topping "I Am the Very Model of an Anti-Hero Archetype" of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/35879 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Nov 13 23:58:43 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:58:43 -0000 Subject: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol responds: > Do I dare confess that I mostly live on yogurt, fishsticks, and > frozen dinners? It's not that I can't cook, it's that I don't see > the point of cooking a real meal when I don't have company and > could be doing something else (like composing elaborate posts for > HPfGu). Jen: It would be bean nachos, cereal, peanut butter toast and smoothies for me if I lived alone. I can always find other things to do besides cook! But wait...you offer recipes on here, I can't even claim that much. Are you like me in considering baking not actually cooking? Because I *like* baking. > My crackpot, erm, crockpot, is about thirty years old and the > control has been dangling dangerously out of the metal part of the > pot for, oh, ten or eleven years now. I think I last used the > crockpot about fifteen years ago, when I moved into an apartment > with virtually no counterspace (not the same one I live in now). > Maybe I should drag it out again and try to fix it, or, failing > that, actually buy a new one? Jen: LOL, well, my vote would be a new one rather than an unfortunate electrocution, but you can go on eating microwave meals, yogurt, and fishsticks and never hear a peep out of me. > Carol, who thinks microwaveable bacon is the best invention of the > last decade Jen: Yes, that and pre-washed and packaged salad greens and vegetables. From kempermentor at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 00:02:33 2007 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kemper mentor) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:02:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) Message-ID: <560153.89254.qm@web90401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Carol signed off: Carol, who thinks microwaveable bacon is the best invention of the last decade Kemper: That has to be the grossest phrase I've read in the last decade... maybe longer or ever. Carol, instead of wasting bacon, I have a great meatloaf recipe that incorporates it. Fat is flavor. And pig fat is delicious. Kemper ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Nov 14 02:36:34 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:36:34 -0000 Subject: Stalinist realism/perfection/Heinlein/lesbian and gay issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > > Susan: > > > It's kind of like leaders in the lesbian and gay community not > > > being thrilled with JKR because she didn't include lesbian/gay > > > characters in the book and only outed DD after the fact. I don't > > > look for perfection... > > > > Mike: > > It seems those leaders suffer under the same delusion as most > > politicians -- nothing is ever good enough and everything the > other > > side says is wrong because the other side said it. > > Magpie: > I wouldn't go that far. I mean, I can't imagine why people would be > thrilled about it. She had a single gay character and she left him > out of the book for some reason. Why should they be praising her for > that as leaders of the lesbian and gay community when this way of > handling a gay character is actually a throwback? It just seems a > bit much to say "nothing is ever good enough" about somebody not > putting any gay characters in their series. > > -m > And I understand why people aren't thrilled either. However, I'm a community organizer (among other things), and I was brought up in the 50s...Even ten years ago, if you had told me that gay marriage would be legalized in one or two states (and several other countries) and that the California legislature would twice pass bills legalizing it, I would have laughed..In 1973, a gay psychiatrist who addressed the AMA had to totally disguise himself, disguse his voice, dress in a costume, etc. because of fear of disclosure of his sexual orientation....The non-discrimination bill (ENDA) will pass Congress, although the president has already said he would veto it....TREMENDOUS progress has been made in the last 40 years in recognizing lesbian and gay civil rights...and as more and more people get to know more and more lesbians and gays personally (and as more and more lesbians and gays come out people will realize they know lesbians and gay men and most of them are like everyone else). So, I think change is incremental, and every little bit helps. Too often (on the left)people are impatient with anything but perfection.. unless something is "pure" it's not good..... Susan Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 03:37:50 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:37:50 -0000 Subject: UK Politics / Reply to Ann (was Re: Is Umbridge a commentary on British govt. ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > Well, yes and no. I take it that "first past the post" refers to a candidate who receives a plurality rather than a majority and that you consider such a result unrepresentative. (I agree.) However, the meaning of the term was not immediately obvious to me upon reading it since I have no idea which "post" you're talking about . I'm imagining a horse race in which the first horse to pass the post that marks the finish line is the winner. > Geoff responded: > You've really put your finger on it by comparing it to a race. > > If I may offer two definitions from my excellent dictionary: > > first past the post Brit. (of an electoral system) in which a candidate or party is selected by achievement of a simple majority. > > post 2 (the post) a starting post or winning post > > In the first definition, the simple majority is just having the largest number of votes, i.e. being in front. It is not a majority over the aggregated results of all other candidates. Carol again: Yes. Thanks to both you and Goddlefrood. And what you call a "simple majority" is what I meant by "plurality": Here's Merriam-Webster's definition: plurality noun Inflected Form(s): plural plu?ral?i?ties Date: 14th century 3 b: an excess of votes over those cast for an opposing candidate c: a number of votes cast for a candidate in a contest of more than two candidates that is greater than the number cast for any other candidate but not more than half the total votes cast Carol, who seldom attends horse races and normally would not have associated the word "post" with them From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 03:47:22 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:47:22 -0000 Subject: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jen: It would be bean nachos, cereal, peanut butter toast and smoothies for me if I lived alone. I can always find other things to do besides cook! But wait...you offer recipes on here, I can't even claim that much. Are you like me in considering baking not actually cooking? Because I *like* baking. Carol: Right. Baking is fun, at least if I have a reason (Christmas) or people to bake for. Cooking (scrubbing and peeling vegetables, handling raw meat, etc.) is drudgery. I'd rather do dishes by hand without magic. Carol, happy to find a kindred spirit! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 03:52:08 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:52:08 -0000 Subject: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: <560153.89254.qm@web90401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Carol signed off: > > Carol, who thinks microwaveable bacon is the best invention of the last decade > > Kemper: > That has to be the grossest phrase I've read in the last decade... maybe longer or ever. > > Carol, instead of wasting bacon, I have a great meatloaf recipe that incorporates it. Fat is flavor. And pig fat is delicious. > > Kemper > Carol: You can still taste the pig fat flavor in microwaveable bacon without all the grease. And do you know what all that pig fat is doing to your arteries? My mother used to save bacon grease to give to the Navajos on the reservation until she got a degree in nutrition and realized that she was harming their health. Carol, who has a great meatloaf recipe somewhere but really doesn't like to touch raw meat, whether it's bacon or ground beef From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 04:56:29 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 04:56:29 -0000 Subject: Russian translation again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Alla wrote: > > So, and here I thought that the quality of russian translation > imporved since OOP. > > Afraid I am not buying DH one, it is already hit NY stores. > > Zanooda told me that, so I went and flipped through pages. Mike: That woman is a fount of information, isn't she? > Alla: > Are you sitting down folks? > > Guess what Neville is teaching in Russian translation? > > POTIONS. Mike: ::scratches head:: What did they say Prof. Sprout taught in the previous books? From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Nov 14 05:17:38 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:17:38 -0000 Subject: James Potter and the Hall of Elders Crossing! (Moved from Main) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > From: winnston_1985 at ... > Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 2:06 am (PST) > > > I've seen this on some other sites, but nobody seems > to KNOW anything. All I know is this trailer is way > too professional to be done as fanart, and the site-- > well, if you've seen it already, you know what I mean. > Is this a tes teaser for a new series written by > someone else??? Or a new movie??? > > If you haven't seen the trailer or the site, you can > check them both out: > www.elderscrossing.com > This is fanart, obviously, but it's really terrific...Susan From kempermentor at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 05:49:25 2007 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kemper mentor) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:49:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) Message-ID: <229672.78922.qm@web90411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Kemper earlier: > Carol, instead of wasting bacon, I have a great meatloaf recipe that incorporates it. Fat is flavor. And pig fat is delicious. Carol: You can still taste the pig fat flavor in microwaveable bacon without all the grease. And do you know what all that pig fat is doing to your arteries? My mother used to save bacon grease to give to the Navajos on the reservation until she got a degree in nutrition and realized that she was harming their health. Carol, who has a great meatloaf recipe somewhere but really doesn't like to touch raw meat, whether it's bacon or ground beef Kemper now: There is something wrong about microwaves. They kill food, beating the flavor and nutrition out of God's gift. I believe the Horseman on the Black Horse invented them. He laughs at us as we eat the popping hot nothing: calories without vitamins/minerals/proteins, leaving us sated and starved. And what hellspawn blaspheme to possess a great meatloaf recipe, located somewhere(?!?) not being followed! Let me adopt it. I'll give it some love. Kemper, who encourages Carol to purchase some gloves to handle raw meat... or, doesn''t she have a young man? She can supervise him making it for her, it's a great life skill... maybe she can make the potatoes... ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/ From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 06:39:14 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:39:14 -0000 Subject: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jen wrote: Yes, that and pre-washed and packaged salad greens and > vegetables. Doddie here: Errm..I'm probably the only one...but prewashed pre packaged veggies may say one thing but pre wash may have meant an exta vigorous watering in the field for all we know(the laws do not proclaim otherwise)..I always rewash all said fruits and veggies... I was raised that twas better if you can grow your own and if you cannot do that go pick your own...and if not that then buy local, and if not that buy organic....and when you get it; whether picking buying/buing and picking after you get home wash it again anyhow because ...well...won't get into the entire organic farming thing.... > Doddiemoemoe From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 06:57:20 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:57:20 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > Well, sure, but just because you're reading for entertainment > doesn't mean you can't wind up being annoyed by something in a > book. You might not like what a book has to say about love, death, > growing up, growing old, joy, suffering, courage, hope or despair. > You can pass judgment on a book based on just about anything. I > remember reading Seventeenth Summer when I was a kid and not being > able to stand it. I didn't like what it had to say or how it said > it, or the characters. Was I passing judgment based on some > politica agenda I shouldn't have been applying to the book when I > was ten? Or was I just reading a book that annoyed me and I wanted > to say why? To me this is all a normal part of reading. I've never > read just to say "Well, that was vaguely amusing." Mike: I do agree with this analysis. Not speaking for Carol or Susan, but I think there seemed to be a little more to the opposition to this story than mere annoyance. Let me use one of my examples. I despised almost every character in "The Sun Also Rises" by Hemingway. I hated their personalities, their life-styles, and could find no useful message in any of the plot-lines. I thought their world would be a better place if each and every one of them drown in some boating accident. (OK, the bullfighter could live, he was merely annoying.) Yet I wouldn't call the book or its message "evil", nor say that Hemingway was seriously warped for writing these characters. (Yeah, I know, some people think he was seriously warped anyway). Hemingway's characters lived in the real world, our world. JKR wrote her own world, a fantasy world of magic. Sure, she styled it after what she knew, both from our world and from our world's folklore. But JKR is vilified much more for the message she supposedly sent via an erstwhile children's story. Children can't be condemned to the House of Evil by age eleven! Wait a minute, it's. a. talking. hat. that does the sorting! And it is supposed to be sorting by what it reads inside the eleven-year-old's head! And it's never wrong! What part of IT'S MAGIC is missing from that equation? Slytherin House and *all* of its members are evil, unredeemable, the *other*. The defined traits of the house were inferior. Yeah, so? Since when does any book of this genre not have the *defined* bad guys? And don't they have to have the bad traits to be the bad guys? Didn't this story have a major character, the decendant of the house founder, that led this evil empire, spurning on the most vile of the attitudes? In the end, the hero vanquishes this abominably evil leader, shouldn't that signal some kind of change for the movement that he led? Besides, some of the members were shown to have been redeemed, even if that meant that they had to exhibit some good guy traits to deserve those redemptions. I realize that there are hundreds of ways to read the story and just as many ways to interpret it. Even if I think my reading matches closest to the story that the author wrote, I would never presume that mine was the only way to read it. But I do find the extremely subversive readings interpretively unrealistic. > Magpie: > > I think she gives views on quite a lot of things in the story. > I thought it was pretty clear the Dursleys treatment of Harry > was supposed to be bad. And then Hagrid comes and smacks them down. Mike: I suppose this is where I disagree. The Dursley's treatment of Harry wasn't just bad, it was fairy talishly ridiculous. He was treated worse than Cinderella. Who wouldn't think the Dursleys deserved some come-uppence? I thought they deserved a few years with the Dementors (which Dudley only got a few minutes with). I also thought Vernon got off way to easily, Dudley got the brunt of the retribution. Where I disagree is that I didn't think these were JKR's views so much as generally accepted views for the genre she was writing. The mean step-family gets smacked down a few times, the traitor gets scarred for life, the school bullies get punished by their peers; these are all typical of this fare, imo. They may be annoying to some, but they are by no means unique to this series. Can JKR be criticized for using them? Yes, by all means, have at her. But it seems ridiculous to vilify her and/or her story for the triteness, as if these themes were first presented here and are just plain evil. Obviously, in my opinion, Mike From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed Nov 14 08:00:39 2007 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:00:39 -0000 Subject: UK Politics / Reply to Ann In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol: > Well, yes and no. I take it that "first past the post" refers to a > candidate who receives a plurality rather than a majority and that you > consider such a result unrepresentative. (I agree.) I think the racing metaphor makes most sense when compared with preference (as in Australia) or multiple-round (as in French presidential elections) systems. In both of these, the least popular candidate is eliminated, and then either the lower preference votes on the ballots of the people who voted for them are allocated, or there is another round of voting. In these systems having a plurality in the early stages (being 'out in front') does not guarantee victory. David, who has always been puzzled by racing metaphors for elections From heidi8 at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 10:21:56 2007 From: heidi8 at gmail.com (Heidi Tandy) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:21:56 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: James Potter and the Hall of Elders Crossing! (Moved from Main) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1195035720.F9F9875@fb6.dngr.org> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: >> >> From: winnston_1985 at ... >> Date: Wed Nov 7, 2007 2:06 am (PST) >> >> >> I've seen this on some other sites, but nobody seems >> to KNOW anything. > >> If you haven't seen the trailer or the site, you can >> check them both out: >> www.elderscrossing.com The Leaky Cauldron reported yesterday that it's totally fan-generated. They even included a Google search result that showed that it was a fanfic that had been posted on fanfiction.net earlier this fall and was taken down a few weeks ago. This sort of thing has happened before - people getting sent a work of fanfic that's had the fanfic-author's name stripped off it and thinking it's Book Six or Book Seven has happened in the past a few times but it's never been the fanfic-author encouraging it. When a fanfic writer gacks Hedwig's Theme without permission, though..... Anyhow, I don't know why the reporters for newspapers that OMG-ed about this don't know how to use Google. When I first heard about it, I went to Google immediately and found the residue from ffn and sent it to TLC, who did further confirmation and.... Yeah, fanfic + fanart. And there is, btw, some fantastic fanfic and fanart out there (see my sig below) but it isn't JKR-generated. So read it, but don't think it's canon, as it can't be. - heidi http://www.fictionalley.org http://www.artisticalley.org From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Nov 14 14:44:36 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:44:36 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Magpie: > > > > I think she gives views on quite a lot of things in the story. > > I thought it was pretty clear the Dursleys treatment of Harry > > was supposed to be bad. And then Hagrid comes and smacks them down. > > Mike: > I suppose this is where I disagree. The Dursley's treatment of Harry > wasn't just bad, it was fairy talishly ridiculous. He was treated > worse than Cinderella. Who wouldn't think the Dursleys deserved some > come-uppence? I thought they deserved a few years with the Dementors > (which Dudley only got a few minutes with). I also thought Vernon got > off way to easily, Dudley got the brunt of the retribution. > > Where I disagree is that I didn't think these were JKR's views so > much as generally accepted views for the genre she was writing. The > mean step-family gets smacked down a few times, the traitor gets > scarred for life, the school bullies get punished by their peers; > these are all typical of this fare, imo. They may be annoying to > some, but they are by no means unique to this series. Can JKR be > criticized for using them? Yes, by all means, have at her. But it > seems ridiculous to vilify her and/or her story for the triteness, as > if these themes were first presented here and are just plain evil. Magpie: Oh yeah, I agree there. When I said she was showing the Dursleys to be bad I just meant that obviously we're supposed to sympathize with Harry. When I meant that her values come through I mean on the story level, not necessarily what she would say in real life. She obviously does get off on Marietta being marked for life, she lets Hermione have a lot of moments where she gets back and people and doesn't expect us to be rooting for the person to get back at her, presumably. But I can also understand somebody else reading the story and saying, "Ew, I think that's evil." It's maybe being a bit hyperbolic, but I can understand the reaction they're describing. It's a little different than just "God, I hate all these people in this book" because it's a bit closer to how they feel uncomfortable watching this group of guys triumph their way to the top of the world. I tend to think of it as just the difference between reading somebody's book and rolling your eyes and reading their book and saying, "You're a loony" (a la Monty Python's King Arthur to the Black Knight). Compare it, for instance, to JKR's own words on CS Lewis, when she gave her impression of Susan's being kept out of Narnia in the end. It wasn't just that she was saying, "That was vaguely annoying because I liked Susan" or whatever. She read it and said that to her that gave the message that sex kept you out of heaven. She felt there was a message there, and it was one she disagreed with. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 15:00:09 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:00:09 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Mike: > I do agree with this analysis. Not speaking for Carol or Susan, but I > think there seemed to be a little more to the opposition to this > story than mere annoyance. Let me use one of my examples. I despised > almost every character in "The Sun Also Rises" by Hemingway. I hated > their personalities, their life-styles, and could find no useful > message in any of the plot-lines. I thought their world would be a > better place if each and every one of them drown in some boating > accident. (OK, the bullfighter could live, he was merely annoying.) > Yet I wouldn't call the book or its message "evil", nor say that > Hemingway was seriously warped for writing these characters. (Yeah, I > know, some people think he was seriously warped anyway). > > Hemingway's characters lived in the real world, our world. JKR wrote > her own world, a fantasy world of magic. Sure, she styled it after > what she knew, both from our world and from our world's folklore. But > JKR is vilified much more for the message she supposedly sent via an > erstwhile children's story. > Message-ID: > Kemper now: > There is something wrong about microwaves. They kill food, beating the flavor and nutrition out of God's gift. > I believe the Horseman on the Black Horse invented them. He laughs at us as we eat the popping hot nothing: calories without vitamins/minerals/proteins, leaving us sated and starved. > > And what hellspawn blaspheme to possess a great meatloaf recipe, located somewhere(?!?) not being followed! Let me adopt it. I'll give it some love. Jen: Yeah, yeah, said like someone who finds the growing/purchasing & cooking of food enjoyable. ;) Although I have to say when we lived in University housing with families from all over the world, I spent several occasions making sushi rolls with neighboring Korean families and thought, 'you know, if I could cook with people like this all the time, sharing the experience, I would find it much more enriching.' I think it's the whole task-oriented part of cooking daily meals that gets me down. It feels like a grind. I'm glad to know there are people out there who believe in the power of the home-cooked meal; maybe one day you will rub off on me! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 15:35:21 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:35:21 -0000 Subject: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Jen: > I'm glad to know there are people out there who believe in the power > of the home-cooked meal; maybe one day you will rub off on me! > Alla: YES dear. Come to NY and I will cook you one, there is nothing better than home cooked meal, me thinks. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Nov 14 15:58:26 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:58:26 -0000 Subject: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Jen: > > > I'm glad to know there are people out there who believe in the power > > of the home-cooked meal; maybe one day you will rub off on me! > > > > > Alla: > > YES dear. Come to NY and I will cook you one, there is nothing better > than home cooked meal, me thinks. Jen: Thanks dear, you know I'll make it there one day. :) Oh, I forgot to say I'm not entirely hopeless with food - I love to grill. Now there's a perfect & quick way to make good food: just stick everything- including vegetables - on the grill. Zucchini with olive oil & a little garlic on a gas grill is heavenly (not so good on charcoal). Doddie: > Errm..I'm probably the only one...but prewashed pre packaged veggies > may say one thing but pre wash may have meant an exta vigorous > watering in the field for all we know(the laws do not proclaim > otherwise)..I always rewash all said fruits and veggies... Jen: I'm sure your way is the healthier option. Carol: > Right. Baking is fun, at least if I have a reason (Christmas) or > people to bake for. Cooking (scrubbing and peeling vegetables, > handling raw meat, etc.) is drudgery. I'd rather do dishes by hand > without magic. Jen: Yes, that's it exactly, all that prep stuff. I think it's an art and people either have the gift or don't. Yep, kindred spirits Carol! Maybe you'd like grill cooking too. :) From s_ings at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 16:04:27 2007 From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:04:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <380595.19989.qm@web63409.mail.re1.yahoo.com> > > > Carol: > You can still taste the pig fat flavor in > microwaveable bacon without > all the grease. And do you know what all that pig > fat is doing to your > arteries? > > My mother used to save bacon grease to give to the > Navajos on the > reservation until she got a degree in nutrition and > realized that she > was harming their health. > > Carol, who has a great meatloaf recipe somewhere but > really doesn't > like to touch raw meat, whether it's bacon or ground > beef Sheryll: My mother used to save bacon grease, too, but for different reasons. She used to cook with it. Even popcorn was made in the frying pan with bacon grease. Did you know that if you fry hot dogs in a cast iron frying pan using bacon grease they taste like they've been on the BBQ? Not sure why, but it works for me. Sheryll, liking the taste of pig fat, not so much worrying about the arteries :) Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.ca From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Nov 14 16:10:34 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:10:34 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Alla: > > Great post Mike. What I am wondering about though is how the leap is > made from disliking the book or hating the book to calling JKR > herself evil. > > I mean, she is a celebrity, so I am not disputing anybody's right to > call her names, but I am always scratching my head as to how people > arrived at that conclusion. > > Meaning how they (not just Magpie, anybody) managed to figure out > what kind of person JKR is without ever meeting her. Of course JKR's > friends and acquaitances if they post on this list are excluded from > this statement, they met her in RL and I understand that they can > form a judgment about her, any sort of judgment ( I am saying that I > understand how they can make a judgment of her as a person whether I > agree with it or not). Magpie: Not me at all! I don't feel like I know what kind of person she is, but I can react to what she seems to be saying when she talks. So I can react to actual things she says in interviews and talk about that persona. And reading the books I don't think it's a leap to say how she seem to feel about the story. I don't think it's crossing a line, for instance, to say I think she finds it satisfying to have Hermione smack down certain characters based on the story. I don't think that's a general judgment on what she's like as a person. It just says "She finds this thing happening satisfying." Alla: > Can't writer write something just because her muse called her in that > area? > > Is it a given that writer has to AGREE with what she writes? If she > would not specifically punish Snape or Dumbledore, but still > disapproves of child abuse, didn't she make it very clear that their > actions were wrong? ( well, for those who agree with this of course). Magpie: Sure a write can disagree with what they write. But I don't think that's the same as saying that nobody can guess at anything based on what the author wrote. It seems a bit silly, for instance, to say that yeah JKR wrote this whole story and had all this stuff happened, but none of it reflects anything about her at all. Like, maybe she really thinks that Harry's a tool and hates him but she was forced to write the story this way because the muse mugged her and tied her down and made her write it. There might not always be much point in wondering exactly what the author is like, though. I think it makes a lot more sense to just talk about the book, what the book seems to be saying, what the story is saying. It doesn't always matter how the author came to put that stuff down, because you can't know. Sometimes the author is looking at something completely differently than the way it comes across on the page. Alla: > I mean, when you read "Brothers Caramasov" or 'Idiot" or "Writings > from psychiatric clinic" ( not sure how this one is translated in > English, so just translated word by word from Russian), one would > think that Dostoevskiy may have had some mental problems. Magpie: I never thought that. Are you suggesting that people are saying that because JKR writes a bad guy, for instance, that she is a bad guy? Because I don't think that's the idea. It's silly to think that anything any character in a book does or says must be something the author agrees with--if that were true how could any author write a story? There would be no conflict. Author's aren't confined to writing characters whose views they endorse. Often they write characters who are being devil's advocates to their own beliefs. JKR's universe is full of conflicting characters, so she can't really agree with all of them. But I think there's a difference between that and looking at an author's work and seeing some basic ideas that the author believes that come through in his work. There's nothing particularly insane about any of those works that I've read. -m From s_ings at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 16:12:46 2007 From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:12:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <949776.29128.qm@web63402.mail.re1.yahoo.com> > > Jen: > > > I'm glad to know there are people out there who > believe in the power > > of the home-cooked meal; maybe one day you will > rub off on me! > > > > > Alla: > > YES dear. Come to NY and I will cook you one, there > is nothing better > than home cooked meal, me thinks. > Sheryll: I'll come to NY and we can cook together. I'm all about cooking. Oddly enough, a skill not taught by my mother. Doesn't hurt, too, that I'm married to a chef (though he doesn't cook much at home after a day of cooking at work). I once made a 14 dish Vietnamese dinner for my mother's birthday! Yeah, not recommended without help in the kitchen, which I didn't have. Was far too tired to eat by the time dinner was ready. Jen, get over to Amanda's while I'm there. I've promised to do some cooking for her and I'm sure one more that table will be welcome. Though be warned I've promised her healthy things. ;) Sheryll, who loves to cook because she loves to eat Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php From s_ings at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 16:19:25 2007 From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:19:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <454524.67142.qm@web63403.mail.re1.yahoo.com> > Doddie here: > > Errm..I'm probably the only one...but prewashed pre > packaged veggies > may say one thing but pre wash may have meant an > exta vigorous > watering in the field for all we know(the laws do > not proclaim > otherwise)..I always rewash all said fruits and > veggies... > > I was raised that twas better if you can grow your > own and if you > cannot do that go pick your own...and if not that > then buy local, > and if not that buy organic....and when you get it; > whether picking > buying/buing and picking after you get home wash it > again anyhow > because ...well...won't get into the entire organic > farming thing.... > > > Sheryll: I was raised that way, too. I have an aunt who eats only stuff from her own garden all summer, with the rare addition of meat. Bakes all her bread and goodies. This was probably the first year since we bought this house 10 years ago that I didn't plant a garden. Just didn't have the time to tend it. That and a great deal of procrastinating at the beginning of the season. Nothing quite like going out the back door to get salad fixings and such. I'm curious about meat, though, being a serious carnivore. Do most people here buy their meat at a grocery store? What do you think of the quality? I buy a cow every fall (with my mother and sister) and have it butchered for the freezer. Usually a pig, too, though my sister is now saying they don't like pork that much at her place and don't want to go in on it. Have to convince my mother that we'll eat enough pork here to make it sensible to buy a pig this month. Sheryll, eyeing her nearly empty freezer and thinking it must be almost slaughtering time Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 16:31:16 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:31:16 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Magpie: > Not me at all! I don't feel like I know what kind of person she is, > but I can react to what she seems to be saying when she talks. So I > can react to actual things she says in interviews and talk about > that persona. And reading the books I don't think it's a leap to say > how she seem to feel about the story. I don't think it's crossing a > line, for instance, to say I think she finds it satisfying to have > Hermione smack down certain characters based on the story. I don't > think that's a general judgment on what she's like as a person. It > just says "She finds this thing happening satisfying." Alla: I do not think anything is crossing the line as long as another side opinion is treated with respect, I do think though that saying that JKR is crasy ( and yes, I have seen it on Main list more than once) is something which I find strange. And absolutely, reacting to what she says in interviews is understandable, but I still think that if you ( generic you) react to what she says in in the interviews and writes in the books with the "JKR is crasy and evil", well something that I find strange. To me it is like saying that If JKR does not punish Snape that means she approves of child abuse. I mean, REALLY? (With apologies to LL for dragging his argument in it, but I just find it to be a perfect example). And this is the argument which I AGREE with when it was talking about the story - meaning that I absolutely, positively saw and will always see Snape as disgusting child abuser. But when the leap is made that if author does not write it the certain way, that means she approves of child abuse? I mean, do you KNOW that JKR approves of child abuse? It makes me scratch my head, truly and same with these arguments. > Alla: > > Can't writer write something just because her muse called her in > that > > area? > > > > Is it a given that writer has to AGREE with what she writes? If > she > > would not specifically punish Snape or Dumbledore, but still > > disapproves of child abuse, didn't she make it very clear that > their > > actions were wrong? ( well, for those who agree with this of > course). > > Magpie: > Sure a write can disagree with what they write. But I don't think > that's the same as saying that nobody can guess at anything based on > what the author wrote. It seems a bit silly, for instance, to say > that yeah JKR wrote this whole story and had all this stuff > happened, but none of it reflects anything about her at all. Alla: Not to me. I have NO idea what this story reflects about JKR as a **person**. Except of course her saying that it has christian themes, so I get that she is a christian. Besides that? I have absolutely no idea. > Alla: > > I mean, when you read "Brothers Caramasov" or 'Idiot" or "Writings > > from psychiatric clinic" ( not sure how this one is translated in > > English, so just translated word by word from Russian), one would > > think that Dostoevskiy may have had some mental problems. > > Magpie: > I never thought that. Are you suggesting that people are saying that > because JKR writes a bad guy, for instance, that she is a bad guy? > Because I don't think that's the idea. Alla: Actually yeah very close and I am not just suggesting it, I read it, but let me rephrase it. I totally get the impression and I saw it sometimes spelled out, sometimes IMO very heavily implied. That since JKR wrote the book, which message people consider to be crasy or evil, that she is crasy, evil, full of hatred herself. Yes, that is absolutely my impression. People are free to find it. I am free to find it bizarre. Magpie: It's silly to think that > anything any character in a book does or says must be something the > author agrees with--if that were true how could any author write a > story? There would be no conflict. Author's aren't confined to > writing characters whose views they endorse. Often they write > characters who are being devil's advocates to their own beliefs. > JKR's universe is full of conflicting characters, so she can't > really agree with all of them. Alla: Well, yeah I agree with you, but as I said, my impression is not that people argue that since JKR writes bad guys, she is a bad guy herself, but that since her message is evil, she is evil. For that she really does not have to agree with all characters. Magpie: But I think there's a difference > between that and looking at an author's work and seeing some basic > ideas that the author believes that come through in his work. > There's nothing particularly insane about any of those works that > I've read. Alla: Um, I did not find those works insane either, I found many characters to be quite disturbed though. I love Dostoevsky, but I find many of his works to be very very difficult to read. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Nov 14 16:44:00 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:44:00 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Magpie: > > Sure a write can disagree with what they write. But I don't think > > that's the same as saying that nobody can guess at anything based > on > > what the author wrote. It seems a bit silly, for instance, to say > > that yeah JKR wrote this whole story and had all this stuff > > happened, but none of it reflects anything about her at all. > > Alla: > > Not to me. I have NO idea what this story reflects about JKR as a > **person**. Except of course her saying that it has christian themes, > so I get that she is a christian. Besides that? I have absolutely no > idea. Magpie: Maybe we have different definitions of what "as a person" means? Because I'm talking about stuff like saying it seems like JKR basically thinks Harry's a good guy, that people who behave like Draco are jerks, that Ginny's a cool girl. That sort of thing. I wouldn't generalize it into something like "JKR approves of bulling!" or "JKR approves of child abuse!" but I don't read the book and feel like I have no idea where the author stands on every fictional issue. I've yet to have been surprised by the opinions of hers that she has given, for instance. Like, when she said, "I loathe traitors" about Marietta that wasn't shocked. I don't think it means she favors facial branding in general, but the impression I got in the story was that Marietta's branding was something she enjoyed. Or, like, when she said Sirius didn't practice what he preached. That sort of thing. If there's a pov that nobody in the books ever seems to raise it does sometimes seem like the author hasn't thought of it. (Unless it seems like the author's specifically writing about a world without that pov to make a point about that.) > > Alla: > > > I mean, when you read "Brothers Caramasov" or 'Idiot" > or "Writings > > > from psychiatric clinic" ( not sure how this one is translated in > > > English, so just translated word by word from Russian), one would > > > think that Dostoevskiy may have had some mental problems. > > > > Magpie: > > I never thought that. Are you suggesting that people are saying > that > > because JKR writes a bad guy, for instance, that she is a bad guy? > > Because I don't think that's the idea. > > Alla: > > Actually yeah very close and I am not just suggesting it, I read it, > but let me rephrase it. I totally get the impression and I saw it > sometimes spelled out, sometimes IMO very heavily implied. > > That since JKR wrote the book, which message people consider to be > crasy or evil, that she is crasy, evil, full of hatred herself. > > Yes, that is absolutely my impression. People are free to find it. I > am free to find it bizarre. Magpie: I definitely don't think she's crazy or evil, I agree. > > Magpie: > But I think there's a difference > > between that and looking at an author's work and seeing some basic > > ideas that the author believes that come through in his work. > > There's nothing particularly insane about any of those works that > > I've read. > > Alla: > > Um, I did not find those works insane either, I found many characters > to be quite disturbed though. I love Dostoevsky, but I find many of > his works to be very very difficult to read. Magpie: Oh, I didn't think you found the works insane. Many of his characters are, it's true. But I agree with what I think we're both saying here, which is that there's a complicated relationship between an author and what they write. It's really not so simple that anybody can just read something and really judge what the author is like in person. It's just so not like that. The stuff an author writes comes from such different places and stories take on lives of their own. It's sometimes almost like judging somebody based on their dreams. Yeah, it says something about them and came from them, but it's complicated. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 17:37:19 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:37:19 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Magpie: > Maybe we have different definitions of what "as a person" means? > Because I'm talking about stuff like saying it seems like JKR > basically thinks Harry's a good guy, that people who behave like > Draco are jerks, that Ginny's a cool girl. That sort of thing. I > wouldn't generalize it into something like "JKR approves of > bulling!" or "JKR approves of child abuse!" but I don't read the > book and feel like I have no idea where the author stands on every > fictional issue. I've yet to have been surprised by the opinions of > hers that she has given, for instance. Like, when she said, "I > loathe traitors" about Marietta that wasn't shocked. I don't think > it means she favors facial branding in general, but the impression I > got in the story was that Marietta's branding was something she > enjoyed. Or, like, when she said Sirius didn't practice what he > preached. That sort of thing. If there's a pov that nobody in the > books ever seems to raise it does sometimes seem like the author > hasn't thought of it. (Unless it seems like the author's > specifically writing about a world without that pov to make a point > about that.) Alla: Oh sure, sure, if you are just talking about being surprised or not which characters she likes and which she dislikes, then I agree- it IS clear, but anything else besides that point - not to me. Because even the fact that she likes Harry, which again I think it is absolutely clear to me does not translate into anything besides she likes Harry. It does not translate to me that she would approve for example of Harry casting unforgivables or whatever real life equivalents of it, it does not translate to me in any knowledge of real life values she stands for. I prefer not to talk about Marietta, but when you mention her saying that Sirius did not practice what he preached. I wonder in what sense you were not surprised by her saying it. You thought it was clear enough in the story and her interview just confirmed it? If yes, then sure I agree, but was there anything else besides it? Was there any reflection of any RL value, you know? > Magpie: > I definitely don't think she's crazy or evil, I agree. Alla: Right, that is all I am saying. I am just finding myself puzzled with that point, that's all. > Magpie: > Oh, I didn't think you found the works insane. Many of his > characters are, it's true. But I agree with what I think we're both > saying here, which is that there's a complicated relationship > between an author and what they write. It's really not so simple > that anybody can just read something and really judge what the > author is like in person. It's just so not like that. The stuff an > author writes comes from such different places and stories take on > lives of their own. It's sometimes almost like judging somebody > based on their dreams. Yeah, it says something about them and came > from them, but it's complicated. Alla: I like "judging someone on their dreams" metaphor. Not sure I completely agree, but I like it nevertheless. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Nov 14 18:00:17 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:00:17 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla: > I prefer not to talk about Marietta, but when you mention her saying > that Sirius did not practice what he preached. I wonder in what sense > you were not surprised by her saying it. You thought it was clear > enough in the story and her interview just confirmed it? If yes, then > sure I agree, but was there anything else besides it? Was there any > reflection of any RL value, you know? Magpie: Yes, that she was just confirming what I thought was in the story. If she had said she thought Sirius was a terrible person who deserved what he got after bullying poor Snape, for instance, I'd have been surprised. And I think DH, being the end, brought even more of those things into focus, making other things feel more confirmed too. > > Magpie: > > Oh, I didn't think you found the works insane. Many of his > > characters are, it's true. But I agree with what I think we're both > > saying here, which is that there's a complicated relationship > > between an author and what they write. It's really not so simple > > that anybody can just read something and really judge what the > > author is like in person. It's just so not like that. The stuff an > > author writes comes from such different places and stories take on > > lives of their own. It's sometimes almost like judging somebody > > based on their dreams. Yeah, it says something about them and came > > from them, but it's complicated. > > Alla: > > I like "judging someone on their dreams" metaphor. Not sure I > completely agree, but I like it nevertheless. Magpie: I don't know if I agree with it either.:-) It was just the closest thing I could come to with it. Dreams are not the same as stories, but they come out of the person's head and aren't usually literally things they think. -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 18:40:15 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:40:15 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Alla: > > Great post Mike. What I am wondering about though is how the leap > is made from disliking the book or hating the book to calling JKR > herself evil. Mike: Just to make a distinction. I'm not really talking about thinking the author is evil. That, to me, is out of bounds. Whatever someone's opinion is on any particular author should not come from their body of work, in my way of thinking. Drawing conclusions beyond what Magpie called the author's general feelings towards a character or trait seems to credit oneself with a Legilimatic ability that I find unlikely, to say the least. And obviously I'm talking about fiction authors here. > Alla: > > Meaning how they (not just Magpie, anybody) managed to figure out > what kind of person JKR is without ever meeting her. Mike: Oh geez, No, I surely wasn't saying Magpie was saying this stuff and if it sounded like I was, I apologize. My post was a reply to Magpie's but I was also addressing a lot of the points that Susan (The McGee) and Carol had brought up in previous posts. I do agree with your point about personally vilifying the author, Alla. And I know a few people have done that. But I was trying to restrict myself to the analysis of the books. Maybe I wasn't clear, what I was talking about was those that vilified JKR's written word, not that they were saying anything about JKR personally. As I said above, anybody that makes the argument that JKR is evil, I'm going to dismiss as giving themselves too much credit in the ability to read minds. Mike From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 20:37:55 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:37:55 -0000 Subject: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Jen: Yes, that's it exactly, all that prep stuff. I think it's an art and people either have the gift or don't. Yep, kindred spirits Carol! Maybe you'd like grill cooking too. :) Carol responds: Anecdote time. Back when I was married (in the Oligocene, I think), my husband did the barbecuing on a gas grill. When we divorced, I got custody of the grill but never used it (didn't know how), so I decided to sell it before moving from a house in New Mexico to an apartment in Arizona. When I was showing it to a prospective buyer, I thought I had been scorched (even though the barbecue was not hooked up or turned on) and drew back my hand with a cry of pain. Turns out I had put my hand on a yellow-jacket's nest built on the underside of the barbecue and been stung (second time in my life that I brilliantly put my hand directly on top of a yellow-jacket I didn't see. The first time, I was six, and it was on my head.) Surprisingly, the man really wanted that nice barbecue and bought it anyway, yellow jacket nest and all. I suppose the wasp(s) got nicely roasted the first time he turned it on. Carol, who has no room for a gas grill now and can't stand the smell of lighter fluid for a charcoal grill (hopeless, I know) From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 20:47:00 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:47:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <329458.96342.qm@web52702.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Carol wrote: > Jen: Yes, that's it exactly, all that prep stuff. I think it's an art and people either have the gift or don't. Yep, kindred spirits Carol! Maybe you'd like grill cooking too. :) Carol responds: Anecdote time. Back when I was married (in the Oligocene, I think), my husband did the barbecuing on a gas grill. When we divorced, I got custody of the grill but never used it (didn't know how), so I decided to sell it before moving from a house in New Mexico to an apartment in Arizona. When I was showing it to a prospective buyer, I thought I had been scorched (even though the barbecue was not hooked up or turned on) and drew back my hand with a cry of pain. Turns out I had put my hand on a yellow-jacket's nest built on the underside of the barbecue and been stung (second time in my life that I brilliantly put my hand directly on top of a yellow-jacket I didn't see. The first time, I was six, and it was on my head.) Surprisingly, the man really wanted that nice barbecue and bought it anyway, yellow jacket nest and all. I suppose the wasp(s) got nicely roasted the first time he turned it on. Carol, who has no room for a gas grill now and can't stand the smell of lighter fluid for a charcoal grill (hopeless, I know) ***Katie: Oooh, me my hubby love to bar-b-que! Not gas grills, but the real thing. We're big campers, too, and we love cooking over an open flame...be it in the woods or in our back yard. I have to say I think grilling is actually more difficult and time-consuming than regular cooking, if you aren't just tossing hot dogs and burgers on. But we love making our own marinades, and cooking everything from veggie kabobs to fish to steaks. I think cooking and baking are just in ya, or they aren't. I have been baking from the time I was a toddler, and grew up in family that never made anything from a mix and with a mother who baked fresh bread every weekend because she couldn't stand store-bought bread! And my hubby is from abig Italian family...so, we have cooking in the blood. But, as I mentioned before, during the work-week, we live on bagels, cereal, fruit, and sandwiches...so the only time we get to cook is on weekends. : ( Katie, whose dreams of being a chef were crushed by realizing how much money it costs to go to culinary school, but lives vicariously through "Top Chef" every season. ; ) . --------------------------------- Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 20:50:03 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:50:03 -0000 Subject: Yahoo acting up? Message-ID: Is anyone else having problems with the pages at various Yahoo groups loading slowly and without the background colors? I realize that it's not an earth-shaking problem, but it's been going on for days. It's not my browser since it does the same thing whether I use Netscape 7.2, Netscape 9, or I.E. Carol, wishing that the yahooligans would fix the problem, whatever is causing it From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 20:54:01 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:54:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Yahoo acting up? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <75249.70696.qm@web52708.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Sorry, Carol, I haven't had a problem. : ) Carol wrote: Is anyone else having problems with the pages at various Yahoo groups loading slowly and without the background colors? I realize that it's not an earth-shaking problem, but it's been going on for days. It's not my browser since it does the same thing whether I use Netscape 7.2, Netscape 9, or I.E. Carol, wishing that the yahooligans would fix the problem, whatever is causing it --------------------------------- Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 21:24:06 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:24:06 -0000 Subject: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > Alla: > > > > Meaning how they (not just Magpie, anybody) managed to figure out > > what kind of person JKR is without ever meeting her. > > Mike: > Oh geez, No, I surely wasn't saying Magpie was saying this stuff and > if it sounded like I was, I apologize. My post was a reply to > Magpie's but I was also addressing a lot of the points that Susan > (The McGee) and Carol had brought up in previous posts. > > I do agree with your point about personally vilifying the author, > Alla. And I know a few people have done that. But I was trying to > restrict myself to the analysis of the books. > > Maybe I wasn't clear, what I was talking about was those that > vilified JKR's written word, not that they were saying anything about > JKR personally. As I said above, anybody that makes the argument that > JKR is evil, I'm going to dismiss as giving themselves too much > credit in the ability to read minds. > > Mike > Alla: Oh Mike, do not apologise, my response was also a sort of general reply to this argument and since often enough as I mentioned before I do read JKR's word evil equals JKR herself is evil, I ventured into it. I did think that you were referencing JKR evil as well, but I reread your post and see that you did not, sorry about that. But as I said, I do stand by what I said about these arguments in general ( calling JKR crasy, evil without meeting her in RL) But actually if we are talking about vilifying JKR's word, I DO understand this POV. I will never read it this way, and as I said I am 100% agree with your reading of Slytherin's issue ( adding that I said about Slytherins who joined resistance standing out a lot to me), BUT as long as we are not saying that the author agrees with evil ideas, sure I can see calling the **ideas** in the book evil, why not? I mean, imagine the most extreme example, say somebody is saying in the work of fiction - let's go and kill people - not as in defending your city, country, against magical evil, but just for the fun of it. And this character manages to succeed doing it and author cheers him, etc as the greatest character ever. Would you not say that this is evil? I mean, it will never enter my mind as default assumption that author LIKES this evil no matter how sympatheticly it is portrayed, but I would totally say that the CHARACTER is evil and his actions are, even if he won't get properly punished or something, you know? Having said this, I myself after reading hundreds of books during my lifetime, I have not read a book yet, which ideas I would call evil. Well, except "mein campf", but I only read few excerpts and actually calling evil based on what I KNOW the author did in RL. Maybe I should not call that book evil either and just stick to calling the author evil in that instance, I think this would be a safe one, LOL. JMO, Alla. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 21:44:08 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:44:08 -0000 Subject: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: <454524.67142.qm@web63403.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- Sheryll Townsend wrote: > Sheryll: > > ... > > ... > > I'm curious about meat, though, being a serious > carnivore. Do most people here buy their meat at a > grocery store? What do you think of the quality? I buy > a cow every fall (with my mother and sister) and have > it butchered for the freezer. Usually a pig, too, > ... > > Sheryll, eyeing her nearly empty freezer and thinking > it must be almost slaughtering time > bboyminn: Supermarket meat is a necessity for a bachelor like me, but the quality sucks. When beef hits the frying pan and you are overwhelmed by the smell of vitamins cooking, you can be pretty sure that cow was raised in a factory. Tyson Foods, I think is the worst. Nearly all their cows, pigs, and chickens come from factory/confinement farms. These animals are raised in tight confinement and are force feed massive quantities of vitamins and antibiotic just so they can survive their environment. Hormel is a little better. My brother likes their beef because it doesn't give off the strong vitamin smell when he cooks it. Hormel has good pork too. In fact one of the largest pork processing plants and SPAM canning plants is only a few miles from here. So, what's my point. You need to make sure who ever butchers your cow or pig gets them from a /normal/ farmer and not from a meat factory, or you really haven't gained anything from it. Well, the price is probably pretty nice, and having hamburger ground up out of beef steak instead of beef scraps is pretty nice. But in terms of the quality of the meat, nothing beats non-factory raised animals. Note, I say 'non-factory' because you don't have to go as far as organic meat. Animals raise in a traditional blend of grazing and feeding are OK. If you want the best though, and can afford it, natural beef is pretty good. This isn't certified organic, but it is graze feed, low stressed animals, that are only treated with 'medications' for specific problems. So, for the most part, they are vitamin and antibiotic free. They are also much leaner than standard corn fed cattle. Omaha Steaks, Creekstone Farms, La Cense Beef (Montana) are all good suppliers, but again they are NOT cheap. A quick search of the Internet for 'Natual Beef' will yield many sources. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 22:07:27 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:07:27 -0000 Subject: Yahoo acting up? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol wrote: > > Is anyone else having problems with the pages at various Yahoo > groups loading slowly and without the background colors? I realize > that it's not an earth-shaking problem, but it's been going on for > days. It's not my browser since it does the same thing whether I > use Netscape 7.2, Netscape 9, or I.E. > > Carol, wishing that the yahooligans would fix the problem, whatever > is causing it Mike: Yep, it's been doing it on and off for the past couple of days, for me. I suppose the reason may be because they are trying to fix a different problem, though I don't know that. It must be hard to fix problems with an always active source program without shutting it down. I know I bitch about Yahoo!Mort too, but maybe I shouldn't be so hard on them. They aren't taking any of my money to provide this service. ;) A bit of advice for any poster when these things are going on (actually, I practice this all the time): Copy your entire post before hitting Send. Then check to see it has been posted before overwriting that copy in your buffer. Or simply open/re-open another posting page and paste in your copy. You could also save a copy in email draft or in Notepad or Word. You can always delete it after you've confirmed it's been posted. From s_ings at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 23:35:53 2007 From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:35:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <342697.21878.qm@web63402.mail.re1.yahoo.com> > > Sheryll: > > > > ... > > > > ... > > > > I'm curious about meat, though, being a serious > > carnivore. Do most people here buy their meat at a > > grocery store? What do you think of the quality? I > buy > > a cow every fall (with my mother and sister) and > have > > it butchered for the freezer. Usually a pig, too, > > ... > > > > Sheryll, eyeing her nearly empty freezer and > thinking > > it must be almost slaughtering time > > > > > bboyminn: > > Supermarket meat is a necessity for a bachelor like > me, > but the quality sucks. When beef hits the frying pan > and > you are overwhelmed by the smell of vitamins > cooking, you > can be pretty sure that cow was raised in a factory. > > Tyson Foods, I think is the worst. Nearly all their > cows, > pigs, and chickens come from factory/confinement > farms. > These animals are raised in tight confinement and > are > force feed massive quantities of vitamins and > antibiotic > just so they can survive their environment. > > Hormel is a little better. My brother likes their > beef > because it doesn't give off the strong vitamin smell > when he cooks it. Hormel has good pork too. In fact > one of the largest pork processing plants and SPAM > canning plants is only a few miles from here. > Sheryll: It's been a long time since I bought beef at a supermarket, hence my question. I hadn't realised that it would be so obvious to the consumer that the beef was factory raised, to the point of being able to tell by smell when cooking. Our beef in the supermarket is pretty generically marked, no company markings on the packaging, so it's hard for us to tell exactly where the beef is coming from (I'm in Ontario). bboyminn: > So, what's my point. You need to make sure who ever > butchers your cow or pig gets them from a /normal/ > farmer and not from a meat factory, or you really > haven't gained anything from it. Well, the price is > probably pretty nice, and having hamburger ground up > out of beef steak instead of beef scraps is pretty > nice. > But in terms of the quality of the meat, nothing > beats > non-factory raised animals. > > Note, I say 'non-factory' because you don't have to > go > as far as organic meat. Animals raise in a > traditional > blend of grazing and feeding are OK. > > If you want the best though, and can afford it, > natural > beef is pretty good. This isn't certified organic, > but > it is graze feed, low stressed animals, that are > only > treated with 'medications' for specific problems. > So, > for the most part, they are vitamin and antibiotic > free. > They are also much leaner than standard corn fed > cattle. > > Omaha Steaks, Creekstone Farms, La Cense Beef > (Montana) > are all good suppliers, but again they are NOT > cheap. > A quick search of the Internet for 'Natual Beef' > will > yield many sources. > Sheryll: Interestingly enough, I know exactly where and how my beef is raised. My mother can actually go out and look at the cows if she wants. We get our beef from a guy I went to high school with, lives right down the road from my parents. His are raised on a combination, as you mention, of grazing and feeding. Feeding being a bit of a necessity in Canadian winters. :) I would guess that for the most part Alain raises without unnecessary 'medications'. It's not a large farm and I'm guessing he's rolling in money. But I'm glad he makes a go of it and can provide local customers with good quality beef. Our pork, iirc, comes from someone at his recommendation, so I'm confident that it's equally well-raised. Thanks for information, always good to learn something new. Sheryll Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 14 23:53:12 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:53:12 -0000 Subject: Yahoo acting up? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol earlier: > > > > Is anyone else having problems with the pages at various Yahoo groups loading slowly and without the background colors? I realize that it's not an earth-shaking problem, but it's been going on for days. It's not my browser since it does the same thing whether I use Netscape 7.2, Netscape 9, or I.E. Mike responded: > Yep, it's been doing it on and off for the past couple of days, for me. I suppose the reason may be because they are trying to fix a different problem, though I don't know that. > > A bit of advice for any poster when these things are going on (actually, I practice this all the time): > > Copy your entire post before hitting Send. Then check to see it has been posted before overwriting that copy in your buffer. Or simply open/re-open another posting page and paste in your copy. You could also save a copy in email draft or in Notepad or Word. You can always delete it after you've confirmed it's been posted. > Carol again: Thanks, Mike. Glad to know it's not me or my computer! Carol, who accidentally sent a post too soon but hasn't lost anything but an e-mail message lately (knock on wood) From Schlobin at aol.com Thu Nov 15 01:22:41 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 01:22:41 -0000 Subject: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: <342697.21878.qm@web63402.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > Supermarket meat is a necessity for a bachelor like > > me, > > but the quality sucks. When beef hits the frying pan > > and > > you are overwhelmed by the smell of vitamins > > cooking, you > > can be pretty sure that cow was raised in a factory. > > > > Tyson Foods, I think is the worst. Nearly all their > > cows, > > pigs, and chickens come from factory/confinement > > farms. > > These animals are raised in tight confinement and > > are > > force feed massive quantities of vitamins and > > antibiotic > > just so they can survive their environment. > > > > Hormel is a little better. My brother likes their > > beef > > because it doesn't give off the strong vitamin smell > > when he cooks it. Hormel has good pork too. In fact > > one of the largest pork processing plants and SPAM > > canning plants is only a few miles from here. > > > Sheryll: > > It's been a long time since I bought beef at a > supermarket, hence my question. I hadn't realised that > it would be so obvious to the consumer that the beef > was factory raised, to the point of being able to tell > by smell when cooking. > > Our beef in the supermarket is pretty generically > marked, no company markings on the packaging, so it's > hard for us to tell exactly where the beef is coming > from (I'm in Ontario). > > bboyminn: > > So, what's my point. You need to make sure who ever > > butchers your cow or pig gets them from a /normal/ > > farmer and not from a meat factory, or you really > > haven't gained anything from it. Well, the price is > > probably pretty nice, and having hamburger ground up > > out of beef steak instead of beef scraps is pretty > > nice. > > But in terms of the quality of the meat, nothing > > beats > > non-factory raised animals. > > > > Note, I say 'non-factory' because you don't have to > > go > > as far as organic meat. Animals raise in a > > traditional > > blend of grazing and feeding are OK. > > > > If you want the best though, and can afford it, > > natural > > beef is pretty good. This isn't certified organic, > > but > > it is graze feed, low stressed animals, that are > > only > > treated with 'medications' for specific problems. > > So, > > for the most part, they are vitamin and antibiotic > > free. > > They are also much leaner than standard corn fed > > cattle. > > > > Omaha Steaks, Creekstone Farms, La Cense Beef > > (Montana) > > are all good suppliers, but again they are NOT > > cheap. > > A quick search of the Internet for 'Natual Beef' > > will > > yield many sources. > > We are very lucky in our county here in Northern California to have grass fed, mostly organic, cattle who graze happily.... The taste is SO much better than the other stuff, it's incredible.... We also have our own creamery, and lots and lots of wonderful veggies that never see the inside of a plastic bag... Susan From n2fgc at arrl.net Thu Nov 15 03:42:07 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:42:07 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: <728941.40439.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0JRJ0025C3MBEJ81@mta2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Well, I freely admit the lid of my crockpot cracked...so it really is a crackpot! It ended up in the trash several years ago. Now I have to resort to microwave or real cooking. Thank you, Costco, for all the wonderful things I can get which require little or no work! I only cook when I have my brother over to join us; otherwise, Art and I stick to frozen stuff or simple cookery. It's not the cooking I hate; it's the cleaning up. I never was or ever shall be domestically inclined. :-) Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From n2fgc at arrl.net Thu Nov 15 03:46:35 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:46:35 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] musical spoof: Harry Patter... In-Reply-To: <718859.50704.qm@web51905.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0JRJ00I903TSTHV0@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Oh, I truly wish I could! But Frisco is a long way from NJ. I remember a Star Trek thing called "HMS Trek-a-star" which was hilarious! Wish I could get all the lyrics for that one! Cheers, Lee :-) [Petra wrote]: | Lamplighters Music Theatre of San Francisco is having a | Gala / fundraiser: | | Harry Patter & the Willing Suspension of Disbelief | or | A Series of Unfortunate Musical Numbers | | It's a wacky musical spoof being staged just once at the | Herbst Theatre which for that one afternoon only will be | the Hogwash School of Witchery and Wizardcraft. Set to | the music of Sir Arthur Sullivan, the original lyrics may | make Sir William Gilbert turn in his grave or be the | stuff of filkers' dreams...you decide. | | http://www.lamplighters.org/news2.html | | Sunday, November 18, 2007, 4:00 PM curtains | | If anyone here is going (or wishes they can afford to | attend) let me know! | | Petra | a | n :) From n2fgc at arrl.net Thu Nov 15 03:53:22 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:53:22 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0JRJ001P6453F2X0@mta5.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> [Carol]: | My mother used to save bacon grease to give to the Navajos on the | reservation until she got a degree in nutrition and realized that she | was harming their health. [Lee]: My husband used to save bacon grease and put it into his dog's food in the winter time to keep the coat from drying out...it was effective. Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From n2fgc at arrl.net Thu Nov 15 04:11:16 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:11:16 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: <454524.67142.qm@web63403.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0JRJ00CSL4YW5GS0@mta1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> [Sheryll]: | I'm curious about meat, though, being a serious | carnivore. Do most people here buy their meat at a | grocery store? What do you think of the quality? [Lee]: Well, I don't eat pig, cow, or anything like that with four feet. I do eat poultry, fish, dairy and veggies. I find our local Stop-'N-Shop to be a bit lacking on quality and when I want excellent stuff, I go either to Whole Foods or Costco. Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 08:29:38 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:29:38 -0000 Subject: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: <454524.67142.qm@web63403.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Sheryll: > > I was raised that way, too. I have an aunt who eats > only stuff from her own garden all summer, with the > rare addition of meat. Bakes all her bread and > goodies. > > This was probably the first year since we bought this > house 10 years ago that I didn't plant a garden. Just > didn't have the time to tend it. That and a great deal > of procrastinating at the beginning of the season. > Nothing quite like going out the back door to get > salad fixings and such. Doddie here: I know that feeling..*heavy sigh* I always regret it around holiday time...but at times I don't miss all the work of canning, pickling etc. and baking of various squash breads..LOL As for meat...in my younger years my family bought "the cow" or "the pig" as you and yours do... Nowadays...at times I must resort to the grocery store...I still manage to fish or at least know those that do fish for salmon/trout etc....no local organic ranches or swine farms around so pork and beef I obtain mainly from grocery stores.. There are local dairys, and poultry farms organic and otherwise. I don't think I'd often go through all the extra trips and trouble if a couple of my kids didn't have severe allergies..(one who is allergic to numerous red dye's so when I do buy meat from a grocery store I have to be extremely careful and make sure the butcher is knowlegeable... I'm curious to know what with you and yours buying meat "off the hoof" so to speak; if you make your own sausage out of what you purchased? From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 08:46:34 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:46:34 -0000 Subject: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan wrote: > We are very lucky in our county here in Northern California to have > grass fed, mostly organic, cattle who graze happily.... > > The taste is SO much better than the other stuff, it's incredible.... > > We also have our own creamery, and lots and lots of wonderful veggies > that never see the inside of a plastic bag... > > Susan > Doddie: *heavy sigh* I miss living up there Susan and I know what you mean. I live in So. Cal.now..and there are only two grocery stores willing to buy local...and that do most of the butchering on premises... At least in Nor. Cal. I know that I could at least go to the ranch and buy from the rancher himself. Produce...a complete dream...citrus, pears, apples, nuts, lettuce of many varieties..I won't even get into the melons...great weather for great melons in No. Ca. I won't even get into pommegranites...and what outrageous prices they charge for pommegranite juice...one of the easiest fruit trees to maintain and one of the fruit trees it's cost effective to grow to fruit..not alot of water etc...and when the market's no good...can be stored for years.... Doddie, (who wants that fruit salad "real bad" right now...pink watermelon, yellow watermelon, green honeydew, orange cantelope, orange watermelon...I'm just drooling..) From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 08:55:28 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:55:28 -0000 Subject: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: <560153.89254.qm@web90401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Carol signed off: > > Carol, who thinks microwaveable bacon is the best invention of the > > last decade > > Kemper: > That has to be the grossest phrase I've read in the last decade... maybe longer or ever. Carol, instead of wasting bacon, I have a great meatloaf recipe that incorporates it. > Fat is flavor. And pig fat is delicious. > > Kemper Doddie here, Just because I just cannot resist...I have a recipe for meatloaf that includes microwave bacon....fat is flavor...blessed be the souls that try to make lowfat meatloaf..LOL...one think that can help is make a turkeyloaf...with ground chicken too...finely chop/dice microwave bacon into the ground meat...less fat..because it has already cooked off the bacon...but with flavor still present...which ground poultry often lacks... it works with sizzle lean or turkey bacon too...but these alternatives can be higher in fat than microwave bacon... > Doddie, (in her best homer voice..mmmmmmmmmmmmmm baco...doh I mean mmmmmmmmmm pig fat!...woohoo bring on the cracklin's) From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 09:21:33 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:21:33 -0000 Subject: Crackpot! - Salsa Chili In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > bboyminn: > > CrAckpot, I'm sure that was a typo, but you have to admit > it's funny...crackpot chili recipes. ;) > > I was making regular cooking pot chili one time and I tend > to improvise a bit around a basic recipe. I looked in the > refrigerator to see what I had, and saw Salsa. That seemed > like the perfect thing to put in chili. But the resulting > chili had a terribly overpowering vinegar taste to it that > resulted in my throwing away a whole pot of chili. > > So, do you use special Salsa, does the long cooking reduce > the vinegar taste, or do you just not mind the taste of > vinegar in this context? > > Just curious. Doddie: Actually, there's salsa fresh--what you find in the refridgerator section of the supermarket, and salsa...in jars(ala Pace Picante sauce) that are found on the shelves in the "mexican" or "foreign" aisle in your grocery store...you may be able to get away with fresh if you use whole dry beans in your recipie...but if you use beans from a can....no good...and if you make no bean chili.."fresh" salsa will be a disaster because the fat of the meat will absorb all the vinegar in the salsa..depending upon the amount(if/how/when the meat what marinated)...cilantro may countereffect this effect..but most likely the countermeasure of lime typically becomes so drastic that there is a bitter taste to the meat. Therefor, I'd imagine they are talking about a Jar of salsa off the grocery shelves as opposed the a canister of salsa from the refridgerated section.. Does this make any sense??? The only time I use the "refridgerated" salsa in my chili recipie is if I use a chuck roast/chuck steak as opposed to an butcher ground beef or poutry...I'll marinate the meat in said referidgerated salsa with sprigs of cilantro and some soy sauce added..I use ground meat for my convenience at home.. Doddiemoemoe (who cannot use most seasoning packets because my kids are allergic to so many things) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Nov 15 14:09:57 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:09:57 -0000 Subject: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: <949776.29128.qm@web63402.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Sheryll: > Jen, get over to Amanda's while I'm there. I've > promised to do some cooking for her and I'm sure one > more that table will be welcome. Though be warned I've > promised her healthy things. ;) > > Sheryll, who loves to cook because she loves to eat Oh, definitely! Any chance for Vietnamese food? That's healthy.;) Jen, who loves to eat as long as someone else is cooking. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 17:33:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:33:09 -0000 Subject: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol signed off: > > > > Carol, who thinks microwaveable bacon is the best invention of the last decade > > Kemper: > > That has to be the grossest phrase I've read in the last decade... maybe longer or ever. > Carol, instead of wasting bacon, I have a great meatloaf recipe that incorporates it. > > Fat is flavor. And pig fat is delicious. Doddie here, > > Just because I just cannot resist...I have a recipe for meatloaf that includes microwave bacon.... Carol: LOL, Doddie! If I ever make my mother's meatloaf recipe (getting past the raw meat thing or having someone else do that part), I'll try adding microwave bacon to mine. BTW, has anyone else tried adding raisins to meatloaf? It sounds strange, but it works. Raisins are also good in peanut butter sandwiches (made with honey rather than jelly or jam). And, apropos of nothing, drained canned corn, the only canned vegetable I can stand, is delicious in American-style pancakes (griddle cakes made from batter poured or ladled onto a griddle, if you're not American). Carol, thinking that she'll have a PB and R sandwich for lunch today instead of the usual grilled cheese sandwich or cheese crisp (quesadilla)--I exagerrated a *little* by limiting my meals to yogurt, fishsticks, and frozen dinners From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 17:40:44 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:40:44 -0000 Subject: Russian translation again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Alla wrote: > > > > So, and here I thought that the quality of russian translation > > imporved since OOP. > > > > Afraid I am not buying DH one, it is already hit NY stores. > > > > Zanooda told me that, so I went and flipped through pages. > > Mike: > That woman is a fount of information, isn't she? Alla: She is :) > > > Alla: > > Are you sitting down folks? > > > > Guess what Neville is teaching in Russian translation? > > > > POTIONS. > > Mike: > ::scratches head:: What did they say Prof. Sprout taught in the > previous books? > Alla: Herbology as far as I can remember. I guess Neville took Snape's spot ;) I know, I know, I think russian translator hates Snape as much as I do and wanted to punish him, so here ya go, Snape, boy whom you thought to be so inadequate in Potions actually is not. ;) I would love that to be in the book, heheeh. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 18:44:48 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:44:48 -0000 Subject: Russian translation again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla: > > Herbology as far as I can remember. I guess Neville took Snape's > spot ;) > > I know, I know, I think russian translator hates Snape as much as I > do and wanted to punish him, so here ya go, Snape, boy whom you > thought to be so inadequate in Potions actually is not. ;) > > I would love that to be in the book, heheeh. > Carol responds: Actually, he would have taken Slughorn's spot since Snape had swiched to DADA in HBP and headmaster in DH. I can't see Snape returning to teaching Potions if he had survived and been publicly vindicated. But it's really odd that the Russian translator didn't notice Neville's plant warfare in DH or his affinity for Herbology (specifically mentioned in relation to Crouch!Moody and the water plants book in GoF). Carol, who thinks that having Neville teach Potions would show that Snape managed to teach Neville Potions in spite of Neville's ineptitude and Snape's sniping, but, of course, it's just a weird misreading against the evidence of the text From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 15 19:39:11 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:39:11 -0000 Subject: Mary Renault books WAS: Re: Sex! Love! Writing! In-Reply-To: <8C9F444B0ABD147-A8C-64FE@webmail-md11.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: > Julie: > I too have read all of Mary Renault's novels set in Ancient Greece. In fact > I own them, as they are among my all-time favorites. I particularly loved > The Persian Boy (part of the Alexander trilogy) and The Praise Singer. She > was certainly a very gifted writer. > Alla: I will always love Fire from heaven the best - my heart wanted Alexander with Hepastion ( can never spell his name correctly) and not with anybody else. I also loved Last drop of vine ( read it in Russian) so much. She writes beatifully - language in Charioteer is so melodical, like a poetry, even if it is not set in ancient Greece, although obviously some allusions to mythology are made. If you have not read it, highly recommend. Hmmm. I do not think I read Praise singer, unless the russian name is very different, what is it about? From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 02:14:49 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:14:49 -0000 Subject: Russian translation again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > What did they say Prof. Sprout taught in the > previous books? It is interesting that you would ask this, Mike, because, even though Sprout taught Herbology in previous translations, they definitely have a problem with Herbology in the translation of DH :-). There is a moment when it seems that McGonagall has something to do with Herbology - remember the scene in "The Sacking of Severus Snape" where after Snape's flight (literally :-) the teachers decide what to to next? Sprout agrees to everything McGonagall says and goes away muttering about Tentacula, Devil's Snare and other plants to use in the battle. Well, in the translation the part where Sprout is mentioned is missing, so it is McGonagall who, after finishing her speach, runs away muttering about Tentacula and Devil's Snare. What happened to Sprout and where she disappeared I have no idea :-). From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 02:21:10 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:21:10 -0000 Subject: Russian translation again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Mike wrote: > > What did they say Prof. Sprout taught in the previous books? > zanooda responded: > It is interesting that you would ask this, Mike, because, even though Sprout taught Herbology in previous translations, they definitely have a problem with Herbology in the translation of DH :-). There is a moment when it seems that McGonagall has something to do with Herbology - remember the scene in "The Sacking of Severus Snape" where after Snape's flight (literally :-) the teachers decide what to to next? Sprout agrees to everything McGonagall says and goes away muttering about Tentacula, Devil's Snare and other plants to use in the battle. Well, in the translation the part where Sprout is mentioned is missing, so it is McGonagall who, after finishing her speach, runs away muttering about Tentacula and Devil's Snare. What happened to Sprout and where she disappeared I have no idea :-). > Carol adds: Aha! It's Professor Sprout, not Headmaster Snape, that the Russian translator of DH dislikes! Writing her and her subject out of the book and subsuming Herbololgy under Potions! Carol, winking at Alla and teasing her a little From s_ings at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 03:27:32 2007 From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:27:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <304257.22201.qm@web63414.mail.re1.yahoo.com> > Sheryll: > > Jen, get over to Amanda's while I'm there. I've > > promised to do some cooking for her and I'm sure > one > > more that table will be welcome. Though be warned > I've > > promised her healthy things. ;) > > > > Sheryll, who loves to cook because she loves to > eat > > Jen: > Oh, definitely! Any chance for Vietnamese food? > That's healthy.;) > > Jen, who loves to eat as long as someone else is > cooking. > Sheryll: You bet. I'll pack the cookbook. Hmmm... wonder how San Antonio is for ingredients. Doesn't matter, I can manage. Sheryll, who'll gladly cook if you and Amanda load the dishwasher after :) Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Fri Nov 16 04:39:49 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:39:49 EST Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) Message-ID: Carol: Do I dare confess that I mostly live on yogurt, fishsticks, and frozen dinners? It's not that I can't cook, it's that I don't see the point of cooking a real meal when I don't have company and could be doing something else (like composing elaborate posts for HPfGu). Sandy: I went from having four children and a husband to being all alone (kids grew up and moved out and my husband died), and most of the time I don't get home from work until around 9:30 p.m. The frozen food section of the supermarket I work at and my microwave have become my best friends. I do try to make a "real" meal on Sunday, usually meatloaf. When my Mom passed away last year I inherited her crockpot. I have learned to make a mean pot roast in it, as well as barbecued ribs. I was off yesterday and intended to make a pot roast, but I forgot to take it out of the freezer to thaw. Oh well. So, no, you're not alone. I have many more things I would rather be doing than standing over a hot stove. Furthermore, I really don't know how to cook for one, being used to cooking for so many. I made spaghetti and meat sauce last Sunday and wound up with a 5 quart dutch oven full of it. The racoons and possums around here have been eating very well this past week. Sandy ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Nov 16 05:35:47 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 05:35:47 -0000 Subject: Crackpot! (wasRe: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake, JKR as evil In-Reply-To: <979082.36134.qm@web52707.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > We also do a good pot roast, where you sear the meat quickly to lock in the juice, and then basically cover it in the crockpot with red wine, beef stock, and veggies of your choice and let it go on low for 6 hours. The beef will literally melt in your mouth. > > Enjoy!! Katie > > > . > > > > Hey, Katie..wanted you to know that we did this crock pot recipe! EXCELLENT! The kids loved it..we made it with carrots, potatoes and mushrooms..the mushrooms were SPECTACULAR....we added a ton of garlic....thanks for the recipe... We have this hilarious story...I like wine, but my partner mostly does not do alcohol...so I like cabernet sauvignon....and we were in one of those huge party stores, and in a piercing loud voice she said "Darling! The cabarets are over here!" (meaning the cabernets)... So I started dancing in the aisle singing "come to the caberet, old chum, come to the caberet..." (I actually didn't start dancing in the aisle).. Anyway, we thought we'd rename this recipe..Caberet Roast..what do you think? Vis a vis cooking... Back when I was single...I love food and always loved to cook, but every once in a while I would make coquille st. jacques, or beef wellington, or vegetarian lasagna (moosewood cook book), or three onion and cheese casserole, etc.... fun stuff that takes lots of time, but otherwise would go out to eat or get take out, etc. because I was working 70 hours a week... But then came the children, and we work hard not just to do meals, but nutritious and tasty meals that are not too expensive (June Cleaver here..am I dating myself again?)...so doing stuff that is not TOO time intensive... It's absolutely wonderful to live in a place with almost constant fresh, local produce...even in the winter, we get carrots, and onions....there is purple and green cauliflower, and vegetables that I never even heard of.. We're "behind the Redwood Curtain" so it's difficult to export the veggies..(although we export 90% of the oysters consumed in California)...during oyster season, you can get fresh oysters for fifty cents a piece....from the bay which is about 15 minutes from here....it's incredible..... Well, to all the other foodies out there...hi! Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Nov 16 05:41:12 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 05:41:12 -0000 Subject: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: <329458.96342.qm@web52702.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > I think cooking and baking are just in ya, or they aren't. I have been baking from the time I was a toddler, and grew up in family that never made anything from a mix and with a mother who baked fresh bread every weekend because she couldn't stand store-bought bread! And my hubby is from abig Italian family...so, we have cooking in the blood. > But, as I mentioned before, during the work-week, we live on bagels, cereal, fruit, and sandwiches...so the only time we get to cook is on weekends. : ( > Katie, whose dreams of being a chef were crushed by realizing how much money it costs to go to culinary school, but lives vicariously through "Top Chef" every season. ; ) > > Oh, yes and no.... By the way, for you microwavers....fresh fish can be made incredibly well in the microwave..put on some butter, and garlic and lemon if you want, and microwave it....you know, pan fish, like trout or cod..it's absolutely delicious in the microwave. I have to great gift for cooking..I'm not one of those great natural cooks...but if I have a really good recipe I can follow it and do it.. For example, if you have a nifty little pro food processor you can make chocolate mousse, or hollandaise sauce as easy as pie.... Susan . > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 18:29:28 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:29:28 -0000 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter]Oops, P.S. was: Crackpot! (wasRe: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake, JKR as evil In-Reply-To: <469168.79810.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > Katie: > We also do a good pot roast, where you sear the meat quickly to lock in the juice, and then basically cover it in the crockpot with red wine, beef stock, and veggies of your choice and let it go on low for 6 hours. The beef will literally melt in your mouth. zgirnius: That sounds yummy - what type of meat do you buy for this recipe? From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 18:34:41 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:34:41 -0000 Subject: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > bboyminn: > Omaha Steaks, Creekstone Farms, La Cense Beef (Montana) > are all good suppliers, but again they are NOT cheap. > A quick search of the Internet for 'Natual Beef' will > yield many sources. zgirnius: Depending on where you live, looking local can also work. I live in Missouri, in a college town surrounded by farmland. You can get meat at our farmer's market (and pick up the farmer's card, for winter when the market doesn't work). I imagine some of the cost of the national suppliers comes from the logistics of getting a highly perishable product from them to us. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 18:52:51 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:52:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter]Oops, P.S. was: Crackpot! (wasRe: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake, JKR as evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <989323.67919.qm@web52709.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I usually buy an eye roast or a round roast. Nothing fancy, but that slow cooking makes it so tender and tasty, you'd think it was a really expensive cut of meat! I usually go about 1/3 part beef stock, 1/3 part water, and 1/3 part red wine. I use lots of salt and pepper, too. Ooh, I hope you make it! I hope you love it! : ) Katie Zara wrote: > Katie: > We also do a good pot roast, where you sear the meat quickly to lock in the juice, and then basically cover it in the crockpot with red wine, beef stock, and veggies of your choice and let it go on low for 6 hours. The beef will literally melt in your mouth. zgirnius: That sounds yummy - what type of meat do you buy for this recipe? --------------------------------- Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 20:24:37 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:24:37 -0000 Subject: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "Zara" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > Omaha Steaks, Creekstone Farms, La Cense Beef (Montana) > > are all good suppliers, but again they are NOT cheap. > > A quick search of the Internet for 'Natual Beef' will > > yield many sources. > > zgirnius: > Depending on where you live, looking local can also work. I > live in Missouri, in a college town surrounded by farmland. > You can get meat at our farmer's market (and pick up the > farmer's card, for winter when the market doesn't work). > > I imagine some of the cost of the national suppliers comes > from the logistics of getting a highly perishable product > from them to us. > bboyminn: I too live in farm country, sunny southern Minnesota. We also have local small town meat markets that will sell locally raised meat. Which is why I was suggesting 'normal' meat, as opposed to Natural or Organic. Normal beef is raised on a more traditional blend of grazing and feed, and are usually superior to 'factory' farm beef. But for those who really want superior quality beef and other meats, it is not necessary to go all the way to very expensive 'organic' meat. Natural meat is about as good as you can get at a high but fair price. It is also healthier for you since the meat is both lean and tender. Plus it is higher in Omega-3 and Beta carotene. As a side note, most natural beef tends to be black angus, as apparently that is the preferred high end beef. Natural beef if not just killed, cut, and shipped; it is also dry aged and that takes time. One company I have been in contact with with respect to my export business is La Cense Beef (LaCenseBeef.com) in Dillon Montana. They seem to have made a serious commitment to raise natural stress-free 'clean' high end beef. A typcial package of steaks might contain - 2 x 9.5 oz. Ribeye Steaks 2 x 7.5 oz. New York Strip Steaks 2 x 7 oz. Top Sirloin Steaks 2 x 6.5 oz. Flat Iron Steaks Which would cost - $100.49, which in turn is in the vicinity of $25/pound; not cheap. Also, note that Natural beef is all vegetarian. These animals are NOT feed any meat scaps as are confinement raised cattle. Their diets are 100% vegetarian. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 16 20:33:44 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:33:44 -0000 Subject: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: bboyminn: > > Omaha Steaks, Creekstone Farms, La Cense Beef (Montana) are all good suppliers, but again they are NOT cheap. A quick search of the Internet for 'Natual Beef' will yield many sources. > > zgirnius: > Depending on where you live, looking local can also work. Carol responds: For a moment, I thought you meant that looking *like* a local can work if you want natural beef. "I'm a local, can't you tell? Give me some natural beef, please. Preferably free." Carol, not sure what a "local" looks like, at least in her cactus-filled neck of the woods (and, yes, I said that on purpose, just like "arid backwater" in an earlier post) From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Nov 16 20:46:28 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:46:28 -0000 Subject: Cooking for One or Two Re: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Sandy: Furthermore, I really don't know how to cook for one, being used to > cooking for so many. I made spaghetti and meat sauce last Sunday and wound up > with a 5 quart dutch oven full of it. The racoons and possums around here > have been eating very well this past week. > Pippin: We've gone from four to two. Not so drastic, but I've had to adjust. There's a lot I can do on the stove at once: hard boil eggs, make 4 cups of oatmeal at a time to reheat in the microwave, poach chicken breasts, then freeze the meat and the stock, while I've got half a pot roast (freeze the other half) in the oven. Anyone got any other tips? Pippin From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 22:01:51 2007 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:01:51 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Cooking for One or Two Re: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Pippin: > We've gone from four to two. Not so drastic, but I've had to adjust. There's > a lot I can do on the stove at once: > hard boil eggs, make 4 cups of oatmeal at a time to reheat in the microwave, > poach chicken breasts, then freeze the meat and the stock, while I've got half > a pot roast (freeze the other half) in the oven. > > Anyone got any other tips? Cooking for one or two is not so exciting. It makes most of my friends (most of us being recent college grads) not want to cook, especially those of us coming from families where our mothers cooked a lot of food at a time. For me, tips for cooking for one should always involve easily freezing some leftovers and making things that naturally serve 1 or 2. For example, I've taken to roasting cornish game hens - these, especially the small rock ones, serve only 1 or 2 people at most, and I didn't want to have to give up roast chicken just because I cook solely for me. Pies are now either foisted off onto friends or divided up into small tarts that can be frozen after I've consumed a few. Pancakes (my recipe makes 6 extremely fluffy ones) are packaged into small individual servings that make it easy to have breakfast during the week or frozen for when I want pancakes but don't want to make them. Bacon is bought then separated out into usable portions that get frozen until use. For me, as someone who cooks often (not so much in that I love doing it but I refuse to subsist on anything but good food), these are tips that I've taken to heart. Well, that and realizing that a normally expensive ingredient for a family of 4 or more can be an everyday ingredient for me - I can spend money on $25/lbs cheese because I need no more than 1/4 lbs, at most; I can spend $18/lbs on a pheasant because I don't need more than one of the things where you wouldn't want to buy enough pheasant to feed a family - these things help motivate me to cook. :) ~Ali From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 00:44:19 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:44:19 -0000 Subject: What's "Cor" mean Message-ID: I'm reading Lori Summer's second Paradigm of Uncertainty installment. She uses "Cor" as some kind of exclamation for her characters (well, JKR's characters mostly, with a few of her own added). What I want to know is what does it mean? Is it an elation, disgust, or what kind of utterance? And does anybody know if it derives from some word, like... I don't know... "correct" or something. By the by, is it used any more, or was it in vogue for a while and then fell out of vogue? (I've only read PoU, and parts of Cassie Clare's "Draco Dormiens", as far as fanfic goes. I just can't get into it.) Thanks, Mike From drdara at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 01:21:53 2007 From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:21:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) Message-ID: <335144.92737.qm@web60712.mail.yahoo.com> I usually do my roasts in teh crockpot 20-24 hrs, I start off high, then when i go to bed i turn it to low, and then turn it to high a couple of hours before eating. I just add water to the crockpot, then add some brown gravy packets mix, add roast add more water and cook it, and if possible when there is leftover gravy, i freeze some and use it for the next roast or when i make beef stew. Danielle ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Sat Nov 17 01:22:03 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:22:03 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] What's "Cor" mean In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA09971@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Mike: I'm reading Lori Summer's second Paradigm of Uncertainty installment. She uses "Cor" as some kind of exclamation for her characters (well, JKR's characters mostly, with a few of her own added). What I want to know is what does it mean? Is it an elation, disgust, or what kind of utterance? And does anybody know if it derives from some word, like... I don't know... "correct" or something. Sharon: it means "Wow", something that is really good and unexpected. I'm not sure of the derivation but I had always thought it was one of those expressions that didn't really start out as a word but is written as "Cor". Similar to "Ugh" I suppose. However if anyone DOES know its derivation (Carol??) I love to know as well. Mike: By the by, is it used any more, or was it in vogue for a while and then fell out of vogue? (I've only read PoU, and parts of Cassie Clare's "Draco Dormiens", as far as fanfic goes. I just can't get into it.) Sharon: I believe it's still in use in the UK, but don't wuote me on that! From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Nov 17 02:39:46 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 02:39:46 -0000 Subject: What's "Cor" mean In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA09971@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: > Sharon: > it means "Wow", something that is really good and unexpected. I'm not sure of the derivation but I had always thought it was one of those expressions that didn't really start out as a word but is written as "Cor". Similar to "Ugh" I suppose. However if anyone DOES know its derivation (Carol??) I love to know as well. > Pippin: It's supposed to be a corruption of "Gore blimey" which is in turn a corruption of "God blind me." It's an expression of surprise or wonder. I think it's still in use. Pippin cribbing from http://www.effingpot.com/slang.shtml From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 03:33:12 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:33:12 -0000 Subject: What's "Cor" mean In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Sharon: > > it means "Wow", something that is really good and unexpected. I'm > > not sure of the derivation but I had always thought it was one > > of those expressions that didn't really start out as a word but > > is written as "Cor". Similar to "Ugh" I suppose. However if > > anyone DOES know its derivation (Carol??) I love to know as > > well. > Pippin: > It's supposed to be a corruption of "Gore blimey" which is in turn > a corruption of "God blind me." It's an expression of surprise > or wonder. I think it's still in use. > > Pippin > cribbing from http://www.effingpot.com/slang.shtml Mike: Thanks to both of you. :) Could any of our British members or recent ex-pats say whether it's still in use? Sharon, are you an ex-pat? Is "Cor" used Down Under? Heck, is it used in the States for non-Brit characters? Mike, exhibiting his lack of knowledge on current parlances From Schlobin at aol.com Sat Nov 17 03:48:27 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 03:48:27 -0000 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter]Oops, P.S. was: Crackpot! (wasRe: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake, JKR as evil In-Reply-To: <989323.67919.qm@web52709.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Lambert wrote: > > I usually buy an eye roast or a round roast. Nothing fancy, but that slow cooking makes it so tender and tasty, you'd think it was a really expensive cut of meat! I usually go about 1/3 part beef stock, 1/3 part water, and 1/3 part red wine. I use lots of salt and pepper, too. > > Ooh, I hope you make it! I hope you love it! : ) Katie > > P.S. I added a bunch of garlic......Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Sat Nov 17 04:03:34 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:03:34 -0000 Subject: Mary Renault books WAS: Re: Sex! Love! Writing! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Julie: > > I too have read all of Mary Renault's novels set in Ancient Greece. > In fact > > I own them, as they are among my all-time favorites. I particularly > loved > > The Persian Boy (part of the Alexander trilogy) and The Praise > Singer. She > > was certainly a very gifted writer. > > > > Alla: > > I will always love Fire from heaven the best - my heart wanted > Alexander with Hepastion ( can never spell his name correctly) and > not with anybody else. > > I also loved Last drop of vine ( read it in Russian) so much. > > She writes beatifully - language in Charioteer is so melodical, like > a poetry, even if it is not set in ancient Greece, although obviously > some allusions to mythology are made. > > If you have not read it, highly recommend. > > Hmmm. I do not think I read Praise singer, unless the russian name is > very different, what is it about? > In English, The Last of the Wine...... Praise Singer is about the lyric poets. It's about a very ugly boy who grew up with a great gift for music and became one of the most famous lyric poets (Simonides). It focuses on the period in Ancient Greece before Pericles -- when Pistratos was the leader in Athens... Lots of lovely stuff about memorizing Homer...... I do also love the Persian Boy. The part where Bagoas ( says about Alexander..) "All I taught him that night, he thought that by some happy harmony of our souls, we were discovering together. So indeed, it seemed at least even to me." Susan From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Sat Nov 17 04:08:44 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:08:44 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: What's "Cor" mean In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA09973@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Mike: Sharon, are you an ex-pat? Is "Cor" used Down Under? Heck, is it used in the States for non-Brit characters? Sharon: I'm not an ex-pat, and we don't use it here at all. When I was little you might have heard "cor blimey' or just "blimey" but I never heard it said by itself as just "Cor". I hear it a lot on TV though -- I was brought up on british TV programs and still love them. And we use a lot of the British slang terms here --most of those on the list on the "best of British" site at least. Young people, however, are becoming very Americanised in their vocabulary now, so it's slowly dying out. Also almost everyone here has expat friends, so the slang words are still common enough, at least in my generation (Gen X). We also use British spelling. The Queen IS our head of state, after all, God love 'er... We call ex-pats "Poms" which has something to do with Pomeranian--not the dog type, but something to do with the military I believe? if anyone knows where that terms originates I would be most grateful. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 04:51:42 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:51:42 -0000 Subject: Lexicon Message-ID: What's up with the HP Lexicon. I just tried to go there and got a page can't be viewed. Is there something wrong with my computer or GOD FORBID, is it gone? I sure hope not. I hope that WB didn't do THAT!!! Where is the lexicon??? Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 04:54:21 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:54:21 -0000 Subject: Lexicon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > What's up with the HP Lexicon. I just tried to go there and got a page > can't be viewed. Is there something wrong with my computer or GOD > FORBID, is it gone? I sure hope not. I hope that WB didn't do THAT!!! > Where is the lexicon??? > > Tonks_op > Answering my own post. Must have been a temp. fluke or something. It is there now. At least when I went through a search engine instead of the favorites link. Had me scared there. All is well. Sorry guys. Tonks From catlady at wicca.net Sat Nov 17 05:09:34 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 05:09:34 -0000 Subject: What's "Cor" mean In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA09973@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes wrote: > > We call ex-pats "Poms" which has something to do with Pomeranian--not > the dog type, but something to do with the military I believe? if > anyone knows where that terms originates I would be most grateful. > I always heard that it was 'pommies' and meant 'Prisoners Of Mother England'. I have no idea why it would mean that. From predigirl1 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 05:23:33 2007 From: predigirl1 at yahoo.com (Alex Hogan) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:23:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Lexicon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <838286.34774.qm@web53008.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Could be shut down. I heard that JKR's publishers were not happy with their plans to publish a hard copy of said site. Alex Hogan Tonks wrote: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > What's up with the HP Lexicon. I just tried to go there and got a page > can't be viewed. Is there something wrong with my computer or GOD > FORBID, is it gone? I sure hope not. I hope that WB didn't do THAT!!! > Where is the lexicon??? > > Tonks_op > Answering my own post. Must have been a temp. fluke or something. It is there now. At least when I went through a search engine instead of the favorites link. Had me scared there. All is well. Sorry guys. Tonks --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Sat Nov 17 05:27:35 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:27:35 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: What's "Cor" mean In-Reply-To: References: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA09973@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au>, Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA09974@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Sharon> We call ex-pats "Poms" which has something to do with Pomeranian--not > the dog type, but something to do with the military I believe? if > anyone knows where that terms originates I would be most grateful. > I always heard that it was 'pommies' and meant 'Prisoners Of Mother England'. I have no idea why it would mean that. Sharon again: yes Pom is short for Pommie but I never heard of 'Prisoners of Mother England", Maybe it refers to the fact that Britain colonised Australia by sending out shiploads of convicts? From catlady at wicca.net Sat Nov 17 05:36:44 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 05:36:44 -0000 Subject: Umbridge / Blaise's mother / evil author / Snape Message-ID: Carol wrote in : << Actually my posts (I think there were two of them) postulated a connection between Dostoevky's doubly fiction Grand Inquisitor and Umbridge as High Inquisitor. No one responded. No doubt they thought I was insane for suggesting it--or, alternatively, had not read "The Brothers Karamzzov." the idea, briefly, is that both considered their tyranny to be for the good of those they ruled (Umbridge's view of the students as helpless children who need her friendship and guidance to see what she postulates as truth). When sweetness and feigned concern fail, apply the blood-letting quill--for the students's own good. (Or authorize whips and chains.) >> Of course I have often encounteried people speaking of Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, altho' I haven't read The Brothers Karamazov myself. Rowling is a much more literary person than I am and surely has read it. There probably was a connection between GRAND Inquisitor and HIGH Inquisitor in the back of her mind, but I guess your question is whether there was a connection in the front of her mind. I'm not qualified to discuss whether the Grand Inquisitor was sincere, but I feel quite sure that Umbridge was NOT sincere about having the best intentions for the Hogwarts students. She did NOT think they were 'helpless children' or she wouldn't have been afraid of their army. If she hadn't been afraid of their army, she wouldn't have worked so hard to prevent them from learning hands-on magic. I suppose if she had really believed that Voldemort had returned, she wouldn't have tried prevent everyone from resisting him ... unless she was secretly negotiating with him (perhaps through Lucius, who hadn't been captured at the Dept of Mysteries yet) and had been promised a reward for being the inside mole! Assuming that she wasn't working for Voldemort, I don't actually know for whom she was working. Could she have possibly believed that keeping Fudge in power while doing down Dumbledore was for the good of the wizarding nation? Easier to think that she cared for what was good for Fudge rather than for what was good for the community -- devoting herself to furthering Fudge's career, in a sublimation of romantic & erotic love much like Bellatrix's for Voldemort. Or did she merely use Fudge to get herself the power to sic Dementors on people and use Cruciatis on people? Carol wrote in : << wondering why Blaise's mother's reputation would cause Slughorn to want to "collect" her son >> She's wealthy and famously beautiful and a celebrity. She probably hangs out with other wealthy celebrities being reported on the Society page as well as the gossip column. Probably all the British wizarding folk who don't hang out with her share your and my belief that she murdered all those husbands (and probably Confunded the ones after the first two or three, or else they were stupidly trusting). I gather they get much pleasure from mentioning it to each other in hints and euphemisms. By the way, this goes along with my over-used old opinion that the wizarding folk view good and evil as matters for each wizard's private conscience; each wizard can choose which he prefers. I usually say that when asserting that most wizards would consider Arthur's objections to Lucius's Dark Magic to be a bit fanatic and intolerant, but now I'm saying that most wizards view a few murders as a private conflict between the murderer on one hand and the Department of Magical Law Enforcement and the victim's bereaved ones on the other. Like A can be friends with both B and C even tho' B and C currently hate each other, because the B and C conflict is a private conflict that no one else has to take sides in. It's easier to view murder that way when she only kills her husbands -- her bridge partners and tennis opponents need not fear for their own lives. Mike wrote in : << anybody that makes the argument that JKR is evil, I'm going to dismiss as giving themselves too much credit in the ability to read minds. >> Well, look, I surely don't think she's evil, but suppose someone said that her writing deliberately spreads the message that people should use their own judgment about what is good and what is evil instead of just believing whatever an authority tells them about what is good and what is evil, and deliberately spreads the message that people should do what they believe is good and avoid doing what they believe is evil, even if that means disobeying an authority, and that is an evil message, and therefore she is evil for spreading an evil message. I don't think it takes mind reading to see that message about 'choosing to do what is right' while dissing Professors and Ministers of Magic. I don't think it takes mind reading to see that that message was put there on purpose. I don't think mind reading has anything to do with the opinion that people who deliberately spread evil messages are evil people regardless of how polite or whatever they are in person. That's not the same thing that Carol was complaining about, because this hypothetical person didn't say they didn't enjoy reading and re-reading the books just because the author is proselytizing an evil belief. Carol wrote in : << Actually, he would have taken Slughorn's spot since Snape had swiched to DADA in HBP and headmaster in DH. I can't see Snape returning to teaching Potions if he had survived and been publicly vindicated. >> If he'd survived and been publically vindicated, he would have been offered to keep the Headmaster position as long as he wanted. From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Sat Nov 17 05:36:27 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:36:27 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: What's "Cor" mean In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA09974@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> References: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA09973@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au>,,<3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA09974@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA09975@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Sharon> We call ex-pats "Poms" which has something to do with Pomeranian--not > the dog type, but something to do with the military I believe? if > anyone knows where that terms originates I would be most grateful. > I always heard that it was 'pommies' and meant 'Prisoners Of Mother England'. I have no idea why it would mean that. Sharon again: yes Pom is short for Pommie but I never heard of 'Prisoners of Mother England", Maybe it refers to the fact that Britain colonised Australia by sending out shiploads of convicts? Sharon, yet again answering myself: I found this website where it states that pommie is short for pomegranate- -referring to the fact that Anglo-British immigrants all had very fair skin and burnt easily in the harsh Australian sun. Anglo-Aussies tend to be more tanned, even the fair ones. http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pom1.htm From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Nov 17 07:44:03 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 07:44:03 -0000 Subject: What's "Cor" mean In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > Sharon: > > it means "Wow", something that is really good and unexpected. I'm not sure of the > derivation but I had always thought it was one of those expressions that didn't really start out > as a word but is written as "Cor". Similar to "Ugh" I suppose. However if anyone DOES know > its derivation (Carol??) I love to know as well. > > > > Pippin: > It's supposed to be a corruption of "Gore blimey" which is in turn a corruption > of "God blind me." It's an expression of surprise or wonder. I think it's still in use. > > Pippin > cribbing from http://www.effingpot.com/slang.shtml Geoff: I'm coming in late because interesting threads always start when I'm asleep- it's that dratted time difference again!!! Expanding on your answer, 'cor' is indeed usually associated with 'cor blimey' and is very much a Cockney expression. Having moved to London at the tender age of nine and remained there until about thirteen years ago, I experienced a lot of Cockney slang and idiomatic usage. You rarely hear 'gore blimey' although 'blimey' on its own is fairly common and 'cor luv a duck', mentioned in your link, is very much confined to elderly native Londoners. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 08:12:14 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:12:14 -0000 Subject: Umbridge / Blaise's mother / evil author / Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Carol wrote in : << wondering why Blaise's mother's reputation would cause Slughorn to want to "collect" her son >> > > Catlady: > > By the way, this goes along with my over-used old opinion that the > wizarding folk view good and evil as matters for each wizard's > private conscience; each wizard can choose which he prefers. I > usually say that when asserting that most wizards would consider > Arthur's objections to Lucius's Dark Magic to be a bit fanatic > and intolerant, but now I'm saying that most wizards view a few > murders as a private conflict between the murderer on one hand > and the Department of Magical Law Enforcement and the victim's > bereaved ones on the other. Mike: I'd say that this would be Voldemort's view on the matter, especially after he has control of the DMLE. I don't think not having the courage to stick ones nose in is the same as saying one doesn't have a vested interest in seeing justice done to the murderer. The fact that the WW has a pathetic response to Voldemort, doesn't mean they don't care what's happening to their world, imo. I believe Kingsley's comment about every life being valuable was more mainstream in the WW than dear Delores' attitude. > Catlady: > Like A can be friends with both B and C even tho' B and C currently > hate each other, because the B and C conflict is a private conflict > that no one else has to take sides in. It's easier to view murder > that way when she only kills her husbands -- her bridge partners > and tennis opponents need not fear for their own lives. Mike: I know this is OTC, but have you got a canon example of this phenomena? Could you possibly be referring to Fudge and his acceptance of both Arthur and Lucius into his World Cup box? Because then I'd have to say, well, that's Fudge. He introduces them to each other as if Arthur and Lucius have only a passing acquaintance. That would make him clueless, not accepting of their conflict as a private matter. > > Mike wrote in : << anybody that makes the argument that JKR is evil, I'm going to dismiss as giving themselves too much credit in the ability to read minds. >> > Catlady: > Well, look, I surely don't think she's evil, but suppose someone > said that her writing deliberately spreads the message that people > should use their own judgment about what is good and what is evil > instead of just believing whatever an authority tells them about > what is good and what is evil, and deliberately spreads the message > that people should do what they believe is good and avoid doing > what they believe is evil, even if that means disobeying an > authority, and that is an evil message, and therefore she is evil > for spreading an evil message. Mike: Oh, can this one be multiple choice? a. This person has a serious problem b. This person would have loved Joseph Stalin c. This person thought Voldemort has the right idea, even now d. This person doesn't seperate their laundry before washing Which do you think? > Catlady: > I don't think it takes mind reading to see that message about > 'choosing to do what is right' while dissing Professors and > Ministers of Magic. Mike: Well, yeah, after all the exact quote is: "Remember, if the time should come when you have to make the choice between what is right and what is easy,..." I kind of think this eliminated pretty much any need for mind reading to get that message. > Catlady: > I don't think it takes mind reading to see that that message > was put there on purpose. Mike: Yeah, it was my guess that JKR did mean to write that, too. > Catlady: > I don't think mind reading has anything to do with the opinion > that people who deliberately spread evil messages are evil > people regardless of how polite or whatever they are in person. Mike: Was your first paragraph your example of how JKR was spreading an evil message? Because, if that's your basis for this last sentence, I guess I'm missing the connection (to say the least). So here's mundane me stuck on the notion that anyone that calls JKR herself evil has jumped off the diving board before checking if the pool had water in it. > Catlady: > That's not the same thing that Carol was complaining about, because > this hypothetical person didn't say they didn't enjoy reading and > re-reading the books just because the author is proselytizing an > evil belief. Mike: What you've got yourself here is a double negative, with a adjunct clause on the end. You're gonna need a part number 4NK8 stroke WTF to fix that, and supply is all out of them at the moment. Meaning, I am at a loss as to what this sentence is saying. Who's proselytizing an evil belief? Or is that part of this hypothetical person's hypothetical belief? From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 08:44:33 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:44:33 -0000 Subject: What's "Cor" mean / Poms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/34336 > Mike: > Could any of our British members or recent ex-pats say > whether it's still in use? Goddlefrood: It is still in use, but you'll go a long way to hear it. One of my peers at University used it quite regularly; he was from sarf London. In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/34345 > > Sharon: > > We call ex-pats "Poms" which has something to do with > > Pomeranian--not the dog type, but something to do with > > the military I believe? if anyone knows where that terms > > originates I would be most grateful. > Catlady: > I always heard that it was 'pommies' and meant 'Prisoners Of > Mother England'. I have no idea why it would mean that. Goddlefrood: This is the one I always knew it as too, it being an ironic reference by the Australians to their beginnings as a colony. While they might have been convicts, those that remained behind were the real prisoners. In: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/34346 > Sharon > I found this website where it states that pommie is short for > pomegranate-referring to the fact that Anglo-British immigrants > all had very fair skin and burnt easily in the harsh Australian > sun. Anglo-Aussies tend to be more tanned, even the fair ones. > http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pom1.htm Goddlefrood: Whoever wrote that must be having a laugh, it's about as likely as Pomeranian. Mind you, the Americans call us limeys, so there could be something in the fruit link. I must say I doubt it. I am no longer a pom myself, having left the benighted isle. From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Sat Nov 17 09:20:04 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:20:04 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: What's "Cor" mean / Poms In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA09978@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Goddlefrood: Whoever wrote that must be having a laugh, it's about as likely as Pomeranian. Mind you, the Americans call us limeys, so there could be something in the fruit link. I must say I doubt it. I am no longer a pom myself, having left the benighted isle. Sharon: Now I KNOW that LIMEY comes from the long sea voyage where they had to eat limes to stave off scurvey. I learned that in Primary school :-) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 09:24:27 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 09:24:27 -0000 Subject: ... / evil author /...: The Garden of Good and Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > ... > > Mike wrote in > : > > << anybody that makes the argument that JKR is evil, I'm going > to dismiss as giving themselves too much credit in the ability > to read minds. >> > Catlady: > > Well, look, I surely don't think she's evil, but suppose > someone said that her writing deliberately spreads the > message that people should use their own judgment about what > is good and what is evil instead of just believing whatever > an authority tells them about what is good and what is evil, > and deliberately spreads the message that people should do > what they believe is good and avoid doing what they believe > is evil, even if that means disobeying an authority, and that > is an evil message, and therefore she is evil for spreading > an evil message. > > .... bboyminn: Wow, this is one of those extremely rare occasions when I have to thoroughly disagree with the great Catlady. I think you are wholly mistaken in this assertion of 'evil'. First of all the correct subject should not be good vs evil, it should be legal vs illegal. Laws are, or at least can be corrupt, governments can be corrupt, political and social leaders can be corrupt, motives can be corrupt. It is the duty, and in the USA the right, of every citizen to oppose that corruption. In that sense, to challenge authority is to recognize evil and challenge it. But, you need some fundamental measure by which authority can be challenged. In the USA, politically, that standard is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Whenever government acts in a way that violate or corrupts those founding principles, the citizens have the right of subversion and armed revolution, but only to restore the Constitution and preserve the Bill of Rights. Those acts are not evil, they are the safeguards built into our government. To put it simply, unchallenged authority is tyranny. Only when authority CAN BE challenged do we have a hope of liberty. Further, and this has been discussed before, taking a stand of higher moral ground overrides law and politics. Again, for most Americans, religion is the foundation of moral guidance. If the government tells you to do something that you know is morally wrong, even if it isn't illegal, you have a moral obligation to challenge that request. But, if you are anything other than Catholic, you have an obligation, right, and duty to also challenge religious authority. That is not evil, that is the path to salvation. Religious bureaucracy can become just as corrupt as political, social, and business bureaucracy, and when that happens, the only available recourse for correcting that corruption it for citizens to firmly challenge that authority. Challenging authority is not evil; it is a right and a moral duty. At least it is in any free society. Perhaps, I misunderstood what you were saying, because what I heard you say goes against all moral imperatives that I understand. Sorry, usually, you are right on the money in your comments. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Nov 17 13:02:14 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:02:14 -0000 Subject: What's "Cor" mean / Poms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: Mike: > > Could any of our British members or recent ex-pats say > > whether it's still in use? Goddlefrood: > It is still in use, but you'll go a long way to hear it. One of > my peers at University used it quite regularly; he was from sarf > London. Geoff: My eldest son, who, like all my family, grew up in SW18, calls it "Sarf Lunnon". Sharon: > > I found this website where it states that pommie is short for > > pomegranate-referring to the fact that Anglo-British immigrants > > all had very fair skin and burnt easily in the harsh Australian > > sun. Anglo-Aussies tend to be more tanned, even the fair ones. > > http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pom1.htm Goddlefrood: > Whoever wrote that must be having a laugh, it's about as likely > as Pomeranian. Mind you, the Americans call us limeys, so there > could be something in the fruit link. I must say I doubt it. > > I am no longer a pom myself, having left the benighted isle. Geoff: For information, we get plenty of daylight on Exmoor... I have heard that the name "Limeys" is derived from Lime Street, one of the principal streets in Liverpool. Many people emigrating to the US in past years sailed from the docks here. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 14:58:43 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:58:43 -0000 Subject: Umbridge / Blaise's mother / evil author / Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Catlady: > I don't think mind reading has anything to do with the opinion > that people who deliberately spread evil messages are evil > people regardless of how polite or whatever they are in person. Mike: Was your first paragraph your example of how JKR was spreading an evil message? Because, if that's your basis for this last sentence, I guess I'm missing the connection (to say the least). So here's mundane me stuck on the notion that anyone that calls JKR herself evil has jumped off the diving board before checking if the pool had water in it. Alla: Heeee, me too Mike, but without reading Catlady's mind ;) I would like to venture a guess ( and I could be wrong) that she may have wanted us to find holes indeed in this hypothetical justification for calling JKR's evil. I could be wrong as I said, but here is mine, Catlady :) I do not think that even if what you described may count as evil message, I do not think it follows that JKR deliberately spreads them, tee hee. Something put in the story on purpose does not equal deliberately spreading it. I think it still requires a mind reading to figure out for WHAT purpose message was put in the story :) Alla. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Nov 17 15:13:36 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:13:36 -0000 Subject: What's "Cor" mean / Poms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > In: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/34346 > > > Sharon > > I found this website where it states that pommie is short for > > pomegranate-referring to the fact that Anglo-British immigrants > > all had very fair skin and burnt easily in the harsh Australian > > sun. Anglo-Aussies tend to be more tanned, even the fair ones. > > http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pom1.htm > > Goddlefrood: > > Whoever wrote that must be having a laugh, it's about as likely > as Pomeranian. Mind you, the Americans call us limeys, so there > could be something in the fruit link. I must say I doubt it. > > I am no longer a pom myself, having left the benighted isle. Magpie: Pomegranate was the definition I heard years ago--I think on some TV show about language. So I always thought that was the reason until now, but I like yours better. Not sure which one's true, though. Just because something sounds dumb doesn't necessarily mean it's not true-- as you point out, limey's based on fruit too! -m (who has had a Pomeranian and she didn't have a particularly British temperment) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Nov 17 15:15:24 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:15:24 -0000 Subject: What's "Cor" mean / Poms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Geoff: > For information, we get plenty of daylight on Exmoor... > > I have heard that the name "Limeys" is derived from Lime Street, one > of the principal streets in Liverpool. Many people emigrating to the US > in past years sailed from the docks here. Magpie: No, I believe Sharon's right. It referred to sailors eating fruit like limes to ward off scurvy on long sea voyages. I always think of the name as kind of complimentary given that--smart move on their part! -m From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Nov 17 22:00:25 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 22:00:25 -0000 Subject: What's "Cor" mean / Poms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Magpie: Pomegranate was the definition I heard years ago--I think on some TV show about language. So I always thought that was the reason until now, but I like yours better. Not sure which one's true, though. Just because something sounds dumb doesn't necessarily mean it's not true--as you point out, limey's based on fruit too! Goddlefrood: Conversely I'd never heard about the potential pomegranate link until Sharon brought it up here. There's a number of sites claiming that to be the correct etymology and another school of thought giving the POME acronym (Prisoner of Mother England). The way I explained it to myself before the Internet came along to muddy the waters always made sense to me. Just remember that on the entry visa form for Australia when answering the question: "Do you have a criminal record?", there is no longer a need for one. (Just a gentle tease for our Australian friends). > > Geoff: > > I have heard that the name "Limeys" is derived from Lime > > Street, one of the principal streets in Liverpool. Many > > people emigrating to the US in past years sailed from the > > docks here. Goddlefrood: I agree with Magpie and Sharon that this one is most definitely from the eating of limes on the transatlantic voyages to stave off disease. Lime Street was quite a way inland last time I looked. They'd be called Victorianies, or something, if the name came from Liverpool's docks. From juli17 at aol.com Sun Nov 18 01:23:11 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 20:23:11 EST Subject: Mary Renault books WAS: Re: Sex! Love! Writing! Message-ID: > Alla: > > I will always love Fire from heaven the best - my heart wanted > Alexander with Hepastion ( can never spell his name correctly) and > not with anybody else. > > I also loved Last drop of vine ( read it in Russian) so much. > > She writes beatifully - language in Charioteer is so melodical, like > a poetry, even if it is not set in ancient Greece, although obviously > some allusions to mythology are made. > > If you have not read it, highly recommend. > > Hmmm. I do not think I read Praise singer, unless the russian name is > very different, what is it about? > Susan: In English, The Last of the Wine...... Praise Singer is about the lyric poets. It's about a very ugly boy who grew up with a great gift for music and became one of the most famous lyric poets (Simonides). It focuses on the period in Ancient Greece before Pericles -- when Pistratos was the leader in Athens... Lots of lovely stuff about memorizing Homer...... I do also love the Persian Boy. The part where Bagoas ( says about Alexander..) "All I taught him that night, he thought that by some happy harmony of our souls, we were discovering together. So indeed, it seemed at least even to me." Julie: The Persian Boy is my other favorite, though I love Fire from Heaven too. And I've always loved rereading the Theseus books, The King Must Die and Bull from the Sea. I find my collection of Mary Renault novels amusing, since they range from a used 1953 Giant Cardinal edition of Bull from the Sea, to a hardback 1978 Pantheon edition of The Praise Singer to the 1982 Pinnacle edition of Funeral Games (her last novel, and not one of my favorites given the story's dark nature--the fight over Alexander's empire after his death which led to a number of murders in the struggle for power, not the least of which were the murders of his two young sons). It's a hodgepodge collection, to say the least! Julie ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Nov 18 02:38:29 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 02:38:29 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter chili (was [HPFGU-OTChatter]Oops, P.S. was: Crackpot! In-Reply-To: <469168.79810.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Kathryn Lambert wrote: > > ***Katie: My hubby and I love to make chili in our crockpot. We put in about 1 pound of ground beef (***forgot to mention in my first post that the ground beef has to be fully cooked before putting in the crockpot! Oops!***), 3 cans of kidney beans (drained), 1 can of pinto beans (drained), 1 16 oz can of stewed tomatoes, and about a cup of salsa. Then add a little water, maybe a 1/4 to a 1/2 cup, and season to taste with chili powder, peppers, and salt and pepper. Put it on low for 6 - 8 hours and it is sooooo yum. Potioncat: I made the chili this week and it was a big hit. My son calls it "Harry Potter Chili" and wants me to make it again next week. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 18 04:49:50 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 04:49:50 -0000 Subject: Russian translation again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Carol adds: > > Aha! It's Professor Sprout, not Headmaster Snape, that the Russian > translator of DH dislikes! Writing her and her subject out of the book > and subsuming Herbololgy under Potions! > > Carol, winking at Alla and teasing her a little > Alla: Sticks a tongue at Carol. But after what Mila wrote, I may start to think that yes, poor professor Sprout is not worthy for russian translator to paya ttention to. It is such a shame though. As I mentioned to someone before, russian translators did some truly amasing jobs on some classical works. I always bring up "The Demolished man" by Alfred Bester as one of the most amasing work of translation I have ever encountered. And Bester plays with english language in so many cool ways and russian translator shows it so perfectly. OMG, it is such a shame that they did not think that Harry Potter is worth to translate well. Nope, no russian DH for me. Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Nov 18 13:41:10 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:41:10 -0000 Subject: Russian translation again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Alla: > > Sticks a tongue at Carol. > > But after what Mila wrote, I may start to think that yes, poor > professor Sprout is not worthy for russian translator to paya > ttention to. Potioncat: I can't get the vision out of my mind. Some unknown Head of Hogwarts saying to Neville, "Let's start you off teaching Potions" followed by Snape actually coming out of his portrait to trottle the witch/wizard. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 18 16:02:11 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:02:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter]Oops, P.S. was: Crackpot! (wasRe: Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake, JKR as evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <899297.98767.qm@web52703.mail.re2.yahoo.com> susanmcgee48176 wrote: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Lambert wrote: > > I usually buy an eye roast or a round roast. Nothing fancy, but that slow cooking makes it so tender and tasty, you'd think it was a really expensive cut of meat! I usually go about 1/3 part beef stock, 1/3 part water, and 1/3 part red wine. I use lots of salt and pepper, too. > > Ooh, I hope you make it! I hope you love it! : ) Katie > > P.S. I added a bunch of garlic......Susan ***Katie: Hmmm. I love garlic. Sounds yummy! I do like to sautee the roast in olive oil and garlic before I put it in the pot...but I've never used the agrlic actually in the crock before. Sounds great! . --------------------------------- Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sun Nov 18 16:44:06 2007 From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com) Date: 18 Nov 2007 16:44:06 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 11/18/2007, 11:00 am Message-ID: <1195404246.10.7011.m48@yahoogroups.com> Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal Weekly Chat Sunday November 18, 2007 11:00 am - 12:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Schlobin at aol.com Sun Nov 18 19:16:42 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:16:42 -0000 Subject: Cranberry Relish/Harry Potter Stew In-Reply-To: <899297.98767.qm@web52703.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Lambert wrote: > > susanmcgee48176 wrote: --- In HPFGU- OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Lambert > wrote: > > > > I usually buy an eye roast or a round roast. Nothing fancy, but that > slow cooking makes it so tender and tasty, you'd think it was a really > expensive cut of meat! I usually go about 1/3 part beef stock, 1/3 part > water, and 1/3 part red wine. I use lots of salt and pepper, too. > > > > Ooh, I hope you make it! I hope you love it! : ) Katie > > > > > > P.S. I added a bunch of garlic......Susan > > > ***Katie: Hmmm. I love garlic. Sounds yummy! I do like to sautee the roast in olive oil and garlic before I put it in the pot...but I've never used the agrlic actually in the crock before. Sounds great! > > > . I think we'll call it Harry Potter stew.....I just dump in a ton of garlic...our mainstay..keeps away the werewolves, you know... Okay, anyone got a recipe for cranberry relish? Susan From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Nov 18 19:37:49 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:37:49 -0000 Subject: Yahoo mail time stamps - how to read Message-ID: Does anyone understand how to read the time that an e-mail message comes in? I had a long chat session with someone from Yahoo and know no more than when I started. I figure that someone here, maybe Steve, might know the answer better than they do. If when I look at the inbox it says 11-9-07 and when I open the e-mail it says 11-10-07. Why is that? The message came from somone in Europe. And what does 7:50:33 +0300, mean in real English for someone in the EST time zone? Another message sent from the U.S. says 6:35:55 -0500. What does THAT mean in real English for someone in the Eastern Time Zone? The person at Yahoo could not give me a straight answer. They kept saying that they were not in my time zone, Yahoo is in the PST time zone and so this idiot could not help me. I am sure someone here can. Help! Thanks. Tonks_op From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 18 21:27:37 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:27:37 -0000 Subject: Yahoo mail time stamps - how to read In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Tonks_op > > If when I look at the inbox it says 11-9-07 and when I open the > e-mail it says 11-10-07. Why is that? > The message came from somone in Europe. > And what does 7:50:33 +0300, mean in real English for someone > in the EST time zone? Mike: The 11-10-07 and 7:50:33 +0300 Did you also see "(EET)" after the +0300 ? You should have. That would mean "Eastern Europe Time" and the time stamp "7:50:33" was their time of transmission, on the 10th of Nov. So, the +0300 is the difference from GMT (British Time), they are 3 hours ahead of England. You, in the Eastern US Time Zone, the -0500 (EST), are 5 hours behind British Time. That make you a total of 8 hours behind your friend in Eastern Europe. Which means they transmitted that message at 23:50:33 <11:50pm> on the 9th of Nov., Your Time. Capisca? > Another message sent from the U.S. says 6:35:55 -0500. > What does THAT mean in real English for someone in the Eastern > Time Zone? For you, same Bat time, same Bat channel. You're both in the same time zone, both 5 hrs behind British Time (GMT). Hope that helps (and hope that's right. If it isn't, I'm sure Steve will correct me) ;) Mike From zanelupin at yahoo.com Sun Nov 18 22:32:38 2007 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:32:38 -0000 Subject: Anybody got any tips for driving from New Haven to Philadelphia? Message-ID: Hi Everyone, I'm driving from Connecticut to Philadelphia next Saturday afternoon to see They Might Be Giants perform at the TLA. I haven't been to Philadelphia before and driving around unfamilar places scares me. The idea of driving around large, unfamilar cities in the dark makes me feel panicky. So, before I flip out and do a pre-trip drive down there, using up time and gas, does anyone have any advice about the drive(I've already been advised not to drive through New York City, which I wasn't planning on doing if I could help it, anyway)? Most importantly, does anybody have any helpful tips for driving and parking in Philadelphia on a Saturday night on a holiday weekend? Various websites list different lots and street parking nearby but what are the chances a 50-space parking lot will have open spots? Should I be looking for some ginormous parking garage further away from the venue? I really don't want to spend a lot of time driving around the city trying to find parking. I want to get to the venue as soon as I can. How easy is it to get around the area on foot? Will I feel really freaked out walking back to my car at midnight or later? Thanks for any and all help! KathyK, who would leave early in the morning on Saturday if she could to avoid all the worry but has to work until 3 From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Sun Nov 18 22:58:00 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:58:00 +1000 Subject: Fan Fiction questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AD9FA72@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Hi All, I am currently writing a scholarly paper on fan fiction and as part of that am conducting some research into who reads and/or writes fan faction and why. if anyone out there is interested in completing a short survey I would greatly appreciate their assistance, and would be more than happy to provide a copy of the final paper. I am particularly interested in slash fiction, but would also like to hear from anyone who reads/writes fan fiction. If you'd like to contribute, please cute and paste the following questions and email directly to me at s.hayes at qut.edu.au. I don't intend any of the questions to be offensive; please feel free to answer just those you want to. I have put my affiliation below as proof of my sincerity (ie I am not using this for any purpose other than academic). 1. What is your age? 2. What is your gender? 3. What is your Marital Status? 4. What is your sexual orientation? 5. What is the highest level of education you have? 6. What is your occupation? 7. How often do you read fan faction? 8. What kinds of fan fiction do you enjoy? 9. Why do you like fan faction? 10. If you are a shipper, which ships do you prefer? 11. Do you prefer slash fiction or straight fan fiction? 12. If you prefer slash fiction, why? (I know that's a difficult one!) 13. Do you write fan faction? Please indicate whether slash or straight. (I would also appreciate links to your work) 14. if you write fan fiction, what do you get out of it? Thanks in advance, Sharon Hayes School of Justice Queensland Unviersity of Technology Brisbane, Qld 4000 Australia. http://www.law.qut.edu.au/staff/jsstaff/shayes.jsp [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Sun Nov 18 23:07:48 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:07:48 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Yahoo mail time stamps - how to read In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AD9FA92@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Tonks: If when I look at the inbox it says 11-9-07 and when I open the e-mail it says 11-10-07. Why is that? The message came from somone in Europe. And what does 7:50:33 +0300, mean in real English for someone in the EST time zone? Another message sent from the U.S. says 6:35:55 -0500. What does THAT mean in real English for someone in the Eastern Time Zone? The person at Yahoo could not give me a straight answer. They kept saying that they were not in my time zone, Yahoo is in the PST time zone and so this idiot could not help me. Sharon: It's a time zone thing. The time 7:50 +0300 means it's 7.50am Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) (ie London time) plus three hours. So it's really 10.50am wherever the email is being sent from. A three hour difference could mean it goes over to the next day. For example, where I live we are GMT +10 hours. So if it's 7am here, it's 9pm in London the night before. So if I send a message to someone in London today, it shows up in their inbox as yesterday. Hope that makes sense? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 01:27:42 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:27:42 -0000 Subject: What's "Cor" mean In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AA09971@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: Sharon: > it means "Wow", something that is really good and unexpected. I'm not sure of the derivation but I had always thought it was one of those expressions that didn't really start out as a word but is written as "Cor". Similar to "Ugh" I suppose. However if anyone DOES know its derivation (Carol??) I love to know as well. Carol responds: I'm not British, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask. I originally thought that if might have something to do with the Latin word "cor" meaning "heart" ("cor cordium" is "heart of hearts"; English derivatives of "cor" include "cordial" and "courage" (oddly, "coronary" derives from "corona," meaning "crown"). However, it appears that I was wrong. I checked one of my bookmarked sites for the origin of the expression "cor blimey" (quintessential Cockney, if I'm not mistaken) and found this information: "Cor blimey "Meaning[:] An exclamation of surprise. "Origin[:] A euphemism (specifically a minced oath) derived from 'God blind me'. "First recorded in print in Barr?re and Leland's A dictionary of slang, jargon and cant 1888?90, 1897. "An alternative spelling was used, slightly earlier, by Arthur Morrison in "A child of the Jago," 1896: "Gawblimy, not what?" "It is also sometimes spelled gorblimey." I found similar, less detailed information on other websites. So "cor" by itself is either short for "cor blimey" or is a mild euphemism for "God" used as an oath, as "Gee" is an (American?) euphemism for "Jesus" used as an oath. It's probably equally innocuous. BTW, I wonder whether Ron knows that "blimey" is a corruption of "blind me." Maybe he wouldn't use it quite so often if he knew what it meant. Alternatively, my favorite "English to American" website has "cor expl[etive] ooh! Once a part of the phrase "cor blimey", this is now used on its own to mean something like "ooh!". And here was you thinking that was some sort of typo." and "cor blimey expl[etive] a rather older-fashioned term of surprise, which has mostly migrated these days into just "blimey" or, more rarely, "cor"." While this explanation is humorous (and aimed at Americans), it neglects the "God blind me" etymology, perhaps suggesting that those who use the expression (e.g., our friend Ron and some of Harry's other "mates") are unaware of the origins and know only that it reflects surprise. Carol, ready to have her explanations demolished by the Brits on the list From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 02:39:31 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 02:39:31 -0000 Subject: Umbridge / Blaise's mother / evil author / Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Carol wrote in > : > > << Actually my posts (I think there were two of them) postulated a > connection between Dostoevky's doubly fiction Grand Inquisitor and > Umbridge as High Inquisitor. > Carol: > Of course I have often encounteried people speaking of Dostoevsky's > Grand Inquisitor, altho' I haven't read The Brothers Karamazov myself. Rowling is a much more literary person than I am and surely has read it. There probably was a connection between GRAND Inquisitor and HIGH Inquisitor in the back of her mind, but I guess your question is > whether there was a connection in the front of her mind. I'm not > qualified to discuss whether the Grand Inquisitor was sincere, but I > feel quite sure that Umbridge was NOT sincere about having the best > intentions for the Hogwarts students. She did NOT think they were > 'helpless children' or she wouldn't have been afraid of their army. If > she hadn't been afraid of their army, she wouldn't have worked so hard > to prevent them from learning hands-on magic. Carol responds: You should definitely become acquainted with Dostoevsky's (or should I say, Ivan Karamazov's) Grand Inquisitor. (His story is a parable told by Ivan Karamazov to his brother Alyosha. Ivan calls it a "poem," but the version he recites to Alyosha is prose.) The Grand Inquisitor may have more in common with what Dumbledore would have become had he persisted in his plans to dominate the Muggles than with Umbridge. He believed that the truth was dangerous and that it was better for the peasants to have a hope of heaven than any dangerous ideas about freedom. I don't think the connection was at the *back* of Rowling's mind. I think the similarity in titles and the (superficial?) similarity in philosophy and methodology was intentional. The Grand Inquisitor (a fictional character within a work of fiction) was more intelligent and less easily detected than Umbridge. If anyone is interested, here's a link to the parable itself http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/existentialism/dostoevsky/grand.html and another to an excellent analysis of it http://www.dartmouth.edu/~karamazo/fremantle.html Here's a helpful synopsis, which breaks the scene into its component parts: http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/existentialism/dostoevsky/grand-analysis.html You can always resort to Wikipedia is you want Grand Inquisitor Lite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Inquisitor Catlady: > > I suppose if she had really believed that Voldemort had returned, she wouldn't have tried prevent everyone from resisting him ... unless she was secretly negotiating with him (perhaps through Lucius, who hadn't been captured at the Dept of Mysteries yet) and had been promised a reward for being the inside mole! > > Assuming that she wasn't working for Voldemort, I don't actually know for whom she was working. Could she have possibly believed that keeping Fudge in power while doing down Dumbledore was for the good of the wizarding nation? Easier to think that she cared for what was good > for Fudge rather than for what was good for the community -- devoting herself to furthering Fudge's career, in a sublimation of romantic & erotic love much like Bellatrix's for Voldemort. Or did she merely use Fudge to get herself the power to sic Dementors on people and use Cruciatis on people? ,snip> Carol: I don't think it's a sublimaination of romantic or erotic love. She's clearly using Fudge and his insecurities in her own bid for power ("What Cornelius doesn't know won't hurt him.") The question is, as you say, whether she knew (through Lucius Malfoy or perhaps through Selwyn?) that Voldemort was really back and didn't want Fudge to know. She would, in that case, be manipulating Fudge to distrust and fear DD and, through him, manipulating the Daily Prophet to discredit DD and weaken his influence, the better to enable DEs to infiltrate the MoM. OTOH, she could know nothing about Voldemort and simply be working for herself, still manipulating Fudge and discrediting DD but with the intention of being the power behind the throne (running the British WW in Fudge's name but passing laws that support her own agenda--which may be her friend, Lucius Malfoy's agenda, as well), in which case, she might really believe that the less the students knew about DADA, the better--not only for her, but for them. Keep them ignorant and happy. If they know too much, they might rebel. (The Grand Inquisitor thinks that bread, meaning food, and freedom are incompatible. If you feed the poor and keep them ignorant, but with faith in a bettr life to come, they'll be happy. That sounds to me a lot like Umbridge's (apparent) view of the students as happy little children who will rely on her as their friend to look out for their interests instead of thinking for themsleves and protecting themselves. She doesn't want them to be free; she wants them to happily do her bidding. I'm not arguing a definitive interpretation here, especially since I'm now leaning toward an Umbridge who knew that LV was coming back and supported his teturn. But since Fudge *didn't* know that and both denied and ignored what evidence was presented to him (notably, Snape's Dark mark), i think that someone who knew the truth must have told her. And that person had to be a DE who was present in the graveyard and saw LV resurrected. And the only DE she herself mentions is Lucius Malfoy--only, of course, she doesn't identify him as a DE. (I think she suspects Snape's DE connections, as well, but she never uses them against him, perhaps because Malfoy speaks well of him). Carol earlier: > > << Actually, he [Neville] would have taken Slughorn's spot since Snape had swiched to DADA in HBP and headmaster in DH. I can't see Snape returning to teaching Potions if he had survived and been publicly vindicated. >> > Catlady: > If he'd survived and been publically vindicated, he would have been offered to keep the Headmaster position as long as he wanted. Carol: Yes. That's what I meant. He wouldn't have gone back to either Potions (already taken over by Slughorn) or DADA (assigned to some new, permanent teacher). he'd have stayed on as headmaster, as you say, for as long as he wanted the position (and given that he's only 38, that could be quite a long time). I only meant that, in the unlikely event that Neville was given the Potions position rather than Herbology, he'd be replacing the re-retiring Slughorn rather than Snape, who had already, twice, put the Potions post behind him. Carol, apologizing for her apparent lack of clarity From catlady at wicca.net Mon Nov 19 02:55:21 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 02:55:21 -0000 Subject: Umbridge / Blaise's mother / evil author / Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla "dumbledore11214" wrote in : > > Heeee, me too Mike, but without reading Catlady's mind ;) I would > like to venture a guess ( and I could be wrong) that she may have > wanted us to find holes indeed in this hypothetical justification > for calling JKR's evil. (snip) > Something put in the story on purpose does not equal deliberately > spreading it. > I think it still requires a mind reading to figure out for WHAT > purpose message was put in the story :) I'm sorry, Alla, you're not very successful at reading my mind (long-distance anyway). You *did* get that it was the hypothetical person, not me, who thought that that message (choosing goodness over obedience) was an evil message. I thought everyone one this list would agree so hard that it is not an evil message (altho' I have heard of people in the outside world who said that the Potter books are bad, bad, bad for children because they glorify disobedience) that the list could avoid arguing whether it an evil, good, or neutral message. And I could avoid confessing that even tho' I believe that following one's conscience's idea of good is better than not following one's conscience's idea of good, nonetheless it occasionally results in very bad things being done by sincere people who have deranged (deranged = disagrees with me) consciences. And I also thought, more accurately, that no one on list would argue too hard that Rowling did not put that particular message into the books on purpose. If I had chosen the already-used example of interracial dating, people would be listing counter possibilities: that she put it into the book as a message in favor of racial equality and interaction via 'colorblindness', that she put it into the book because interracial dating is so normal to her that she didn't even think whether some people could perceive it as a message, that she didn't even realize she was putting interracial dating into the books because she doesn't even see Dean and Angelina as black, Ginny and Fred as white. And you *did* put your finger on the Real Point I was trying to display, except you disagree with it. << I think it still requires a mind reading to figure out for WHAT purpose message was put in the story >>. I am pushing that in many cases it takes only reading the *text* (NOT the writer's mind) with an ear for connotations to figure out for what purpose the message was put into the text. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 03:19:51 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:19:51 -0000 Subject: Evil author In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla: > > I think it still requires a mind reading to figure out for WHAT > > purpose message was put in the story :) Catlady: > I'm sorry, Alla, you're not very successful at reading my mind > (long-distance anyway). Alla: Yes, I knew that I was not very succesful as the student of divination, heheh, thus I restricted myself to the guesswork :) Catlady: > You *did* get that it was the hypothetical person, not me, who thought > that that message (choosing goodness over obedience) was an evil > message. Alla: Sure. Catlady: > And you *did* put your finger on the Real Point I was trying to > display, except you disagree with it. << I think it still requires a > mind reading to figure out for WHAT purpose message was put in the > story >>. I am pushing that in many cases it takes only reading the > *text* (NOT the writer's mind) with an ear for connotations to figure > out for what purpose the message was put into the text. > Alla: Well, thank you I guess, but I am afraid you lost me then. Textual analysis is well, textual analysis ( forgive me for this sentence full of depth, lol), but how is figuring out the story translates into figuring out author's personality????? Wasn't that the point as well, which you were arguing as hypothetical with which you disagree? I mean, by analysing the text we can figure out.... what exactly? Plot development, symbolism in the story, character arc, etc, etc, etc. I find the idea ( and I have no idea if you are arguing this or not, sorry) that by reading the text we can figure out the personality of the author beyond earlier discussed author's attitude to the characters to be bizarre. I mean, there is that idea in *Crime and Punishment* that extraordinary people can kill other people and laws be damned. I mean, sure the person who entertains that idea suffers a whole lot, but how do you know that Dostoevsky approves the suffering for the crime and not just put the suffering there for the sake of the story? Maybe he put that theory in there on purpose to say that it is the right one? I mean, I do not think he did, but we can speculate, no? I just cannot wrap my mind around author writing the work of fiction and somebody ( not you obviously) judging the author real life personality without ever meeting her and concluding that she is evil. Strangely bizarre. IMO of course. Alla. From catlady at wicca.net Mon Nov 19 03:27:04 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:27:04 -0000 Subject: Umbridge / Blaise's mother / evil author / Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Carol" wrote in : << I don't think it's a sublimation of romantic or erotic love. She's clearly using Fudge and his insecurities in her own bid for power ("What Cornelius doesn't know won't hurt him.") >> To me, "What Cornelius doesn't know won't hurt him" as her excuse for doing illegal nasty things that would horrify Cornelius (siccing the Dementors on Harry, using Cruciatis on Harry) can be totally consistent with her using those methods to achieve results that she believes will make Cornelius happy, for the motive that she wants Cornelius to be a happy VIP, which could result from her having sublimated erotic or romantic or maternal love mis-directed at him. That would indeed be a context in which she resembled what is said of the Grand Inquisitor because she would be seriously lying to Fudge because of her sincere belief that her secret bad behavior was for his benefit. (Hermione Confunding McLaggen so Ron would be chosen Keeper had an element of that psychology, altho' I think mostly it had nothing to do with Ron and was simply anti-McLaggen.) (Btw, thanks for the Grand Inquisitor links that I might actually get to some day.) If Fudge's happiness were Umbridge's motive, then she wouldn't have decreased his happiness by pushing up his insecurities and his suspicions of DD and Harry. And we don't know if she manipulated him into his anti-DD attitude or he came up with it on his own. If she did manipulate him into his anti-DD beliefs, and not as a service to Voldemort, then I agree that she was just using Fudge to increase her own power. I am certain that she did not want power in order to do what she thought would be best for the wizarding community. If she didn't want power to do what would be best for Fudge or what would be best for Voldemort, she wanted it to do what would be best for her own pleasure and amusement. Anti-werewolf laws gave her a comforting, secure feeling that she wouldn't encounter a werewolf while shopping or whatever, not that she cared whether she was 'protecting' anyone but herself. From catlady at wicca.net Mon Nov 19 04:31:23 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 04:31:23 -0000 Subject: peacocks (was HPfGU "Lucius, Lucius, Lucius") Message-ID: --- In , "pippin_999" wrote: > Catlady: > > Peacocks aren't that expensive. > > Pippin: > No, but they're showy and not otherwise useful. The tent at the QWC > with the peacocks in front no doubt belonged to the Malfoys. Wizards > who keep them would use silencing charms; their cries could be > mistaken for that "piteous human scream" that Draco made. They go on > all night in season. > > Pippin > whose neighbor used to keep them > My first draft mentioned that peacocks are loud. I wondered if Lucius would put a silencing spell around them not to protect himself from disturbance, but to protect Muggle neighbors from hints of wizarding presence. How big is Lucius's estate anyway? It's hard to think that wizards could hide an estate big enough that peacock cries wouldn't reach past its borders. When I was a child long ago in Pacific Palisades, it was a suburb so quiet that sometimes late at night, if I got quiet myself, I could hear the surf sloshing and sloshing a mile away (and 50-some feet down). There were IIRC people who owned peacocks a bit more than a mile away in pretty much the opposite direction, and we didn't have to get very quiet to hear the peafowl calls. My recollection is that they had like three different calls, altho' I never got efficient and took notes of when I heard each call, so I don't know if they correlated with the time of the year, the phase of the moon, the tides.... My recollection is one call my mother called 'screaming' which sounded like angry (not piteous) human screams. Another my mother called 'mewing' which sounded like ... seagulls make a similar cry, except nowhere so loud. And another that was just hideous. Nowdays I'd think it like an especially obnoxious car alarm. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 07:16:04 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:16:04 -0000 Subject: Yahoo mail time stamps - how to read In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "Tonks" wrote: > > Does anyone understand how to read the time that an e-mail > message comes in? I had a long chat session with someone > from Yahoo and know no more than when I started. I figure > that someone here, maybe Steve, might know the answer better > than they do. > > If when I look at the inbox it says 11-9-07 and when I open > the e-mail it says 11-10-07. Why is that? The message came > from somone in Europe. And what does 7:50:33 +0300, mean in > real English for someone in the EST time zone? Another > message sent from the U.S. says 6:35:55 -0500. > > What does THAT mean in real English for someone in the > Eastern Time Zone? The person at Yahoo could not give me a > straight answer. They kept saying that they were not in my > time zone, Yahoo is in the PST time zone and so this idiot > could not help me. > > I am sure someone here can. Help! Thanks. > > Tonks_op > bboyminn: Well, I think a combination of two things are happening. First, Yahoo is responding pretty fast right now, but it when it is slow, you used to see a huge gap between the date/time in the main message list, and the date/time seen in the actual message. Keep in mind that I always read at the groups web page, not by email, and that Yahoo has made a couple of minor format changes since I last noticed this. I think this is reflecting when an email was sent (or arrived) and when it is actually posted on line. Right now that is a matter of seconds to at most a minute, so the time are virtually the same. But when Yahoo is slow, that gap can be quite large, measured in a few to several hours. So, think of it as the email time (message list time/date) and the Post Time (the time/date seen when viewing a specific message. I probably works slightly different when you receive posts by email, but the effect is similar. As to the format you are seeing of 'time +- hours', I suspect that is the either the time difference from GMT (Greenwich Mean Time) and local time, or it is the time differential between the sender and the receiver. Most time zone are actually designated internationally as GMT +- 'hours'. For example, I am in USA Central, so I am GMT-0600. In the Eastern Time Zone, you are GMT-0500. Moscow would be GMT+0300. So, I'm guessing the time designations you are seeing are GMT time plus or minus the time differential to your location, or local time of the sender relative to the local time of the receiver. If the respective emails were from Moscow or a similar longitude and the other from USA Eastern Standard Time, then the time differential designation are correct. Does that help? Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 19 07:29:57 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:29:57 -0000 Subject: What's "Cor" mean In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: Carol: > "Cor blimey > > "Meaning[:] An exclamation of surprise. > > "Origin[:] A euphemism (specifically a minced oath) derived from 'God > blind me'. > > "First recorded in print in Barr?re and Leland's A dictionary of > slang, jargon and cant 1888?90, 1897. > > "An alternative spelling was used, slightly earlier, by Arthur > Morrison in "A child of the Jago," 1896: "Gawblimy, not what?" > > "It is also sometimes spelled gorblimey." Geoff: I did point out in a recent post that this phrase is very much a term used by Londoners. I say that rather than Cockney, because technically, not every native Londoner is a Cockney although they may have a Cockney accent and use Cockney expressions. I'm not a native of London, but after 45 years living in "Sarf Lunnon" I can claim a reasonable acquaintance with London idioms. I have always understood "cor blimey" to match the deifintion quoted above by Carol. You rarely hear the phrase repeated in full but the two words will often be heard used separately. Both are used as expressions of surprise, "cor" perhaps more for a pleasant one. "Blimey" is more likely to be an expression of annoyance. I even use them occasionally! From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 07:32:34 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:32:34 -0000 Subject: Cranberry Relish/Harry Potter Stew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > I think we'll call it Harry Potter stew.....I just dump in a > ton of garlic...our mainstay..keeps away the werewolves, you > know... > > Okay, anyone got a recipe for cranberry relish? > > Susan > bboyminn: My mother makes the absolute best cranberry relish. Unfortunately, she has been cooking for so long that she now belongs to the SUM School of Cooking...you know...sum of this, sum of that, mix it up... done. The basic ingredients are a fresh bag of cranberries, a couple of seedless oranges (peelings and all), and sugar. Part of the key is the grinding. My mother uses an old hand crank meat grinder. If everything is ground too fine the taste and texture just aren't right, and the same if it is ground too course. This meat grind works perfect. Texture should be course but not chunky. About like the typical Dill or Sweet Pickle relish. So, grind up the cranberries and oranges (remember peelings and all), mix (to evenly blend that cranberries and oranges), then add sugar to taste (tart but pleasant), mix again (to distribute the sugar evenly). Then let it sit in the refrigerator for a day or two to get the flavors nicely mixed. If I can get the actual recipe, I'll post it. She did at one time use a recipe but that was many decades ago. My nephew works in the deli kitchen of a larger chain grocery store. I think he made 80 turkeys last Thanksgiving. He started making my mother's cranberry relish and it was a big hit in his store. Steve/bboyminn From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 08:45:50 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:45:50 -0000 Subject: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have made meatloaf with raisins in...a couple of times...if one does not desire the sweetness of the raisins then they soak said raisins(five mins or so in salt water...drain...then lay raisns on a cookie sheet (the salt draws out the water in the rasins and neutralizes the sugar for the most part..taste a raisin or two and add additional soaking time or salt to taste)..if one likes the sweetness, then the recipie works but I do reccommend soaking the rasins anyhow(keeps the meatloaf moist and one can reduce the oatmeal/breadcrumbs/cracker crumbs/cornbread crumbs etc...)... I am a massive raisin fan...one of my favorite dishes is saffron rice, lentils and raisins..yum! LOL(said leftovers make and excellent addition to a meatloaf..in lieu of bread crumbs etc.). Growing up me mum made meatloaf at least once per week and I hated it because it was to onion and bell pepper intensive..combined with the tomatoe sauce... It was only after I joined the Navy and saw that soooooooooo many went to the galley/chowhall on meatloaf day and I heard everyone talk about the meatloaves their mothers would make that I realized that me mum's meatloaf was far from being the only one... As for incorporating corn...oh dear.....needless to say I used to love corn...until one of my ex's took me home to him...a home with no TP......just loads of cornsilks and conhusks stacked in a brown bag beside the toilet... *shaking head* (and there I was thinking all that time ago that the thong was the end of all we termed "buttfloss") *heavy sigh* I hate making canned veggies, therefore..I hate making frozen ones too..and in all honesty...if one is not growing and stowing their own; then, they must shop around enough...fresh is typically cheaper but all, in the end must attempt to purchase superior ingredients.. Doddie, (who realizes that most countries have meatball recipies...and woohoo we live in america...and we look for the recipies of the loaf of meat rather than ball of meat...)... From sweetytweety67 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 07:22:49 2007 From: sweetytweety67 at yahoo.com (Dawn Tweety) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:22:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Cranberry Relish/Harry Potter Stew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <62380.59084.qm@web50805.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Susan: Okay, anyone got a recipe for cranberry relish? I do, well it's for cranberry sauce you can always add some orange zest or walnuts if you want. If it's a 12 ounce bag of cranberries use 6 ounces of sugar, 1 bag fresh cranberrys rinsed, pour sugar on top in a microwave safe bowl & mircowave for 5 minutes stir & then another 5 minutes when most the berries pop it's done note its one ounce of sugar for every 2 ounces of cranberries) Dawn From random832 at fastmail.us Mon Nov 19 12:24:56 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:24:56 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Yahoo mail time stamps - how to read In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AD9FA92@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> References: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510910A5AD9FA92@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: <47418098.4040300@fastmail.us> Sharon Hayes wrote: > Tonks: > If when I look at the inbox it says 11-9-07 and when I open the e-mail > it says 11-10-07. Why is that? The message came from somone in Europe. > And what does 7:50:33 +0300, mean in real English for someone in the > EST time zone? Another message sent from the U.S. says 6:35:55 -0500. > What does THAT mean in real English for someone in the Eastern Time > Zone? The person at Yahoo could not give me a straight answer. They > kept saying that they were not in my time zone, Yahoo is in the PST > time zone and so this idiot could not help me. > > Sharon: > It's a time zone thing. The time 7:50 +0300 means it's 7.50am > Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) (ie London time) plus three hours. So > it's really 10.50am wherever the email is being sent from. Wrong; this is what I thought for a long time, because it seems to make intuitive sense, but it's wrong. the 7:50 _is_ the time where it's being sent from, and the +0300 is an identifier of the timezone. it's 7:50 where it's being sent from, and 4:50 GMT. The +/-NNNN isn't a number to be added to the time shown in the timestamp, it's an identifier of the timezone that the timestamp is in. The timestamps you're seeing, incidentally, are in all likelihood not coming from Yahoo, because there's no reason they wouldn't all be in pacific time in that case. --Random832 From jnferr at gmail.com Mon Nov 19 13:17:38 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 07:17:38 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40711190517i4e27efa8ua4b6495b3cc27695@mail.gmail.com> > > Doddie, > (who realizes that most countries have meatball recipies...and > woohoo we live in america...and we look for the recipies of the loaf > of meat rather than ball of meat...)... montims: since moving to America, I have tried so many meatloafs (my husband loves it) and hate hate hate every one. I don't know what it is about meatloaf - I love most things made with minced meat (though nothing more than shepherd's pie...) but when it goes into meatloaf, to me it becomes disgusting, and I can't even swallow it. It doesn't help, I suppose, that I loathe tomato ketchup... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From maritajan at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 13:38:03 2007 From: maritajan at yahoo.com (MJ) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:38:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: meatloaf Message-ID: <507520.88999.qm@web36804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I'm not a big fan of ketchup either. Have you tried making meatloaf with BBQ sauce, instead? That's what I do, anyway. It gives the meatloaf an extra kick of spices and tastes (IMO) much better than making it with ketchup. MJ ------------------------------- http://www.myspace.com/maritajan ----- Original Message ---- From: Janette To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 7:17:38 AM Subject: Re: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Crockpot (Was: Crackpot!) > > Doddie, > (who realizes that most countries have meatball recipies...and > woohoo we live in america...and we look for the recipies of the loaf > of meat rather than ball of meat...)... montims: since moving to America, I have tried so many meatloafs (my husband loves it) and hate hate hate every one. I don't know what it is about meatloaf - I love most things made with minced meat (though nothing more than shepherd's pie...) but when it goes into meatloaf, to me it becomes disgusting, and I can't even swallow it. It doesn't help, I suppose, that I loathe tomato ketchup... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From muellem at bc.edu Mon Nov 19 17:33:35 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:33:35 -0000 Subject: Cranberry Relish/Harry Potter Stew In-Reply-To: <62380.59084.qm@web50805.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Dawn Tweety wrote: > > Susan: > Okay, anyone got a recipe for cranberry relish? > > > I do, well it's for cranberry sauce you can always add some > orange zest or walnuts if you want. If it's a 12 ounce bag > of cranberries use 6 ounces of sugar, 1 bag fresh cranberrys > rinsed, pour sugar on top in a microwave safe bowl & mircowave > for 5 minutes stir & then another 5 minutes when most the > berries pop it's done note its one ounce of sugar for every > 2 ounces of cranberries) > > Dawn > colebiancardi: A variation on the above version - same ingrediants, but a) I use a whole orange instead of zest and b) I use my food processor to mix & chop the items together and c) then I put it in the frig for several hours (no cooking) very refreshing, zesty and tasty. Tastes even better the next day. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 19:21:05 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:21:05 -0000 Subject: Yahoo mail time stamps - how to read In-Reply-To: <47418098.4040300@fastmail.us> Message-ID: > --Random832 > > The 7:50 _is_ the time where it's being sent from, and the +0300 > is an identifier of the timezone. It's 7:50 where it's being > sent from, and 4:50 GMT. The +/-NNNN isn't a number to be added > to the time shown in the timestamp, it's an identifier of the > timezone that the timestamp is in. Mike: Yeah, that's what I said. BTW, since HPfGU's home location is the UK, anything you get from here including the digests, Special Notices, etc. and if anyone hits the "Reply" button and changes the "To" to the individual poster, the time stamp will be 0000, reflecting GMT. > Random832: > The timestamps you're seeing, incidentally, are in all likelihood > not coming from Yahoo, because there's no reason they wouldn't > all be in pacific time in that case. Mike: Right, most likely the time stamps are added by the sender's ISP. That's why they differ ever so slightly. The date stamp in ones email in-box is added by ones own ISP and reflect the date received according to local time. That's why the email Tonk's received had the date as Nov 9, when the date sent time stamp (after she opened the email) was Nov 10. It was still Nov 9 for her when she received it. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 19:52:53 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:52:53 -0000 Subject: Cranberry Relish - with Recipe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "Steve" wrote: > > > > > I think we'll call it Harry Potter stew.....I just dump in a > > ton of garlic...our mainstay..keeps away the werewolves, you > > know... > > > > Okay, anyone got a recipe for cranberry relish? > > > > Susan > > > > bboyminn: > > My mother makes the absolute best cranberry relish. ... > > The basic ingredients are a fresh bag of cranberries, a couple > of seedless oranges (peelings and all), and sugar. > > Part of the key is the grinding. ... > > Texture should be course but not chunky. About like the > typical Dill or Sweet Pickle relish. > > So, grind up the cranberries and oranges (remember peelings > and all), mix (to evenly blend that cranberries and oranges), > then add sugar to taste (tart but pleasant), mix again (to > distribute the sugar evenly). Then let it sit in the > refrigerator for a day or two to get the flavors nicely mixed. > > If I can get the actual recipe, I'll post it. ... > > Steve/bboyminn > bboyminn: My Mother just responded with her recipe; this is really a very simple recipe. At our house, it was sort of a honor as to which kid got to help grind everything. Now the duty has passed on to my nephews and nieces. Excellent No-Cook Cranberry relish - 1 ... bag of fresh Cranberries (rinsed and drained) 1 ... fresh quartered seedless Orange (quartered, with peelings ON) 1.5 cups ... Sugar (or season to taste; artificial sweeteners may be used, but, if you use them, I suggest a blend of artificial and sugar to taste) Taste should be slightly tart, but not excessively so. Grind cranberries and oranges together into a medium coarseness. Cover with sugar and mix thoroughly. Refrigerate for a few hours to allow the flavors to blend. Note: back when a bag of cranberries was a full pound, my Mother used to use 2 standard oranges per bag. So, to some extent how much orange or how big an orange is left to personal taste. Try it, you'll like it. Steve/bboyminn From gwharrison53 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 19 23:21:35 2007 From: gwharrison53 at yahoo.com (gwharrison53 at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:21:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Happy Thanksgiving ! Message-ID: <200711192321.lAJNLe3D005675@upsa-web129.ofoto.com> A real Military address : A Recovering American Soldier * c/o Walter Reed Army Medical Ctr * 6900 Georgia Ave, NW * Washington, D. C. 20307-5001 * You're invited to view these photos online at KODAK Gallery! Just click on View Photos to get started. http://www.kodakgallery.com/I.jsp?c=brptja83.9q6i1x13&x=1&h=1&y=-6srr16 If you'd like to save this album, just sign in, or if you're new to the Gallery, create a free account. Once you've signed in, you'll be able to view this album whenever you want and order Kodak prints of your favorite photos. Enjoy! Instructions: Click view photos to begin. If you're an existing member you'll be asked to sign in. If not, you can join the Gallery for free. http://www.kodakgallery.com/Register.jsp Questions? Visit http://help.kodakgallery.com. ------------------------------------------------------------ The KODAK Gallery Customer Service Team Phone: 800-360-9098 / 512-651-9770 Outside of the US and Canada ------------------------------------------------------------ If you cannot see the links above, copy and paste the following URL directly into your browser: http://www.kodakgallery.com/I.jsp?c=brptja83.9q6i1x13&x=1&h=1&y=-6srr16 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alexisnguyen at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 02:29:04 2007 From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:29:04 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: meatloaf In-Reply-To: <507520.88999.qm@web36804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <507520.88999.qm@web36804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > I'm not a big fan of ketchup either. Have you tried making meatloaf with BBQ > sauce, instead? That's what I do, anyway. It gives the meatloaf an extra > kick of spices and tastes (IMO) much better than making it with ketchup. > > MJ Not a fan of ketchup, either, but you should probably be aware that the main ingredient of BBQ sauce is ketchup. Of course, in the interest of full disclosure, I should state that I grew in Kansas. :) ~Ali From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 02:49:40 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 02:49:40 -0000 Subject: meatloaf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: P. Alexis Nguyen wrote: > > > I'm not a big fan of ketchup either. Have you tried making meatloaf with BBQ sauce, instead? That's what I do, anyway. It gives the meatloaf an extra kick of spices and tastes (IMO) much better than making it with ketchup. Ali responded: > Not a fan of ketchup, either, but you should probably be aware that the main ingredient of BBQ sauce is ketchup. Of course, in the interest of full disclosure, I should state that I grew in Kansas. > Carol notes: My mother (the one whose meatloaf recipe includes raisins) makes something called Piquant Sauce to top her meatloaf. It has ketchup in it, but it also has brown sugar, so it's nice and sweet. (I don't recall any other ingredients in the sauce but can find the recipe if anyone is interested.) For those who like salty meatloaf, you can always substitute gravy for anything ketchupy. Or maybe A-1 or Worcestershire sauce, so you can pretend it's steak. ;-P Carol, who intends to make pumpkin pies on Wednesday and is worried about transporting them safely across town Carol From maritajan at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 03:01:43 2007 From: maritajan at yahoo.com (MJ) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:01:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: meatloaf Message-ID: <455293.28130.qm@web36804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: P. Alexis Nguyen To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:29:04 PM Subject: Re: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: meatloaf > I'm not a big fan of ketchup either. Have you tried making meatloaf with BBQ > sauce, instead? That's what I do, anyway. It gives the meatloaf an extra > kick of spices and tastes (IMO) much better than making it with ketchup. > > MJ Not a fan of ketchup, either, but you should probably be aware that the main ingredient of BBQ sauce is ketchup. Of course, in the interest of full disclosure, I should state that I grew in Kansas. :) ~Ali Yea, I know. :-) But it's not just plain old tomato ketchup. It has all those wonderful spices and other flavors, which gives the meatloaf some extra oompf. I use Sweet Baby Ray's bbq sauce. I'm not sure if that's available outside the south, but it's FABULOUS. MJ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 06:45:07 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 06:45:07 -0000 Subject: Yahoo mail time stamps - how to read In-Reply-To: <47418098.4040300@fastmail.us> Message-ID: --- Random832 wrote: > > Sharon Hayes wrote: > > Tonks: > > If when I look at the inbox it says 11-9-07 and when I > > open the e-mail it says 11-10-07. Why is that? The message > > came from somone in Europe. And what does 7:50:33 +0300, > > mean in real English for someone in the EST time zone? ... > > > > Sharon: > > It's a time zone thing. The time 7:50 +0300 means it's > > 7.50am Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) (ie London time) plus > > three hours. So it's really 10.50am wherever the email is > > being sent from. > Random832: > > Wrong; this is what I thought for a long time, because it > seems to make intuitive sense, but it's wrong. the 7:50 _is_ > the time where it's being sent from, and the +0300 is an > identifier of the timezone. bboyminn: I check in a tech support forum, and the consensus seems to agree with Random832. The time stamp is showing two separate pieces of information. The Local Time of the Sender, and the Sender's Time Zone. So... 7:50 +0300 ... is 7:50 local Russian time, which is in turn in the Time Zone GMT +0300. Though apparently no one really uses GMT any more. Now it is UCT for Universal Coordinated Time. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Nov 20 07:00:47 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 07:00:47 -0000 Subject: meatloaf - Wet or Dry BBQ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "P. Alexis Nguyen" wrote: > > > I'm not a big fan of ketchup either. Have you tried making > > meatloaf with BBQsauce, instead? ... > > > > MJ > > Not a fan of ketchup, either, but you should probably be aware > that the main ingredient of BBQ sauce is ketchup. Of course, > in the interest of full disclosure, I should state that I grew > in Kansas. > > :) > > ~Ali > bboyminn: Excuse me, but isn't Kansas the home of the Dry Rub Barbecue? Not an expert myself, but I thought Kansas was the origin of the particular variation. Clarification? Steve/bboyminn From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 07:09:02 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:09:02 -0000 Subject: Yahoo mail time stamps - how to read In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > bboyminn: > > I check in a tech support forum, and the consensus seems to > agree with Random832. The time stamp is showing two separate > pieces of information. The Local Time of the Sender, and > the Sender's Time Zone. > > So... 7:50 +0300 ... is 7:50 local Russian time, which is > in turn in the Time Zone GMT +0300. > Tonks: So if I got 2 e-mails one from California marked 11-09-07 at 6:35:55 -0500 and one sometime later marked 11-10-07 on the inside of the e-mail but 11-09-07 on the outside (meaning the listing in my inbox at Yahoo) and the inside time of 7:50:33 +0300. What time is it in Michigan when the first one reaches me and when the second one reaches me, EST. Thanks!! Tonks_op who's math is only a little better than Rowlings. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 18:59:08 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:59:08 -0000 Subject: Yahoo mail time stamps - how to read In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- "Tonks" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > > > I check in a tech support forum, and the consensus seems to > > agree with Random832. The time stamp is showing two separate > > pieces of information. The Local Time of the Sender, and > > the Sender's Time Zone. > > > > So... 7:50 +0300 ... is 7:50 local Russian time, which is > > in turn in the Time Zone GMT +0300. > > > > Tonks: > So if I got 2 e-mails one from California marked 11-09-07 at > 6:35:55 -0500 and one sometime later marked 11-10-07 on the > inside of the e-mail but 11-09-07 on the outside (meaning the > listing in my inbox at Yahoo) and the inside time of 7:50:33 > +0300. What time is it in Michigan when the first one reaches > me and when the second one reaches me, EST. > > Thanks!! > Tonks_op > who's math is only a little better than Rowlings. > bboyminn: Sorry but you've jumbled your emails together is such a way that I can determine which is which. None the less, the time you see in your Yahoo Inbox is the 'post' time, that is, it is the time that Yahoo made the email available to your email account. Also keep in mind that email doesn't travel instantly, and it travels through many servers along the way. Here is an example of a full email header from some SPAM I received - -Account-Key: account2 X-UIDL: cf1bf13e6ee11a1f2e1d6779661afad8 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-Apparently-To: oly...usa at yahoo.com via 206.190.37.26; Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:37:51 -0800 X-YahooFilteredBulk: 65.54.246.109 Authentication-Results: mta458.mail.mud.yahoo.com from=hotmail.co.uk; domainkeys=neutral (no sig) Received: from 65.54.246.109 (EHLO bay0-omc1-s37.bay0.hotmail.com) (65.54.246.109) by mta458.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:37:51 -0800 Received: from hotmail.com ([65.55.138.112]) by bay0-omc1-s37.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:37:12 -0800 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:37:12 -0800 Message-ID: Received: from 65.55.138.123 by by133fd.bay133.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 17 Feb 2007 06:37:07 GMT X-Originating-IP: [41.243.185.129] X-Originating-Email: [nluk_2335 at hotmail.co.uk] X-Sender: nluk_2335 at hotmail.co.uk From: "nluk lottery" To: nluk_2335 at hotmail.co.uk Bcc: Subject: WINNING NOTIFICATION Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 06:37:07 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; format=flowed X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Feb 2007 06:37:12.0059 (UTC) FILETIME=[0E1DDCB0:01C7525E] '...actual message begins here...' This Email was sent from a HotMail account in the UK, relayed through a 'FreeServer' email account and sent to my Yahoo email address, then downloaded via POP Email into my computer. Note it was sent on Feb 16 (Calif -0800 time), but arrived on Feb 17 (UTC/GMT time). Also note that despite being in Minnesota (-0500) and the email originating in the UK (0000), we still see California timestamps on the Email (+0800). Now I will concede that email dates don't alway make sense especially when Yahoo is involved. I check my own webpage Yahoo email and found this email - In the list of all emails, this coffee advert (Gevalia Kona Coffee) is dated - Sat Nov 24, 2007 but when I open that email, the date in the header is listed as - Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:53:10 EST Keep in mind, it is currently Nov 21, 2007. Another coffee advert (Seattle Coffee Direct) has a list date of - Sat Nov 24, 2007 and an email header date of - Sat, 24 Nov 2007 04:55:31 EST But again, it's only Nov 12, 2007 now. So, I suggest you not let this drive you crazy, sometimes there is simply no sense to be made of it. Steve/bboyminn From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 19:12:03 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:12:03 -0000 Subject: Yahoo mail time stamps - how to read In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Tonks: > So if I got one from California marked 11-09-07 at > 6:35:55 -0500 Mike: If you got one marked >> 6:35:55 -0500 << then it wasn't from California, dear. It was from your time zone. That >> -0500 << tells you it's from the Eastern US time zone. > Tonks: > and one sometime later marked 11-10-07 on the inside > of the e-mail but 11-09-07 on the outside (meaning the > listing in my inbox at Yahoo) Mike: That means you received the email on 11-09 (your time/date), but the email was sent on 11-10 (the sender's time/date). > Tonks: > and the inside time of 7:50:33 +0300. Mike: That's the sender's time of transmission. The >> +0300 << signifies the sender's time zone, 3 hours ahead of Hogwarts (GMT) time. That puts them in the Eastern European Time zone. > Tonks: > What time is it in Michigan when the first one reaches > me and when the second one reaches me, EST. Mike: Well, since the first one was sent in your (and my) time zone, taint no computations needed. The second one, from Europe, got to you at 11:50 pm on 11-09-07. That's cuz they are 8 hours ahead of you and it was already the next day for them when they hit send on their computer. > Tonks_op > who's math is only a little better than Rowlings. Mike, who unlike JKR understands that 40 kids per class comes out to 280 kids at Hogwarts, not 1,000. And also understands that 3,000 or so long living witches and wizards in the British Isles is highly unlikely to produce 1,000 kids to stock Hogwarts, even with 1/4 of them being Muggleborn. From bleachedin at yahoo.com Wed Nov 21 20:10:09 2007 From: bleachedin at yahoo.com (bleachedin) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:10:09 -0000 Subject: Going through Potter withdrawls this Christmas? Message-ID: Hi! If you???re going through Harry Potter withdrawal, you might want to check out the book and movie Hogfather I???m working with. It fits in the British, dark children???s Christmas-y world- there???s a trailer here: http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1460827. It was very popular in the UK last Christmas and will finally be premiering in the States on Sunday on the ION Network at 7/6c. I hope you like it! From Schlobin at aol.com Thu Nov 22 05:54:17 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 05:54:17 -0000 Subject: J,K. R's latest interview Message-ID: Did anyone see the latest interview -- J.K. Rowling's sister is not speaking to her because of Dobby's death? Sister apparently said that she couldn't deal with the death of Dobby or Hagrid... I'm sure other people will agree with her sister -- but I find this totally hilarious.... Susan From Schlobin at aol.com Thu Nov 22 09:03:01 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 09:03:01 -0000 Subject: food Message-ID: So, it's that holiday in the U.S. that is focused on food... what about all those amazing feasts in the HP universe? One of the great things about the movies is visually seeing the feast... that Halloween feast in the first movie was a magickal and amazing delight...of course, NOW we know that it wasn't "magic", it was the poor oppressed house elves making the feast.....sigh.... So, in our house, the feast is turkey, stuffing, gravy, mashed potatoes, sweet potatoes, broccoli, celery stuffed with cream cheese and roquefort cheese, cranberry sauce, bread, pumpkin and apple pie with vanilla ice cream...not made by the house elves, but by yours truly, Mommy, what is it like in your house? Susan From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Thu Nov 22 09:24:03 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 19:24:03 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] food In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC5ED209@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Susan: So, it's that holiday in the U.S. that is focused on food... what about all those amazing feasts in the HP universe? One of the great things about the movies is visually seeing the feast... that Halloween feast in the first movie was a magickal and amazing delight...of course, NOW we know that it wasn't "magic", it was the poor oppressed house elves making the feast.....sigh.... So, in our house, the feast is turkey, stuffing, gravy, mashed potatoes, sweet potatoes, broccoli, celery stuffed with cream cheese and roquefort cheese, cranberry sauce, bread, pumpkin and apple pie with vanilla ice cream...not made by the house elves, but by yours truly, Mommy, what is it like in your house? Sharon: OMG I am SO jealous!!!! MyDear Spouse is from N'Orleans and we lived there for 5 years after we got married and I LOVED lovedLOVED all the holidayts but especially Thanksgiving. My MOL is a fantastic cook and we would have turkey (of course) with stuffing, candied yams, english peas and mashed potato, with lots of pecan and/or pumpkin pie afterwards. *****SIGH*** Now we live in Australia, where of course NOONE celebrates thanksgiving and plus it's HOT this time of year, we have sliced turkey from the deli, cranberry sauce and SALAD..... I made a pumpkin pie once but it just wasn't the same.... But wait--I though Thanksgiving was the LAST Thursady of November, which would make it next week? From klewellen at shellworld.net Thu Nov 22 15:00:08 2007 From: klewellen at shellworld.net (Karen Lewellen) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:00:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] J,K. R's latest interview In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh Mercy how funny! Can you not just imagine the conversation, or shall we say, non-conversation? It is not like J K R can rewrite the section. Oh I too was hit hard by Dobby's death, and wondered if she had a conflicting moment, choosing between him or Hagrid. Still it made for a deep moment of reflection, Dobby's service that is. It is so important to so much of the rest of the book that deaths happen as they would in a real war. Little time to really morn due to the desperation of the situation. still, how are the sisters going to repair this one. Karen On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, susanmcgee48176 wrote: > Did anyone see the latest interview -- J.K. Rowling's sister is not > speaking to her because of Dobby's death? Sister apparently said that > she couldn't deal with the death of Dobby or Hagrid... > > I'm sure other people will agree with her sister -- but I find this > totally hilarious.... > > Susan > > From n2fgc at arrl.net Thu Nov 22 15:13:48 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:13:48 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] food In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000a01c82d1a$489e1b60$67a4a8c0@FRODO> I have to admit this house elf went and ordered her dinner from the local market. So I have a 12-pound turkey I just have to heat, gravy, stuffing (or as some call it, dressing), cranberry stuff, mashed potatoes, rolls, butternut squash and I am making asparagus which is a family favorite. I'll pick up a pumpkin pie, too, as I don't love apple, and I have chocolate ice cream to put atop the pies. Have a thankful day! Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From phil at pcsgames.net Thu Nov 22 15:26:32 2007 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:26:32 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] J,K. R's latest interview References: Message-ID: <003301c82d1c$12dfa500$6600a8c0@phil> I can imagine the ghost of Dobby haunting Malfoy mansion, and pestering Draco Malfoy. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Nov 22 16:28:12 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:28:12 -0000 Subject: food In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC5ED209@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: > Sharon: > But wait--I though Thanksgiving was the LAST Thursady of November, which would make it next week? Magpie: It's the third Thursday in November. Which sounds really random! -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 22 16:35:44 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:35:44 -0000 Subject: food In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > > Sharon: > > > But wait--I though Thanksgiving was the LAST Thursady of November, > which would make it next week? > > Magpie: > It's the third Thursday in November. Which sounds really random! > Mike: Ummm, it's the fourth Thursday, dear. :D From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Nov 22 18:07:57 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:07:57 -0000 Subject: food In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > > Magpie: > > It's the third Thursday in November. Which sounds really random! > > > > Mike: > Ummm, it's the fourth Thursday, dear. :D Magpie: It is? Oh well. I always thought it was the third. I just go with when they tell me it is. -m From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Thu Nov 22 22:03:05 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 08:03:05 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: food In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC504968@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Mike: Ummm, it's the fourth Thursday, dear. :D Sharon: Ahhh -- that's why I got mixed up! There are five Thursdays this month! Oh well, looks like we missed it. LOL. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Thu Nov 22 23:45:42 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:45:42 EST Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] food Message-ID: Susan: So, in our house, the feast is turkey, stuffing, gravy, mashed potatoes, sweet potatoes, broccoli, celery stuffed with cream cheese and roquefort cheese, cranberry sauce, bread, pumpkin and apple pie with vanilla ice cream...not made by the house elves, but by yours truly, Mommy, what is it like in your house? Sandy: I worked today, for the 8th day in a row, and am under the weather with a cold. I was invited to both my sister's and my son's houses for dinner but did not want to infect them or their families. My son is going to bring me a plate on his way to work. Back in the day, when my kids were still at home, my husband still alive and I did not work on the holiday Thanksgiving dinner was turkey, cornbread dressing, mashed potatoes, sweet potatoes, corn, cranberry sauce and dinner rolls. Dessert was pumpkin pie and cheesecake. I prefer the dark meat of the turkey. How many are participating in Black Friday tomorrow, getting up in the wee hours of the morning to hit the after Thanksgiving Christmas sales? I am finally off tomorrow and refuse to step foot out of the house. My sister and I did some Christmas shopping yesterday and it was already crazy. Sandy **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Thu Nov 22 23:49:00 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:49:00 EST Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] food Message-ID: In a message dated 11/22/2007 4:24:34 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, s.hayes at qut.edu.au writes: But wait--I though Thanksgiving was the LAST Thursady of November, which would make it next week? Sandy: There are five Thursdays this November so it is celebrated on the fourth Thursday instead of the last. Sandy **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Schlobin at aol.com Fri Nov 23 10:30:15 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:30:15 -0000 Subject: Beowulf versus The Lord of the Rings Message-ID: http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/11/20/beowulf/print.html Terrific and very insightful story at salon.com.. Please let me know what you think. Susan "Beowulf" vs. "The Lord of the Rings" One is a living universe, the other a 3-D voyage to schlockville. A great essay by Tolkien helps us understand why. By Gary Kamiya Nov. 20, 2007 | Robert Zemeckis' new film "Beowulf" gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "the sublime and the ridiculous." Zemeckis took the oldest and most important text of our ur-language, and turned it into a 3-D Disneyland ride so cheesy he should have called it "Anglo- Saxons of the Caribbean." Of course, there's nothing new or surprising about this. Hollywood has been profaning history and literature since long before Cecil B. DeMille cast Charlton Heston as Moses. If the Bible isn't sacred, why should the oldest poem in our ancestral language be? From juli17 at aol.com Fri Nov 23 18:04:31 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:04:31 EST Subject: food Message-ID: s.hayes at qut.edu.au writes: But wait--I though Thanksgiving was the LAST Thursady of November, which would make it next week? Sandy: There are five Thursdays this November so it is celebrated on the fourth Thursday instead of the last. Julie: The history of Thanksgiving as a holiday is thus: The Continental Congress proclaimed the first Thanksgiving holiday in November of 1777. Later, after George Washington became president, he proclaimed the first national Thanksgiving holiday to be celebrated on Nov 26, 1789. Several presidents following, including John Adams and James Madison also proclaimed national Thanksgiving holidays, though the days weren't always celebrated in November, or even in the autumn. Later several governors proclaimed Thanksgiving holidays in their own states, but another national holiday didn't occur until the Civil War... In the middle of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a national Thanksgiving holiday to occur on the final Thursday in November, 1863. Thereafter there has always been a national Thanksgiving holiday, occurring annually on the last Thursday of November, until Franklin Roosevelt made a change. In 1938 he declared the second-to-last Thursday in November to henceforth be the day to celebrate Thanksgiving. His motivation was to give merchants a longer period in which to sell goods before Christmas. (This was back in the long forgotten days when it was considered appropriate to advertise items for Christmas only after Thanksgiving, rather than in, say, August!) In Roosevelt's defense, this was during the Great Depression, so a longer holiday shopping period was needed to help boost the economy. The only problem for Roosevelt was that this change wasn't considered legally binding, and several states still persisted in celebrating the holiday on the last day of November. In 1941, the U.S. Congress stepped in, and splitting the difference, they passed a bill requiring Thanksgiving be celebrated on the *fourth* Thursday of November (which will usually fall on the last Thursday of the month, but occasionally--as is the case in 2007 with five Thursdays in November--on the second-to-last Thursday). The bill became law, and thus Thanksgiving has been celebrated on the fourth Thursday of November for the past 66 years, with no end to the gluttony in sight :-) (source: Wikipedia) Julie, who posts this for anyone interested in a (brief) history of the U.S. national holiday **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From n2fgc at arrl.net Fri Nov 23 19:32:48 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:32:48 -0500 Subject: Turkey Question (was RE: Food) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c82e07$a1ae1b90$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Hi there, Okay, I need someone who's done a lot of turkeys and someone who's had one of the type that's been precooked. I specify that because, this year, I ordered a prepared meal from our local supermarket which came with a pre-cooked 10.5 pound turkey. The instructions for reheating stated not to put water in the bottom of the roasting pan and to place bird on flat rack. When I opened the bag containing the turkey, there was lots of nice juice in there which I didn't want to discard, so I placed the turkey on the flat rack in the roaster and poured the juices into the pan, covered the thing with foil for two-thirds of the heating-up process and then removed the foil for the final third to get it nice and crispy. (I generally do that to all my turkeys, even the ones I cook from scratch. Gets 'em crispy but leaves them moist.) Well, as I say, I had the juices in the bottom of the pan and my turkey was the most moist and succulent bird we've ever eaten. So, please do tell why in the world the re-heat instructions say not to put water in the bottom of the pan? I am really curious about that. Here's hoping one of you Turkey Experts or house elves can find me an answer. Cheers and Thanks, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 24 03:53:52 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:53:52 -0000 Subject: Beowulf versus The Lord of the Rings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "susanmcgee48176" wrote: > > http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/11/20/beowulf/print.html > > > > > Terrific and very insightful story at salon.com.. > > Please let me know what you think. Susan > > > > "Beowulf" vs. "The Lord of the Rings" > One is a living universe, the other a 3-D voyage to schlockville. A > great essay by Tolkien helps us understand why. > By Gary Kamiya > > Nov. 20, 2007 | Robert Zemeckis' new film "Beowulf" gives a whole new > meaning to the phrase "the sublime and the ridiculous." Zemeckis took > the oldest and most important text of our ur-language, and turned it > into a 3-D Disneyland ride so cheesy he should have called it "Anglo- > Saxons of the Caribbean." Of course, there's nothing new or > surprising about this. Hollywood has been profaning history and > literature since long before Cecil B. DeMille cast Charlton Heston as > Moses. If the Bible isn't sacred, why should the oldest poem in our > ancestral language be? > Alla: Have you seen the movie yet? I am going to see it tomorrow and then believe me I am going to let you know how I feel :) I am already going in with very mixed feelings, since I know that they changed the story so much and I hate when Hollywood thinks that they can write the plays better than classics, BUT I will be the first one to say that as long as the heart of the story is there, I am game. I do know that movie is different medium, but the heart of the story had better be there. Having said that, I am afraid that I will not be happy, because without writing too much for those who have not seen the movie yet, I obviously read the changes and OY OY. Somebody wrote in their review that they decided to make Beowulf human. Um, I HATE it when the playwriter feels a need to change good character, especially the hero of the story to make him you know, human, meaning having some bad qualities. Again, this is me not seeing the movie yet, just reading about it. I mean, I love Neil Gaiman's books dearly, pretty much all of them, I LOVED Stardust despite changes in the story. But if the storyline is what I read about it, I will loudly proclaim Neil Gaiman to be a lousy and arrogant playwriter. We shall see tomorrow. Alla. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 24 23:15:38 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:15:38 -0000 Subject: Beowulf versus The Lord of the Rings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alla: > We shall see tomorrow. Alla: Erm... replying to myself. We did. I wish I did not though. Do I agree with what this person posted? Oh absolutely I do just as I hated the movie in general. I posted this elsewhere, so here it goes. I came back from seeing Beowulf. Well, the good thing about this day is that I really enjoyed my company :) The bad thing - well, everything related to the movie as far as I am concerned. My friend seemed to agree and he did not read the book, so he had nothing to compare to. I know opinions differ on that, but I hated how they changed the story. I especially hated how they changed Beowulf's character. I HATED even more that my beloved Neil Gaiman played a part in it. You see, I have no problem with flawed heroes, love their struggles and all that. But as those who read the book know - Beowulf was just that - a hero. And last time I read the book ( and I only finished it recently for the first time) I do not remember him being a liar instead of the hero. It felt to me that character was changed just for the sake of changing. There is also that beatiful mythical atmosphere of the poem, which I did not feel one bit . I think this cartoon animated technology whatever did not help me to feel that I was drawn into the world. Alla. From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Sun Nov 25 04:44:37 2007 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 04:44:37 -0000 Subject: Turkey Question (was RE: Food) In-Reply-To: <000f01c82e07$a1ae1b90$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)" wrote: > > Hi there, > > Okay, I need someone who's done a lot of turkeys and someone who's had one > of the type that's been precooked. I specify that because, this year, I > ordered a prepared meal from our local supermarket which came with a > pre-cooked 10.5 pound turkey. The instructions for reheating stated not to > put water in the bottom of the roasting pan and to place bird on flat rack. > > When I opened the bag containing the turkey, there was lots of nice juice in > there which I didn't want to discard, so I placed the turkey on the flat > rack in the roaster and poured the juices into the pan, covered the thing > with foil for two-thirds of the heating-up process and then removed the foil > for the final third to get it nice and crispy. (I generally do that to all > my turkeys, even the ones I cook from scratch. Gets 'em crispy but leaves > them moist.) > > Well, as I say, I had the juices in the bottom of the pan and my turkey was > the most moist and succulent bird we've ever eaten. > > So, please do tell why in the world the re-heat instructions say not to put > water in the bottom of the pan? I am really curious about that. > > Here's hoping one of you Turkey Experts or house elves can find me an > answer. > > Cheers and Thanks, > > Lee :-) > Because they were supplying all the liquid that was needed to keep the turkey moist! Additional water would have diluted the flavor too. Snape's Witch From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sun Nov 25 05:03:06 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 05:03:06 -0000 Subject: Turkey Question (was RE: Food) In-Reply-To: <000f01c82e07$a1ae1b90$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: "Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)" wrote: > > Hi there, Okay, I need someone who's done a lot of turkeys and someone who's had one of the type that's been precooked. I specify that because, this year, I ordered a prepared meal from our local supermarket which came with a pre-cooked 10.5 pound turkey. The instructions for reheating stated not to put water in the bottom of the roasting pan and to place bird on flat rack. > > When I opened the bag containing the turkey, there was lots of nice juice in there which I didn't want to discard, so I placed the turkey on the flat rack in the roaster and poured the juices into the pan, covered the thing with foil for two-thirds of the heating- up process and then removed the foil for the final third to get it nice and crispy. (I generally do that to all my turkeys, even the ones I cook from scratch. Gets 'em crispy but leaves > them moist.) > > Well, as I say, I had the juices in the bottom of the pan and my turkey was the most moist and succulent bird we've ever eaten. > > So, please do tell why in the world the re-heat instructions say not to put water in the bottom of the pan? I am really curious about that. > > Here's hoping one of you Turkey Experts or house elves can find me an answer. > Doddie here: And I actually have an answer for you... Most if not all of pre- cooked turkeys have been soaked in some sort of brine always before cooking and sometimes after... The reason why they said not to put any liquid in said roasting pan was because there would be so many juices coming from the turkey. I typically will buy a fresh or frozen turkey..I always soak said turkeys...during the cooking process I ALWAYS have to empty out my roasting pan a couple of times during roasting.. I will stuff these turkeys with onion/garlic/apples/pears/orange/lemon/even a couple of cranberries if I opt to leave the lemon out... so this is a reason why I had additional moisture... Typically if one gets a premade turkey their roasting pans are not so deep so if liquid in the turkeybag are added to said pan it will result in overflow... I know this only because me mum combined my recipie(because she liked the taste of the turkey) with a premade turkey(because she like the moistness) and all ended up being dry due to the small fire in her oven..LOL Thing is...just to watch the roasting pan and remove excess liquid...add it to the broth pot or save it to add to gravy in prepurchased store bought containers/pre-cooked turkey or otherwise.. (one can add up to a cup of broth for one can of store bought gravy...or, two cups for gravy from an envelope of powdered gravy, and as much as you want for homemade(I don't particularly care for giblets...but boiling the neck or even a wing in a pot will give enough gelatin to thicken said gravy.).. However, always taste the salt levels...or it could be disastrous... (seeing as your turkey stayed moist and their was still moisture at the bottom of the roasting pan I'm guessing..not much salt in the brine it was soaked in..) Doddie.. (who hates that at one time in her life she was three credits away from also getting that BS in chemistry too *shudder* LOL) From n2fgc at arrl.net Sun Nov 25 05:14:29 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:14:29 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Turkey Question (was RE: Food) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003401c82f22$0e7855e0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Thanks to you, good lady! I'm saving this message as I enjoy the tips in here. Lee :-) |-----Original Message----- |From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com |[mailto:HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of doddiemoemoe |Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 00:03 |To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com |Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Turkey Question (was RE: Food) | | "Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)" wrote: |> |> Hi there, | | Okay, I need someone who's done a lot of turkeys and someone who's |had one of the type that's been precooked. I specify that because, |this year, I ordered a prepared meal from our local supermarket |which came with a pre-cooked 10.5 pound turkey. The instructions |for reheating stated not to put water in the bottom of the roasting |pan and to place bird on flat rack. |> |> When I opened the bag containing the turkey, there was lots of |nice juice in there which I didn't want to discard, so I placed the |turkey on the flat rack in the roaster and poured the juices into |the pan, covered the thing with foil for two-thirds of the heating- |up process and then removed the foil for the final third to get it |nice and crispy. (I generally do that to all my turkeys, even the |ones I cook from scratch. Gets 'em crispy but leaves |> them moist.) |> |> Well, as I say, I had the juices in the bottom of the pan and my |turkey was the most moist and succulent bird we've ever eaten. |> |> So, please do tell why in the world the re-heat instructions say |not to put water in the bottom of the pan? I am really curious |about that. |> |> Here's hoping one of you Turkey Experts or house elves can find me |an answer. |> | |Doddie here: | | And I actually have an answer for you... Most if not all of pre- |cooked turkeys have been soaked in some sort of brine always before |cooking and sometimes after... | |The reason why they said not to put any liquid in said roasting pan |was because there would be so many juices coming from the turkey. | |I typically will buy a fresh or frozen turkey..I always soak said |turkeys...during the cooking process I ALWAYS have to empty out my |roasting pan a couple of times during roasting.. | |I will stuff these turkeys with |onion/garlic/apples/pears/orange/lemon/even a couple of cranberries |if I opt to leave the lemon out... so this is a reason why I had |additional moisture... | |Typically if one gets a premade turkey their roasting pans are not |so deep so if liquid in the turkeybag are added to said pan it will |result in overflow... | |I know this only because me mum combined my recipie(because she |liked the taste of the turkey) with a premade turkey(because she |like the moistness) and all ended up being dry due to the small fire |in her oven..LOL | |Thing is...just to watch the roasting pan and remove excess |liquid...add it to the broth pot or save it to add to gravy in |prepurchased store bought containers/pre-cooked turkey or otherwise.. |(one can add up to a cup of broth for one can of store bought |gravy...or, two cups for gravy from an envelope of powdered gravy, |and as much as you want for homemade(I don't particularly care for |giblets...but boiling the neck or even a wing in a pot will give |enough gelatin to thicken said gravy.).. | |However, always taste the salt levels...or it could be disastrous... |(seeing as your turkey stayed moist and their was still moisture at |the bottom of the roasting pan I'm guessing..not much salt in the |brine it was soaked in..) | |Doddie.. |(who hates that at one time in her life she was three credits away |from also getting that BS in chemistry too *shudder* LOL) | | | |________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________ | |The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them! |http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2 | |Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary |material from posts to which you're replying! | |Yahoo! Groups Links | | | | From n2fgc at arrl.net Sun Nov 25 05:14:29 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:14:29 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Turkey Question (was RE: Food) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003501c82f22$0ee807a0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> [Snape's Witch]: |Because they were supplying all the liquid that was needed to keep |the turkey moist! Additional water would have diluted the flavor |too. [Lee]: Bless you! That maketh sense. Thanks. Lee :-) (The Grateful) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sun Nov 25 07:33:12 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 07:33:12 -0000 Subject: Regarding mince pies.. Message-ID: Now I was raised that minced pies were little mini pies for the most part...to make up for the richness of the filling.. over the years many variations of a mince pie recipie has resulted..most of the time for the "mini pies" or even tarts (a mini pie w/o a top for those in most of the u.s.).. I willingly gave the recipie for those who asked but typically, all those mini-pies are too much effort. My answer has been to make a mince apple pie filling..which most folk love (if the type of apple used is correct and the ratio of mince vs. apple is correct).. My question is, has anyone combined mincemeat filling with anything other than apple to make an entire pie... I've seen pre-made frozen plain mince pies that contain peach..but wonder what said recipie is...(some sugar, but how much, some cream of tartar or cornstarch added but when/where in the recipie(would a piece piefilling with a little bit of mincemeat pie filling suffice?)... It's hard for me as my kids have so many allergies...I was wondering if anyone had answers. Also, most berry recipies are out as some of my kids have allergies to seeds..(and yes, I can make my own mince meat as well as buy from a jar...but I don't know if I want to make and entire pie out of it given the time it takes to make it...quite happy with small tarts/tart-like pies). Me mum actually makes a grape and mince pie...I have no idea how she does it..and neither does she LOL! My dad always buys too much produce and she has to do something with it...she began making grape pies of all things...LOL(with all sorts of grapes besides concord). Doddie. (who wishes goosberries were in abundance in the United States and perhaps this is how/why her mum makes those grape pies? LOL) From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sun Nov 25 07:53:31 2007 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:53:31 +1100 Subject: Goldilocks In-Reply-To: <003401c82f22$0e7855e0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> References: <003401c82f22$0e7855e0$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Message-ID: <9A3B2ABE25FC4DDC9496E063BF107841@ShaunPC> It's 4.30pm on Sunday as I write this, and it's the first time I've sat down today, after rising at 7.30am, this morning. Since approximately 8.30am, I have been cleaning the bungalow at the back of my house, that serves as my office, my rumpus room, my D&D room, and my sanctuary. Because at 7.30, this morning, I went out the back and realised my laundry detergent had been stolen from the laundry. And I looked across at the bungalow and realised the lock was forced. My heart stopped because in there was my laptop. With all the school reports I've spent 19 hours writing over the last three days on it. And which are due on Tuesday. I went over, opened the door, and was confronted by a 24 year old girl. She told me, she'd hidden in there, because she was being attacked. I slammed the door, and called the cops. She went out the window. I caught her at the fence and grabbed her. And a fight began. She bit me. Kicked me. Repeatedly. I restrained her. I'm a big guy, I basically used my bulk to stop her getting away. A neighbour came and helped, and eventually after a while, the police arrived. Took her into custody - she was 'known to them'. And I checked my bungalow. She had completely trashed the place. Ransacked it. But had got away with virtually nothing. The only thing that seems to be missing is my wallet - and associated ID. But she made so much mess. In the bungalow was my briefcase. A suitcase. A laptop bag. A cooler full of soft drinks used for my D&D games. These were emptied out - the cooler had been full of ice on Friday, and was full of water last night - that was dumped on the floor. I'll need to replace the carpet. And she basically started loading them up with anything valuable. ANd then crap. She broke a whole bunchof my CDs She broke a whole bunch of my D&D miniatures She tried to steal the bottle of scotch, I bought a couple of weeks ago, and posted to the list about. It's been eight hours cleaning. Why did I call this post Goldilocks. Well, because there was a box of cheezels in the bungalow. She ate them. And then she fell asleep on the couch. And that's why I caught her. She's been remanded in custody. She's confessed. And she was on parole, which means she'll be back in prison by tomorrow. But it's 5.30pm, now, and I haven't done any of the other stuff I needed to do for tomorrow. Like lesson plans for a week of lesson hell (this week looked daunting when I heard about it - now it looks so, so much worse). I am taking tomorrow off work, because I can barely walk. That is going to inconvenience at least four of my colleagues, which is something else this young woman probably doesn't care about. I doubt she cares about anything except her next fix. She's a junkie. And she bit me. I'm not impressed. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Sun Nov 25 08:28:36 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:28:36 +1000 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Goldilocks In-Reply-To: <9A3B2ABE25FC4DDC9496E063BF107841@ShaunPC> References: <003401c82f22$0e7855e0$67a4a8c0@FRODO>,<9A3B2ABE25FC4DDC9496E063BF107841@ShaunPC> Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC5ED20F@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au> Shaun, How awful for you! You must be totally exhausted. There is nothing worse than the feeling of violation from being burgled. I feel for you, honestly, I've never been burgled but my parents have and it's very traumatic. I hope some real justice is done in this case. Sharon from Brisbane ________________________________________ Shaun: It's 4.30pm on Sunday as I write this, and it's the first time I've sat down today, after rising at 7.30am, this morning. Since approximately 8.30am, I have been cleaning the bungalow at the back of my house, that serves as my office, my rumpus room, my D&D room, and my sanctuary. Because at 7.30, this morning, I went out the back and realised my laundry detergent had been stolen from the laundry. And I looked across at the bungalow and realised the lock was forced. From drcarole71 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 25 15:33:00 2007 From: drcarole71 at yahoo.com (drcarole71) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:33:00 -0000 Subject: books about harry Message-ID: I need something to read. Are there any recent books about Harry that are good? I just ordered a book called "Unlocking Harry Potter; Five Keys for the Serious Reader", by John Granger. Thanks Carole From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Nov 25 16:04:28 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:04:28 -0000 Subject: Goldilocks In-Reply-To: <9A3B2ABE25FC4DDC9496E063BF107841@ShaunPC> Message-ID: Shaun: > Like lesson plans for a week of lesson hell (this week looked daunting when > I heard about it - now it looks so, so much worse). > > I am taking tomorrow off work, because I can barely walk. > > That is going to inconvenience at least four of my colleagues, which is > something else this young woman probably doesn't care about. > > I doubt she cares about anything except her next fix. > > She's a junkie. And she bit me. > > I'm not impressed. Magpie: Oh man, Shaun. That is so awful. It could have been worse--but what it was was bad enough. Any day when you're bitten by anyone is a very bad day. (Goldilocks from hell.) I hope you got your bite checked! -m From n2fgc at arrl.net Sun Nov 25 19:07:18 2007 From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:07:18 -0500 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Regarding mince pies.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000f01c82f96$663ea300$67a4a8c0@FRODO> Doddie, I'd love your mince recipe. I've gotten the stuff in jars, but it would be nice to see a recipe. What I would do, and this is cheating in the highest, is to take the frozen Pillsbury rolls and pull them apart and shape them into muffin tins, cutting and crimping the edges, then put into them the mince from the jar. It works pretty nicely, but I'd like a nice recipe. Cheers, Lee :-) Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm I may not care to lead; | N2FGC Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or) I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net Walk beside me, and be my friend. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Nov 25 20:03:05 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:03:05 -0000 Subject: Goldilocks In-Reply-To: <9A3B2ABE25FC4DDC9496E063BF107841@ShaunPC> Message-ID: --- "Shaun Hately" wrote: > > It's 4.30pm on Sunday as I write this, and it's the first > time I've sat down today, after rising at 7.30am, this > morning. > > Since approximately 8.30am, I have been cleaning the bungalow > at the back of my house, > > ... > > I went over, opened the door, and was confronted by a 24 year > old girl. > > ... > > I slammed the door, and called the cops. > > She went out the window. > > I caught her at the fence and grabbed her. > > And a fight began. > > She bit me. Kicked me. Repeatedly. > > I restrained her. ... > > Took her into custody - she was 'known to them'. > > And I checked my bungalow. > > She had completely trashed the place. Ransacked it. > > But had got away with virtually nothing. > > ...edited... bboyminn: I'm amazed at how STUPID the average criminal is. If she was really smart she would have sneeked in grabbed the things of most obvious value and been gone. But Nooooooo, she had to waste time trashing the place, stopping for lunch and a nap. Really, I swear the average criminal acts with a deep seated wish to get caught, either because they think it enhances their 'bad boy' reputation or because they really do hope some one will stop them. The only redeeming aspect of it all, is that, in this case, the criminal was so stupid that they didn't get anything but more prison time. Sorry, you has some of your stuff was trashed. I suspect the D&D miniatures were collectibles, and if not now, then someday would have been worth a significant amount of money. I guess it is fortunate for us all the criminal are so stupidly irrational because it virtually guarantees they will get caught, if not for the crime against us, then certainly for some other crime eventually. I guess people who are smart enough to commit smart crimes are smart enough to know that crime doesn't pay. Hope you can get things back on track again soon. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Nov 25 21:35:59 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:35:59 -0000 Subject: Goldilocks In-Reply-To: <9A3B2ABE25FC4DDC9496E063BF107841@ShaunPC> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > > It's 4.30pm on Sunday as I write this, and it's the first time I've sat down > today, after rising at 7.30am, this morning. > > Since approximately 8.30am, I have been cleaning the bungalow at the back of > my house, that serves as my office, my rumpus room, my D&D room, and my > sanctuary. > > Because at 7.30, this morning, I went out the back and realised my laundry > detergent had been stolen from the laundry. > > And I looked across at the bungalow and realised the lock was forced. Geoff: I think I know how you feel. Two years ago, we returned from a week's holiday to find a French door smashed, a lot of mess and a lot of family jewellery - which we didn't use - but had immense nostalgic value had gone... But it was the knowledge that someone had 'invaded' our space, had thrown stuff around - and the shock of opening the front door as we returned and realising that somthing was seriously wrong. I hope you will soon get the mess sorted out and feel that you are returning to normal again. From drcarole71 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 25 21:49:16 2007 From: drcarole71 at yahoo.com (drcarole71) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:49:16 -0000 Subject: Goldilocks In-Reply-To: <9A3B2ABE25FC4DDC9496E063BF107841@ShaunPC> Message-ID: Please get the bite checked. Human bites can be dangerous. What an awful thing to have happen to you. Carole, who doesn't post much, but is concerned about your injuries. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Nov 25 23:39:01 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:39:01 -0000 Subject: Goldilocks Message-ID: Shaun wrote in : << My heart stopped because in there was my laptop. With all the school reports I've spent 19 hours writing over the last three days on it. And which are due on Tuesday. (snip) But it's 5.30pm, now, and I haven't done any of the other stuff I needed to do for tomorrow. Like lesson plans for a week of lesson hell (this week looked daunting when I heard about it - now it looks so, so much worse). >> First thing, I give you my very best wishes that you surmount that school stuff despite this (very horrible) obstacle. (I wouldn't -- I would just cry and have hysterics all day.) << I went over, opened the door, and was confronted by a 24 year old girl. I slammed the door, and called the cops. She went out the window.I caught her at the fence and grabbed her. And a fight began. She bit me. Kicked me. Repeatedly. >> Is that why << I am taking tomorrow off work, because I can barely walk >> ? Some girl junkie hurt you worse than playing rugby? Or is it because << It's been eight hours cleaning >> ? (Ouch, I don't mean this to sound unsympathetic!) << I looked across at the bungalow and realised the lock was forced.>> New locks for the bungalow's door and windows. Possibly a stronger door and/or decorative burglar bars. << And I checked my bungalow. She had completely trashed the place. Ransacked it.But had got away with virtually nothing. The only thing that seems to be missing is my wallet - and associated ID. But she made so much mess. In the bungalow was my briefcase. A suitcase. A laptop bag. A cooler full of soft drinks used for my D&D games.These were emptied out - the cooler had been full of ice on Friday, and was full of water last night - that was dumped on the floor. I'll need to replace the carpet. >> Here's hoping that the laptop wasn't damaged by being dumped out, hopefully not into the water. << And she basically started loading them up with anything valuable. And then crap. She broke a whole bunch of my CDs. She broke a whole bunch of my D&D miniatures. (snip) I doubt she cares about anything except her next fix. >> Dumping water to use the cooler to carry loot is a very messy thing (she *could* have dumped the water out the door) but at least one understands the motive. Just breaking stuff at random, or because she could figure that it was stuff a person would be fond of, doesn't get her any money or anything. As Steve bboy_minn wrote in : << I'm amazed at how STUPID the average criminal is. If she was really smart she would have sneaked in grabbed the things of most obvious value and been gone. But Nooooooo, she had to waste time trashing the place, stopping for lunch and a nap. >> Lunch and a nap might perhaps make sense. She was a junkie (albeit one sane enough to lie: << She told me, she'd hidden in there, because she was being attacked. >> How well can junkies control their other cravings? Maybe she saw the cheezles (same as Cheez-Its?) and that reminded her that she hadn't eaten for a long time and she was as unable to resist the urge to eat as I sometimes am to resist nearby chocolate. And maybe eating put her messed-up metabolism to sleep. But why did she even want to trash the place? Maybe just that she hates everyone. If that's the reason, then even if she had all the money and drugs and food and fashion she could want, she might still break into strangers' home *just* to trash them Or I have read psychologists saying that many burglars eat from the refrigerator and defecate on the living room carpet motivated by the same instinct that many animals have to mark their territory. (If it was a thought rather than an instinct, the way humans mark their territory is to change the locks, not to defecate on the rug. The animal who had dug that burrow, encountering the dropping of a bigger, meaner animal, would run away. A human would call in even bigger, meaner humans: the police or a private security company.) << I guess people who are smart enough to commit smart crimes are smart enough to know that crime doesn't pay. >> Maybe we don't know about the people who commit smart crimes because they're smart enough not to get caught. Or maybe stealing hundreds of millions of dollars (by embezzlement or fraud) and living a lavish lifestyle for years and then being able to leave a good chunk of that money to one's family while spending one's declining years in a white-collar federal prison IS a smart crime, not only in the sense that it took brains to think up the fraud, but also in the sense that the cost of being sentenced to a less-pleasant old-age home (federal prison, but not one of the violent ones) is worth the benefit. From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Nov 26 03:22:30 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:22:30 -0000 Subject: Goldilocks In-Reply-To: <9A3B2ABE25FC4DDC9496E063BF107841@ShaunPC> Message-ID: Shaun, that is absolutely dreadful, and I am so sorry that it happened to you. Are you in the U.S.? If yes, given that you have reported the crime to the police you are eligible for Crime Victims Compensation. Hope you look into it. Susan From gwharrison53 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 14:30:38 2007 From: gwharrison53 at yahoo.com (gwharrison53 at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:30:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: JKR = Beedle the Bard Message-ID: <200711261430.lAQEUcux019731@upsa-web103.ofoto.com> JKR manuscript = Beedle the Bard (9) You're invited to view these photos online at KODAK Gallery! Just click on View Photos to get started. http://www.kodakgallery.com/I.jsp?c=brptja83.84i49c07&x=1&h=1&y=6h89ak If you'd like to save this album, just sign in, or if you're new to the Gallery, create a free account. Once you've signed in, you'll be able to view this album whenever you want and order Kodak prints of your favorite photos. Enjoy! Instructions: Click view photos to begin. If you're an existing member you'll be asked to sign in. If not, you can join the Gallery for free. http://www.kodakgallery.com/Register.jsp Questions? Visit http://help.kodakgallery.com. ------------------------------------------------------------ The KODAK Gallery Customer Service Team Phone: 800-360-9098 / 512-651-9770 Outside of the US and Canada ------------------------------------------------------------ If you cannot see the links above, copy and paste the following URL directly into your browser: http://www.kodakgallery.com/I.jsp?c=brptja83.84i49c07&x=1&h=1&y=6h89ak [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 26 19:04:08 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:04:08 -0000 Subject: Computing the date of Thanksgiving (Was: food) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Magpie: > > > It's the third Thursday in November. Which sounds really random! > > > > > > > Mike: > > Ummm, it's the fourth Thursday, dear. :D > > Magpie: > It is? Oh well. I always thought it was the third. I just go with when they tell me it is. Carol responds: At least it's easier to figure out than the first Sunday after the first full moon after the twenty-first of March, which is how Easter is computed. Carol, who for some reason memorized that formula when she was about ten and has never forgotten it From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Nov 26 22:26:12 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:26:12 -0000 Subject: Computing the date of Thanksgiving (Was: food) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: Carol: > At least it's easier to figure out than the first Sunday after the > first full moon after the twenty-first of March, which is how Easter > is computed. Geoff: Yeah, but it's not so much fun..... :-) From maritajan at yahoo.com Tue Nov 27 17:11:31 2007 From: maritajan at yahoo.com (MJ) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:11:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: real world Quidditch Message-ID: <866457.14072.qm@web36807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2007-11-26-quidditch_N.htm How cool is this??? MJ ------------------------------- http://www.myspace.com/maritajan ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Nov 28 00:15:01 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:15:01 -0000 Subject: real world Quidditch In-Reply-To: <866457.14072.qm@web36807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- MJ wrote: > > http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2007-11-26-quidditch_N.htm > > > > How cool is this??? > > > MJ > bboyminn: That really is cool. Maybe someday soon, we can all attend the real Quidditch World Cup. Steve From sopraniste at yahoo.com Wed Nov 28 15:14:09 2007 From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (sopraniste) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:14:09 -0000 Subject: real world Quidditch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Interesting.... It seems quite similar to the land-based version of the game that is played at the symposiums, but we didn't have brooms. I hadn't actually thought of the fact that broom-riding leaves you with only one hand free much of the time. We'll be doing one of the Beyond Boundaries HP tours this summer; shall I report back on how their version of quidditch works out? From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Nov 28 19:05:30 2007 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:05:30 -0000 Subject: DD or Gangalf - who is greater? Message-ID: So THIS is how we got stuck with Gambon. http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/mckellen%20turned%20down% 20less%20superior%20harry%20potter%20role_1051645 I still wish they had tried harder to get someone else. Tonks_op From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 19:23:39 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:23:39 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] DD or Gangalf - who is greater? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40711281123p4fa53d13i999f9b96c06401b@mail.gmail.com> On Nov 28, 2007 1:05 PM, Tonks wrote: > So THIS is how we got stuck with Gambon. > > > http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/mckellen%20turned%20down% > 20less%20superior%20harry%20potter%20role_1051645 > > I still wish they had tried harder to get someone else. > > Tonks_op montims: whoever they had got would still be working with the same script, the same costume designer and the same director, so I don't think the performance would have been that much different. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kkersey at swbell.net Wed Nov 28 19:58:16 2007 From: kkersey at swbell.net (kkersey_austin) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:58:16 -0000 Subject: real world Quidditch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The rules mentioned in that article are pretty similar to the ones we use at our church's Harry Potter summer camp, except that we made brooms out of foam pipe insulation tubes and raffia (a bit safer for the kids). We tied strips of cloth to each end of the broomstick so that they could tell who was on which team. A red kickball for the Quaffle, a couple of those sponge-filled swimming pool toy balls for the bludgers, and a foxtail with wings attached to the ball part and the tail tucked into a back pocket or waistband for the snitch. The beaters each carried a short bat made out of pipe insulation foam; they were not supposed to run with the bludgers in hand. Having one neutral player as the snitch runner worked really well. When I went over the rules with the kids, I told them that the game was supposed to be totally confusing so if they had no idea what was going on they were playing it right. ;-) Actually, it worked out well. For the youngest kids we didn't bother with the beater positions at all, and it was easy to add an extra chaser or subtract a beater if we didn't have exactly fifteen players in the group. Putting the team colors on the brooms turned out to be a good idea because it was *hot* - a kid who wanted to take a breather could just hand off the broom to whomever was ready to jump in, without interrupting the game. Total chaos, but fun. Elisabet From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Nov 28 20:16:20 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:16:20 -0000 Subject: DD or Gangalf - who is greater? In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40711281123p4fa53d13i999f9b96c06401b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > On Nov 28, 2007 1:05 PM, Tonks wrote: > > > So THIS is how we got stuck with Gambon. > > > > > > http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/mckellen%20turned%20down% > > 20less%20superior%20harry%20potter%20role_1051645 > > > > I still wish they had tried harder to get someone else. > > > > Tonks_op > > > montims: > whoever they had got would still be working with the same script, the same > costume designer and the same director, so I don't think the performance > would have been that much different. > Geoff: Maybe, but I think each character brings something of their own to a part. Quite frankly, I've never liked Michael Gambon in the part. He seems too bullish for Dumbledore. OK, maybe that's a reaction to him following Richard Harris but in the books, Dumbledore comes over as rather low-key even in confrontational situations - a polar opposite to Gambon. But that's just my gut reaction. Others will doubtless disagree. They're bound to - this is HPFGU after all. :-) From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 28 20:20:59 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:20:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: DD or Gangalf - who is greater? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <706630.42079.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Geoff Bannister wrote: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > On Nov 28, 2007 1:05 PM, Tonks wrote: > > > So THIS is how we got stuck with Gambon. > > > > > > http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/mckellen%20turned%20down% > > 20less%20superior%20harry%20potter%20role_1051645 > > > > I still wish they had tried harder to get someone else. > > > > Tonks_op > > > montims: > whoever they had got would still be working with the same script, the same > costume designer and the same director, so I don't think the performance > would have been that much different. > Geoff: Maybe, but I think each character brings something of their own to a part. Quite frankly, I've never liked Michael Gambon in the part. He seems too bullish for Dumbledore. OK, maybe that's a reaction to him following Richard Harris but in the books, Dumbledore comes over as rather low-key even in confrontational situations - a polar opposite to Gambon. But that's just my gut reaction. Others will doubtless disagree. They're bound to - this is HPFGU after all. :-) ***Katie: I never liked Harris or Gambon. They're neither merry enough nor funny enough to me to be DD, and I agree that Gambon is far too aggressive. I'm not sure who would have made a good DD, but I enjoyed Ian McKellan's twinkley, cheery Gandalf and I hoped to find the same merriness in DD. I find film version of DD the least like the book character out of all the main characters. Film Harry is also lacking in some of the goofiness I find in book Harry...but I can live with it. Film DD is more of a disappointment to me. Katie . --------------------------------- Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Schlobin at aol.com Thu Nov 29 02:20:41 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:20:41 -0000 Subject: DD or Gangalf - who is greater? In-Reply-To: <706630.42079.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > > > > > > http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/mckellen%20turned% 20down% > > > 20less%20superior%20harry%20potter%20role_1051645 > > > > > > I still wish they had tried harder to get someone else. > > > > > > Tonks_op > > > > > > montims: > > whoever they had got would still be working with the same script, the same > > costume designer and the same director, so I don't think the performance > > would have been that much different. > > > > Geoff: > Maybe, but I think each character brings something of their own to a part. > Quite frankly, I've never liked Michael Gambon in the part. He seems too > bullish for Dumbledore. OK, maybe that's a reaction to him following > Richard Harris but in the books, Dumbledore comes over as rather > low-key even in confrontational situations - a polar opposite to Gambon. > > But that's just my gut reaction. Others will doubtless disagree. They're > bound to - this is HPFGU after all. > :-) > > ***Katie: I never liked Harris or Gambon. They're neither merry enough nor funny enough to me to be DD, and I agree that Gambon is far too aggressive. I'm not sure who would have made a good DD, but I enjoyed Ian McKellan's twinkley, cheery Gandalf and I hoped to find the same merriness in DD. > > I find film version of DD the least like the book character out of all the main characters. Film Harry is also lacking in some of the goofiness I find in book Harry...but I can live with it. Film DD is more of a disappointment to me. Katie > > > . I agree; I agree. I thought Richard Harris was FAR better than Gambon....but I also agree with whomever said it was the script writer, and the costume designer...look at those gorgeous wonderful costumes in movie 1 and 2 (for DD - back to my Scarlet Pimpernel costumes)..... Harris had a LITTLE twinkle in his eye, but he was never given the great lines (nitwit! blubber! oddment! tweak!)...so that he could be the true DD... and what's the deal with Gambon as DD SHOUTING at Harry? SHOUTING at the students..looking uncertain when confronted by Umbrage..... One of the wonderful things about DD in the books is his centered smiling courtesy even while being (almost) arrested by the Fudge, or being sacked by the Governors....or having a stroll with Tom Riddle... We only hear him scared when HP was in big danger, we hear him pleading with SS to kill him, otherwise, he's the epitome of serenity... Gambon works the least well of all the adult characters for me..PARTICULARLY compared with Alan Rickman, and Maggie Smith, or Robbie Coltrane! Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 02:50:00 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:50:00 -0000 Subject: DD or Gandalf - who is greater? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Susan McGee wrote: > > Gambon works the least well of all the adult characters for me..PARTICULARLY compared with Alan Rickman, and Maggie Smith, or Robbie Coltrane! Carol responds: I think it's because Gambon has never read the books. Someone told him that DD dies in HBP--that's all he knows about canon DD. I only hope someone tips him off about Snape's true loyalties and he doesn't play the tower scene as if Snape has betrayed him! I hate having him confined to that single, unDumbledorean costume, too, but it's scenes like the one where he shakes Harry and shouts at him in GoF that really make him seem miscast. However, he'll probably fit nicely into the more Machiavellian role awaiting him in "The Prince's Tale," if that crucial chapter makes it onto the screen. It seems to me that DH, despite a few cinematic references (an allusion to Krum's facial hair, a nod to "Equus," and the line from "Alien" given to Molly), that DH will be harder to film than HBP. * Don't read the next paragraph if you want to avoid LOTR spoilers * To get back to the subject line, I think that Ian McKellen is right. Gandalf is incomparably greater than Dumbledore, just as Sauron is incomparably greater than Voldemort. Rowling's characters are just men with magical powers whose attempts to overcome death are futile. Tolkien's characters, at least the two I named, are Maiar (an order equivalent to wingless angels), to all intents and purposes immortal. (Sauron doesn't die; he just fades away, too weak ever to take bodily form again.) Voldemort is a serial killer and terrorist leader; Sauron, if not thwarted, will enslave or destroy the entire world. Gandalf returns from something like death; Dumbledore is reduced to a voice in a portrait giving orders (or counsel) to one man, with a brief appearance in the afterlife, but he can't return to the world of the living or affect events there except through Harry, who isn't dead and can return. Anyway, Ian McKellen sounds as if he's a bit resentful of Richard Harris and doesn't want to follow in the footsteps of a man who criticized him, and it's doubtful whether he's read the Potter books, or if he had, he was probably judging them by the first two, but I do think that Dumbledore is a step down from Gandalf, both in terms of greatness and goodness. Dumbledore would have succumbed to the One Ring. (IMO.) Carol, hoping that it's okay to discuss the films here and trying to get back OFF topic as befits this list From kempermentor at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 05:18:17 2007 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kemper mentor) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:18:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] DD or Gangalf - who is greater? Message-ID: <941509.75153.qm@web90411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Tonk_op: > So THIS is how we got stuck with Gambon. > http://www.contactm usic.com/ news.nsf/ article/mckellen %20turned% 20down% 20less%20superior% 20harry%20potter %20role_1051645 > I still wish they had tried harder to get someone else. Kemper now: Gambon does suck, but so did Harris. McKellen kicks ass! And, after the outing, Ian would've been a perfect DD with Alan and Daniel as his apt pupils. Kemper ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 08:21:51 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:21:51 -0000 Subject: DD or Gangalf - who is greater? In-Reply-To: <941509.75153.qm@web90411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: --- kemper mentor wrote: > > > Tonk_op: > > So THIS is how we got stuck with Gambon. > >... > > > I still wish they had tried harder to get someone else. > > > > Kemper now: > Gambon does suck, but so did Harris. > McKellen kicks ass! And, after the outing, Ian would've > been a perfect DD with Alan and Daniel as his apt pupils. > > Kemper > bboyminn: Harris at least had some sense of Dumbledore, Gambon obviously has none. But we can't blame that all on Gambon. The script writer and the director have a huge part is what we finally see on the screen. McKellen would have indeed been a magnificent Dumbledore, but as he implies, after you played the best, after you've created the definitive movie wizard in Gandalf, why settle for second best. Also, I think for most actors you don't want to play too many roles that are the same. If McKellen had played Dumbledore and made it the definitive role, it's possible all he would have every gotten from directors and agents from that point forwards is, 'We'll give you a call if we ever need a wizard'. Still, I am absolutely certain that McKellen would have made a first rate Dumbledore. As a second best, I think Patrick Stewart would have certainly been better than Gambon. It seems as if this is nothing but a job to Gambon. He comes, he works, he collects his check, and he goes home. In a few interviews, he has made some very insensitive remarks regarding fans and the franchise. That more than anything told me he doesn't care about these movie or his character, it is merely a process by which he earns a paycheck. Sad really. Steve/bboyminn From Schlobin at aol.com Thu Nov 29 10:44:44 2007 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:44:44 -0000 Subject: DD or Gandalf - who is greater? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: re: Gambon... I didn't know he hadn't read the books! No wonder! Contrast this to EVERYONE on the LOTR set combing the books.....Sir Ian brought up that Gandalf was supposed to have a silver scarf (per the book) and didn't have one in the movie -- one was supplied! Susan From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 12:50:44 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 06:50:44 -0600 Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: DD or Gangalf - who is greater? In-Reply-To: References: <941509.75153.qm@web90411.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40711290450v72084b4agea780d2d24520b98@mail.gmail.com> > > bboyminn: > > As a second best, I think Patrick Stewart would have certainly > been better than Gambon. It seems as if this is nothing but > a job to Gambon. He comes, he works, he collects his check, > and he goes home. In a few interviews, he has made some very > insensitive remarks regarding fans and the franchise. That > more than anything told me he doesn't care about these movie > or his character, it is merely a process by which he earns > a paycheck. Sad really. > > montims: not to be defending Gambon too much, as I don't like his character in the movies either, but he is a very good actor, and I think he has very little patience with interviewers, so some of the remarks he has made are just jokes which haven't been taken that way. Also, as to not reading the books, given the scripts they are working with, he is probably right. The scripts differ so much from the books, how would it help having read them? (Assuming he hasn't, which we can't know for sure...) The anger and shaking of Harry were in the script and the direction... The trio have read the books, but still have to speak lines that are contrary to their characters, and act in ways that are different from the book Trio... What I'm saying is that I think Gambon is playing the role he is told to play. And it is just his job - if it didn't pay his bills, he would be foolish to do it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Nov 29 15:18:14 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:18:14 -0000 Subject: DD or Gangalf - who is greater? In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40711290450v72084b4agea780d2d24520b98@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: montims: > not to be defending Gambon too much, as I don't like his character > in the movies either, but he is a very good actor, and I think he > has very little patience with interviewers, so some of the remarks > he has made are just jokes which haven't been taken that way. > Also, as to not reading the books, given the scripts they are > working with, he is probably right. The scripts differ so much > from the books, how would it help having read them? (Assuming he > hasn't, which we can't know for sure...) The anger and shaking of > Harry were in the script and the direction... The trio have read > the books, but still have to speak lines that are contrary to their > characters, and act in ways that are different from the book > Trio... What I'm saying is that I think Gambon is playing the role > he is told to play. And it is just his job - if it didn't pay his > bills, he would be foolish to do it. Jen: Gambon grew on me in OOTP. He has DD's detachment, and his fiercer side will work in HBP when he shows more intensity to Harry. Gambon didn't come off as well for me in POA or GOF though, except that last scene in GOF when he portrayed DD as more kindly. Also the remark about setting the curtains on fire. After DH that fits, "Hmm, don't like these curtains that have been here since Hogwarts began no doubt, I'll just unilaterally get rid of them. Incendio!" From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 17:42:19 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:42:19 -0000 Subject: DD or Gangalf - who is greater? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- kemper mentor wrote: > > > > > Tonk_op: > > > So THIS is how we got stuck with Gambon. > > > >... > > > > > I still wish they had tried harder to get someone else. > > > > > > > > Kemper now: > > Gambon does suck, but so did Harris. > > McKellen kicks ass! And, after the outing, Ian would've > > been a perfect DD with Alan and Daniel as his apt pupils. > > > > Kemper > > > > bboyminn: > <> > As a second best, I think Patrick Stewart would have certainly > been better than Gambon. It seems as if this is nothing but > a job to Gambon. He comes, he works, he collects his check, > and he goes home. In a few interviews, he has made some very > insensitive remarks regarding fans and the franchise. That > more than anything told me he doesn't care about these movie > or his character, it is merely a process by which he earns > a paycheck. Sad really. > > Steve/bboyminn > ***Katie: Patrick Stewart would have been delightful as DD! He's got that magical quality, plus, he's able to be silly and quirky. I loved him on Extras a few seasons ago - he can be very playful and mischievious. He also has the Captain Picard calm-through-any-storm quality that is shared with DD. I agree about Gambon. I always liked him, before this. I loved him in Sleepy Hollow, especially. But, if you're going to do a cult thing, like HP or LotR...you have to accept that it's a cult thing. I mean, Peter Jackson made everyone read LotR before the films were made. I think that made such an incalcuable difference to the essence of the books coming through in the films. I can't believe Gambon hasn't read the books. Ugh. Makes me like him as DD even less. Katie From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 20:10:24 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:10:24 -0000 Subject: DD or Gangalf - who is greater? In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40711290450v72084b4agea780d2d24520b98@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: --- Janette wrote: > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > As a second best, I think Patrick Stewart would have > > certainly been better than Gambon. ... In a few interviews, > > he has made some very insensitive remarks regarding fans > and the franchise. ... > > > Janette: > > not to be defending Gambon too much, as I don't like his > character in the movies either, but he is a very good actor, > ... Also, as to not reading the books, given the scripts > they are working with, he is probably right. The scripts > differ so much from the books, how would it help having read > them? bboyminn: Keep in mind that I said I didn't blame Gambon completely. It is really up to the Director to make sure the actors portray the characters accurately, or at least consistent with the Directors vision of the character. And it is common for actor NOT to read the book the script is based on. In most cases, the actor wants to capture the movie version of the character and doesn't want his vision clouded by the books. Even Tom Felton (Draco) did this at first. In interviews he said he didn't read the books because, as I've already said, he wanted to portray the script writer and director's vision of the character. Again, this is very common. But there comes a time, when that doesn't work. When you are trying very hard to capture the spirit and essence of the books and accompanying characters, you have to know your character inside and out. Consequently Tom/Draco realized that he did needed to read the books to capture Draco. The same is true of Lord of the Rings, these characters are so well known and so loved that you can't just accept the script version. It doesn't give you the depth you need to really understand the character. Many actors on the LotR set actually brought books onto the set with them to make sure they completely understood the motivations and emotions of the characters in a given scene. You mentioned the movie-Trio not being able to do anything other than recite the script they are given, but I'm not sure that's true. By reading the books, they have a deeper understanding of their character; a greater understanding of underlying subtext and character motivation. This is similar to actors who research a role before they play it. If they are playing a cop, for example, they hang around with cops to understand the stresses they are under and how that affects their lives and personalities. In a franchise this big, with books this well known, I think it is lazy acting to not try to understand your character on a deeper level. If Gambon made the effort to understand Dumbledore, I think he could do a much better job. But it seems clear that he DOESN'T understand Dumbledore, he does see his underlying motivations and emotion, nor understand his personality. Yes, Gambon is a great actor. The problem is, he doesn't realize he is playing a great role. A role that can, somewhat, make him or break him. Many of the secondary Potter actors are now household names. Many fans will go to see Alan Rickman in any movie he is in, simply because he does such a great job of portraying Snape. But, if you screw up a character or don't take it seriously, that can also alienate millions of people against you as an actor, and discourage them from viewing your future work. Great an actor as he is, I think Gambon is playing his cards very poorly. But again, I don't dump all the blame on him, it is up to the Director to get the right performance out of him, but that would be an easier process if Gambon understood his character. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From kempermentor at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 20:38:48 2007 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kemper mentor) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:38:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: DD or Gangalf - who is greater? Message-ID: <863117.21966.qm@web90405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > > Kemper earlier: > >Gambon does suck, but so did Harris. > >McKellen kicks ass! And, after the outing, Ian would've > >been a perfect DD with Alan and Daniel as his apt pupils. >bboyminn: >As a second best, I think Patrick Stewart would have certainly >been better than Gambon. Kemper now: For sure better! Judi Dench would have been better, and much more preferred, at least by this reader. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 29 22:47:12 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:47:12 -0000 Subject: DD or Gangalf - who is greater? In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40711290450v72084b4agea780d2d24520b98@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: montims wrote: > > not to be defending Gambon too much, as I don't like his character in the movies either, but he is a very good actor, and I think he has very little patience with interviewers, so some of the remarks he has made are just jokes which haven't been taken that way. Also, as to not reading the books, given the scripts they are working with, he is probably right. The scripts differ so much from the books, how would it help having read them? (Assuming he hasn't, which we can't know for sure...) Carol responds: Now, Janette, do you really think I would make something like this up or just repeat a rumor I'd heard that Gambon hasn't read the books? He said it himself in an interview excerpted on hpana news on November 16, 2005: http://www.hpana.com/news.19095.html The link to the original interview no longer works, but the quote is there as plain as day for anyone to read: "Empire: Are you kind of easing into the role a bit more now you have done one film as Dumbledore? "Gambon: I just play him as myself, I don't ease myself into any role really. I stick a beard on and play me. Every part I play is just a variant of my own personality. No real character actor, of course, just me. "Empire: Have you still not read any of the books? "Gambon: Well, I don't see any point. I've got the scripts. People who have read the books get miserable because of all the bits that have been cut out. So I just read the script. That's the best way." Carol, who should have supplied the quote in the first place