From coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar  8 13:27:22 2007
From: coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid (Caius Marcius)
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:27:22 -0000
Subject: FILK: We Will Know All The Story Wrote By Jo
Message-ID: <esp2vq+jlvf@...>

We Will Know All The Story Wrote By Jo

To the tune of We Will All Go Together When We Go by Tom Lehrer

Text and MIDI here:

http://www.casualhacker.net/tom.lehrer/evening.html#go

A slightly shortened version on You-Tube (with Star Wars footage) 
here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU2mwrxRQyA

Dedicated to Siriusly Snapey Susan

It's the climax of the Potterverse
That's arriving on the twenty-first
Of July when Deathly Hallows goes on sale.
And we've all of us had queries 
Or sophisticated theories
Quite ornate and convoluted in detail,
But better hurry
.
No more "Who will die?" or "Who lives?"
Or a parsing of Snape motives 
Will soon now never more arouse debate.
For as the saga does conclude 
It's the end of all our feuds
Once we learn everybody's final fate
..

And we will know all the story wrote by Jo
When we finish the final blow-by-blow.
It will be near and far heard,
What's before that final "scar" word.
Yes, we will know all the story wrote by Jo.

We will know all the story wrote by Jo
Who will end up in happiness or woe.
No more of "ifs", "buts" or "maybes"
When we learn who is R.A.B,
Barnes and Nobles will see their profits plateau.

Oh we will all sob in reading the last snog
For we'll have nothing more on which to blog.
We will on-screen The Phoenix see 
Then next week, we will get Kleenex-y
While perusing the ending epilogue. 

Down at Steve's Lexicon,
Pages marked "new" will soon be gone.

And we will find ev'ry answer there to find.
There will be no more forward, just rewind.
For Book Seven's circulation
Brings an end to speculation,
'Cept for what comes from reading `tween the lines.

Oh we will all hear together what's to hear
All the stuff that has puzzled us for years.
When the seventh Horcrux-tion
Is put up to its destruction
All our chat rooms of chatter will be clear. 

'Oh, we'll be stripped altogether of our ships
We will see no more joining of the lips
For there's virtually no chance
We'll have any further romance
Once we obtain the final manuscript.

We will learn what Snape was up to at the Tower of Astronomy
Which I must confess at present is totally beyond-a me

And we will know all the story wrote by Jo
After we've spent our thirty bucks or so. 
We will all find out if Harry'll
Find himself in need of burial.
Yes we will know all the story
We will know all the story
Yes we will know all the story wrote by Jo.

   -	CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm
 





From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Fri Mar  9 14:26:10 2007
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:26:10 -0000
Subject: FILK: We Will Know All The Story Wrote By Jo
In-Reply-To: <esp2vq+jlvf@...>
Message-ID: <esrqq3+k618@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius" <coriolan at ...> 
wrote:
>
> We Will Know All The Story Wrote By Jo
> 
> To the tune of We Will All Go Together When We Go by Tom Lehrer
<snip>
> Dedicated to Siriusly Snapey Susan
> 
> It's the climax of the Potterverse
> That's arriving on the twenty-first
> Of July when Deathly Hallows goes on sale.
> And we've all of us had queries 
> Or sophisticated theories
> Quite ornate and convoluted in detail,
> But better hurry
.
> No more "Who will die?" or "Who lives?"
> Or a parsing of Snape motives 
> Will soon now never more arouse debate.
> For as the saga does conclude 
> It's the end of all our feuds
> Once we learn everybody's final fate
..


SSSusan:
Why, thank you much, CMC.  What a lovely coincidence that I grew up 
listening to Tom Lehrer albums and have always enjoyed his humor!

Amazing to think that we're 133 days away from getting all the 
answers we're going to get.  

Anybody care to share what they're planning to do re: the release?  
Going to a bookstore happening?  Hosting a party?  Waiting for the 
book at home?  In no particular rush?

I really, really dislike spoilers.  Last time I had been exposed to 
the supposed facts that Snape was the HBP, DD would die, and Bill 
would perhaps be a werewolf, all of which obviously played out just 
that way.  I was NOT pleased.  

So this time, even though my 10-year-old daughter really wanted to go 
to a B&N midnight party again, I'm going to pass.  No matter how 
quickly we would get our copy & head out the door, I'm convinced some 
schmuck ahead of me in line would open his/her book to the back, read 
a few lines, and shout out, "He dies!" or "He lives!"  And I really 
don't want to know, going in, what *that* particular outcome is.  So 
I've convinced said daughter that she can still stay up 'til 
midnight, we can head to the local Kroger grocery store or Wal-Mart 
and grab a copy there, where it's "safer," and then we'll await the 
arrival of the 2nd copy in the mail later Saturday.

Now... how to avoid all the spoilers sure to appear in the media & 
online ahead of time?  Bah.

Siriusly Snapey Susan






From severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid  Fri Mar  9 14:50:59 2007
From: severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid (severelysigune)
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:50:59 -0000
Subject: FILK: We Will Know All The Story Wrote By Jo
In-Reply-To: <esrqq3+k618@...>
Message-ID: <esrs8j+1hiu@...>


 SSSusan wrote:
<<Amazing to think that we're 133 days away from getting all the 
answers we're going to get.  
 
Anybody care to share what they're planning to do re: the release?  
Going to a bookstore happening?  Hosting a party?  Waiting for the 
book at home?  In no particular rush?>>

Sigune:
I'm rather active in the Potter fandom on LiveJournal these days; when
DH is released, I will have to abstain from LJ until I've read it! :D
So I will be reading it as soon as I can.

Funny enough, an American friend and I had been pondering going to
Sectus in London. We'd booked tickets in January, thinking we might
still cancel if we didn't feel like going after all. Of course, now
that it turns out the final book will be released during Sectus, our
enthusiasm has increased considerably :). The Staff is providing us
with books from midnight on, so I'll have my copy there and read it
among other fans.

 
<<I really, really dislike spoilers.  Last time I had been exposed to 
the supposed facts that Snape was the HBP, DD would die, and Bill 
would perhaps be a werewolf, all of which obviously played out just 
that way.  I was NOT pleased.>>

I wouldn't be either. If I'm spoilt about the ending, or about Snape's
fate, all my interest in the book would be gone. I'm so glad I didn't
hear anything about HBP on beforehand; I don't want that to be
different this time. I'm going to lock myself up until I've finished
the book!


<<Now... how to avoid all the spoilers sure to appear in the media & 
online ahead of time?  Bah.>>

Hm. Yes.

I hope people online observe the proper spoiling policies... As for
the media, I don't know. Hopefully JKR and her publishers manage to
keep everything secret. For the rest, we'll just have to stopper our
ears and close our eyes until we're done reading ;P.

Ack. I wish the ending could be postponed. I'm just not ready yet! :D

I also have to revise my essay about the Slytherin Question and get it
posted before JKR resolves everything for me ;).

Yours severely,

Sigune
(long-time lurker)





From joym999 at joywitch_z_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 13 06:13:27 2007
From: joym999 at joywitch_z_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid (joywitch_z_curmudgeon)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 06:13:27 -0000
Subject: Prisoner of Azkaban
Message-ID: <et5fe7+72j8@...>

Hey, all.  Haven't been around here in a while, but I just found a 
list I wrote last year so I thought I'd post it.  You see, I 
listened to the audio PoA and found that I noticed a lot of stuff, 
or, well, noticed it differently, maybe, when I listened than when I 
read.  I realized that the reason why PoA is my favorite book is 
because so many things turn out to be different than they seem at 
first.  Here's my list of them:

the BIG BLACK DOG is not a GRIM
CROOKSHANKS is not just an ordinary CAT
(from the POV of Stan) the kid on the bus is HARRY, not NEVILLE
HARRY is not a student at ST. BRUTUS'
SCABBERS is not a RAT
PETER PETTIGREW is not DEAD
SIRIUS BLACK is not a TRAITOR
SIRIUS BLACK is not a MURDERER
SIRIUS BLACK was not the Potters' SECRET KEEPER
SIRIUS BLACK is not a MUGGLE WHO ESCAPED FROM A MUGGLE PRISON
the SHRIEKING SHACK is not HAUNTED
the WHOMPING WILLOW was not COINCIDENTLY PLANTED the year Remus 
Lupin started at Hogwarts
REMUS LUPIN is not just sick every month
REMUS LUPIN is not exactly human
the DEMENTORS are not the best GUARDS
FUDGE is not a very good MINSTER OF MAGIC 
BUCKBEAK was not EXECUTED
the DEMENTOR at the Quidditch game was not REAL
HERMIONE is not just TAKING A LOT OF CLASSES
TRELAWNEY is not much of a SEER
then again, TRELAWNEY is not really a FRAUD
DRACO is not really HURT BY BUCKBEAK (ok, hardly anyone really 
thinks he is)
the SNEAKOSCOPE is not really DEFECTIVE

There's probably more...






From mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 13 06:49:33 2007
From: mikesusangray at mikesusangray.yahoo.invalid (Mike & Susan Gray)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:49:33 +0100
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Prisoner of Azkaban
In-Reply-To: <et5fe7+72j8@...>
Message-ID: <000301c7653b$c2c625b0$0400a8c0@hwin>

> Here's my list of them:

But you rather neglected to mention the most insidious discovery of all:

JOYWITCH does NOT really eat BABIES.

Baaaaa,

Mike the etc.

P.S. Not ALL of them, anyway.




From joym999 at joywitch_z_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 14 01:53:00 2007
From: joym999 at joywitch_z_curmudgeon.yahoo.invalid (joywitch_z_curmudgeon)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:53:00 -0000
Subject: Prisoner of Azkaban
In-Reply-To: <000301c7653b$c2c625b0$0400a8c0@hwin>
Message-ID: <et7khs+oh0s@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Mike & Susan Gray" 
<mikesusangray at ...> wrote:
>
> > Here's my list of them:
> 
> But you rather neglected to mention the most insidious discovery of 
all:
> 
> JOYWITCH does NOT really eat BABIES.
>

Well, actually, I do like to nibble on their tiny little toes.




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Mar 18 10:45:25 2007
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:45:25 -0000
Subject: Transfiguration here we come
Message-ID: <etj585+9823@...>

Reported in UK sunday press

Emma Watson refuses to sign for last two HP films,
reported as "being fed up with being "that girl" from Harry Potter"

Myrtle, this could be your big break.
Give me an 'A', George:
"And the next day on your dressing room they hang a star."


Kneasy




From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Sun Mar 18 14:47:19 2007
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:47:19 -0000
Subject: Transfiguration here we come
In-Reply-To: <etj585+9823@...>
Message-ID: <etjjdn+3thm@...>

Kneasy wrote:
>
> Reported in UK sunday press
> 
> Emma Watson refuses to sign for last two HP films,
> reported as "being fed up with being "that girl" from Harry Potter"
> 

Hmm...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6460000/newsid_6464000/646404
9.stm

'A spokesperson for Warner Bros., who make the films, told 
Newsround: "We're extremely confident that Emma will be back for 
films six and seven."'

Sounds like the usual pre-contractual shenanigans.  No doubt somebody 
at WB reasoned that, as she only gets the sidekick and not the lead, 
her pay could be reduced accordingly, and her agent told her to throw 
her toys out of the pram to the Sun or whoever.

David




From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid  Sun Mar 18 14:47:24 2007
From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:47:24 -0000
Subject: Transfiguration here we come
In-Reply-To: <etj585+9823@...>
Message-ID: <etjjds+3hhl@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at ...> wrote:
>
> Reported in UK sunday press
> 
> Emma Watson refuses to sign for last two HP films,
> reported as "being fed up with being "that girl" from Harry Potter"
> 
> Myrtle, this could be your big break.
> Give me an 'A', George:
> "And the next day on your dressing room they hang a star."
> 
> 
> Kneasy

Oh, lord! I've already had enough trouble adjusting to the new 
Dumbledore! What's next!?

:: Entropy ::
Visit my shop at: http://www.SugarcubeDesign.etsy.com
Visit my blog at: http://www.SugarcubeDesign.blogspot.com





From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Mar 18 16:19:12 2007
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:19:12 -0000
Subject: Transfiguration here we come
In-Reply-To: <etjjdn+3thm@...>
Message-ID: <etjoq0+1kkb@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" <dfrankiswork at ...> wrote:
> 
> Hmm...
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6460000/newsid_6464000/646404
> 9.stm
> 
> 'A spokesperson for Warner Bros., who make the films, told 
> Newsround: "We're extremely confident that Emma will be back for 
> films six and seven."'
> 
> Sounds like the usual pre-contractual shenanigans.  No doubt somebody 
> at WB reasoned that, as she only gets the sidekick and not the lead, 
> her pay could be reduced accordingly, and her agent told her to throw 
> her toys out of the pram to the Sun or whoever.
> 
> David
>

Presented slightly differently in the press:

"TEEN film star Emma Watson is about to do a vanishing act 
from Hogwarts ? because the Harry Potter films have lost 
their magic.

The pretty 16-year-old, who plays key character Hermione 
Granger, wants a spell doing other roles.

She has REFUSED to sign a new contract, plunging the final 
two movies of the JK Rowling novels into crisis.

The feisty young actress has told producers that even doubling 
her pay packet to ?2 million a movie won't do the trick.

Filming on the sixth film in the series ? Harry Potter and the 
Half-Blood Prince ? is due to start in months.

Daniel Radcliffe is already signed up to star as the quidditch-
playing wizard and Rupert Grint will again play Harry's best pal 
Ron Weasley.

He told us: "Emma doesn't want to do it any more. She's tired of 
being known as `that girl from Harry Potter'."

She was shocked when a besotted fan stalked her at school.

Rupert added: "Daniel and I are distant from her now. We don't 
text or talk to her when we are not filming."

Their last film together ? Harry Potter and the Order of the 
Phoenix ? comes out in July.

Film makers Warner Brothers confirmed Emma, has not signed 
for more movies."

Mind you, the 'press' in this case is a Murdoch scandal-sheet that
out-sells every other Sunday and is usually referred to as 'The News
of the Screws' A touch on the sensationalist side with censorious 
overtones, you know the sort of thing I mean, though they've 
learned to be accurate when quoting directly, it costs 'em a bomb
otherwise. 

Um. A thought.
Didn't Warner sign up for the first 5 books?
When did they contract for the last two? Don't remember reading
anything about it. Though the films don't interest me much so I
probably missed it (haven't seen the last one and don't intend to, not
after that godawful PoA thing.)

Kneasy




From gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar 19 23:58:05 2007
From: gbannister10 at geoff_bannister.yahoo.invalid (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:58:05 -0000
Subject: Transfiguration here we come
In-Reply-To: <etjoq0+1kkb@...>
Message-ID: <etn82d+of4c@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" <arrowsmithbt at ...> wrote:

> Um. A thought.
> Didn't Warner sign up for the first 5 books?
> When did they contract for the last two? Don't remember reading
> anything about it. Though the films don't interest me much so I
> probably missed it (haven't seen the last one and don't intend to, not
> after that godawful PoA thing.)
> 
> Kneasy

Geoff:
That is, of course, a subjective view....

I think POA and GOF were far better than the first two. 
But that is also a subjective view....




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 20 12:00:58 2007
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:00:58 -0000
Subject: Transfiguration here we come
In-Reply-To: <etn82d+of4c@...>
Message-ID: <etoidq+1mcb@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
> 
> Geoff:
> That is, of course, a subjective view....
> 
> I think POA and GOF were far better than the first two. 
> But that is also a subjective view....
>

Ah! Geoff, old bean! Wondered where you'd got to.

'Course it's subjective, it's the personal prejudices and
individual assessments that add flavour to the daily round
and I for one wouldn't have it any other way. 
Where's the fun if everyone agrees?

Offhand, I can't think of a film adaptation of any book I've 
read that has managed to match the original printed word.
Um. Correction: Orson Wells' 'The Third Man', but I'm prejudiced
against Graham Greene, he's a twossock IMO, but almost 
no-one reads the book anyway.

The key word above is 'adaptation', 'cos that's what film
makers do, they adapt to suit their own vision, technical
limitations or the studio accountants expectations. So what 
we see is a sort of "son of..." or if they make a real pig's ear
of it, "a perversion of..." or if they're really desperate for a
hit, the latest hotty star gets totally miscast in a farrago
that should be consigned to blissful forgetfulness asap.

Not that the HP films I've seen quite plumb those depths,
though it might be significant that a whole bunch of UK
household-name second-rate 'entertainers' were roped in 
for the bit-parts in PoA, almost as if it was felt that the
minor characters had to be 'carried' otherwise the audience
might get bored. Perhaps the producer owed a lot of
favours.

Seem to recall that before dropping off tol, I had some
exchanges with a couple of 'fans' who were remarkably
ignorant of the detail of the books. Not just detail either,
but some fairly major plot twists. Transpired they
hadn't read the books, only watched the films. Is that the
target audience the studio is aiming at? - if you can't 
read without moving your lips, watch the film instead. 
I have my suspicions. 

>From now on I'll give the films a miss and stick with the 
books, thanks anyway. And I'll have plenty of time for 
reading, having slung out the TV. On occasion films can 
be bad, but compared to an average night on the goggle-
box they start to look like high culture.
Things have come to a pretty pass....

Kneasy





From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 20 17:45:36 2007
From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak)
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:45:36 -0000
Subject: Transfiguration here we come
In-Reply-To: <etjoq0+1kkb@...>
Message-ID: <etp6k0+labb@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" <dfrankiswork@> 
wrote:
> > 
> > Hmm...
> > 
> > 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6460000/newsid_6464000/646404
> > 9.stm
> > 
> > 'A spokesperson for Warner Bros., who make the films, told 
> > Newsround: "We're extremely confident that Emma will be back for 
> > films six and seven."'
> > 
> > Sounds like the usual pre-contractual shenanigans.  No doubt 
> > somebody at WB reasoned that, as she only gets the sidekick and 
> > not the lead, her pay could be reduced accordingly, and her agent 
> > told her to throw her toys out of the pram to the Sun or whoever.
> > 
> > David
> >
> 
> Presented slightly differently in the press:
> 
<snip> Daniel Radcliffe is already signed up to star as the quidditch-
> playing wizard and Rupert Grint will again play Harry's best pal 
> Ron Weasley.
> 
> He told us: "Emma doesn't want to do it any more. She's tired of 
> being known as `that girl from Harry Potter'."
> 
> She was shocked when a besotted fan stalked her at school.
> 
> Rupert added: "Daniel and I are distant from her now. We don't 
> text or talk to her when we are not filming."
> 
> Their last film together ? Harry Potter and the Order of the 
> Phoenix ? comes out in July.
> 
> Film makers Warner Brothers confirmed Emma, has not signed 
> for more movies."

I'd tend to agree with David. As a 16 year old, Emma is now entitled 
to make her own decisions about contract negotiations. She is 
currently the continuing character in a film series who is now 
legally entitled to renegotiate any terms her parents may have agreed 
to. Her agent, if they're any good, will be strongly suggesting that 
she'll never have so much power in a negotiation again (unless she 
wins an Oscar). And that she should play WB for every penny she can 
get out of them. Especially since it's almost certain that she didn't 
realise at age 11 what an impact these films would have on her life 
(and equally certain that WB did).

Looking at the News of the World (the paper that doesn't care if it's 
true as long as it makes a good headline), the quotes they've got are 
from Rupert Grint, not Emma, or her agent. And Rupert, by his own 
account, hasn't spoken to her for ages... Likewise, 
the 'confirmation' from WB means not a thing, as they can't say she's 
signed until she *has*.

But in the end, it's up to her. After all, if she decides she wants 
her life back, it's now her decision, not her parents. 
Pip!Squeak




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 20 19:35:57 2007
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:35:57 -0000
Subject: Transfiguration here we come
In-Reply-To: <etp6k0+labb@...>
Message-ID: <etpd2t+upf0@...>

> 
> But in the end, it's up to her. After all, if she decides she wants 
> her life back, it's now her decision, not her parents. 
> Pip!Squeak
>

Small snag - her signature on a contract means nothing, she's
only 16 and the contract would not be valid.

Her parent/guardian decides what is best for her and, no doubt
after family discussions, will append the necessary moniker - or
not. 

Just hope her parents aren't low enough to commit her to
something she doesn't want to do - it's happened before with 
under-age stars and often has unfortunate consequences.

Kneasy




From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 20 19:40:32 2007
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid)
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: We've got a (US) page count
Message-ID: <434345.32235.qm@...>

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#article:9634

Scholastic says the US edition will have 784 pages... less than OotP's 870 but more than GoF's 734.  Sounds good to me!

SSSusan



From pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid  Tue Mar 20 22:19:26 2007
From: pip at bluesqueak.yahoo.invalid (bluesqueak)
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:19:26 -0000
Subject: Transfiguration here we come
In-Reply-To: <etpd2t+upf0@...>
Message-ID: <etpmle+pohv@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at ...> wrote:
>
> > 
> > But in the end, it's up to her. After all, if she decides she 
wants 
> > her life back, it's now her decision, not her parents. 
> > Pip!Squeak
> >
> 
> Small snag - her signature on a contract means nothing, she's
> only 16 and the contract would not be valid.
> 

Are you sure about that, Kneasy? We're talking employment law here, 
not buying a house, making a will or agreeing to medical treatment. 
Employment contracts apply to 16 year olds, because 16 year olds can 
take full-time employment.

> Her parent/guardian decides what is best for her and, no doubt
> after family discussions, will append the necessary moniker - or
> not. 
> 

Again, are you sure about that? My understanding is that a 16 year 
old in the UK can take a job without their parents permission, with 
the exception of joining the Armed Forces (presumably because joining 
the Armed Forces is bloody dangerous). This implies that they can 
agree to a contract of employment without needing a parental 
signature. Certainly once a young actor hits 16, they no longer 
require chaperoneage, nor must they attend school/be provided with a 
tutor whether they like it or not. 16 year olds have no restrictions 
on their hours and may also have their own agent. 16 year olds are 
(for employment purposes) legally quite distinct from 15 year olds.

> Just hope her parents aren't low enough to commit her to
> something she doesn't want to do - it's happened before with 
> under-age stars and often has unfortunate consequences.

Again, my understanding is that once you hit 16, you gain a 
considerable number of rights regarding your parents and their 
ability to force you to take a job you don't want. 

Pip!Squeak




From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 21 09:32:08 2007
From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin)
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:32:08 -0000
Subject: We've got a (US) page count
In-Reply-To: <434345.32235.qm@...>
Message-ID: <etqu2o+icph@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, susiequsie23 at ... wrote:
>
> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#article:9634
> 
> Scholastic says the US edition will have 784 pages... less than 
OotP's 870 but more than GoF's 734.  Sounds good to me!
> 
> SSSusan
>

Oh my god I just suddenly got really excited... It's ok, it'll pass 
in a minute...

I still haven't figured out how I'm going to get hold of a copy. 
Negotiations to fly back to the UK at around the right time are not 
going too well. Someone doesn't seem to understand that waiting a 
fortnight, or a month, or forever as the case may be (the Ivorian 
postal workers are striking again, and they have an unfortunate habit 
of making a big bonfire of the backlog) is just not bloody 
acceptable. Whenever I shout "BUT HARRY POTTER IS *IMPORTANT*" I am 
greeted with a sardonic smile and a worryingly calm, "No, it isn't."

I could always scan the lists of people I know will be flying out 
here from europe around the right time (anything up to a week or a 
month late) and demand that they bring a copy. Would I trust them not 
to forget? They're likely to be bloody scientists or charity workers, 
so it's possible if they face weight restrictions on the plane 
they'll decide that their damn project equipment is more important... 
(obviously they'd be wrong). 

I must somehow avoid the waiting, waiting is just not an option. It'd 
be like giving up smoking, only worse. Fidgeting, worrying, 
wondering... occasionally indulging in fantasies of logging on to the 
list, then sticking fingers in ears and shouting LA LA LA LA LA!!! I 
CAN'T HEAR YOU EVIL DESIRE TO NIP DOWN THE ROAD AND GRAB A PACKET OF 
FILTHY TRAFFICKED GAHNAIAN DUNHILLS... Only about HP, obviously.

What the bloody hell am I going to do? (Apart from jump up and down 
shouting "It's not FAIR!" like a small child.) I know - I could fake 
appendicitis like Dahl did in Boy in an attempt to get flown home; 
I'll have four months to read up on the symptoms and make sure I can 
vomit on command... No, perhaps that's excessive.

I'll think of something, I'll HAVE to. 




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 21 10:30:02 2007
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:30:02 -0000
Subject: Transfiguration here we come
In-Reply-To: <etpmle+pohv@...>
Message-ID: <etr1fa+qnht@...>

> 
> Are you sure about that, Kneasy? We're talking employment law here, 
> not buying a house, making a will or agreeing to medical treatment. 
> Employment contracts apply to 16 year olds, because 16 year olds can 
> take full-time employment.
> 

Yes, they can, that's true as a generality, but 'child-stars' or any
under-age potentially high-earner falls into an area that is a 
contract minefield and where the mines tend to explode sometime
in the future.
The courts can over-rule any employment contract made by a
16/17 year old (up until they reach 21) if they think it's not in the 
best interests of the young person. Can apply to other types of
contract, too.

Next question - who decides what 'best interest' is or isn't.
Gawd knows.

Now this is not an aspect of employment that will affect most 
youngsters, but in film contracts where possibly millions are 
involved, plus (traditionally) all sorts of hangers-on and bottom-
feeders lurk hoping to siphon off cash when no-one is watching, 
the courts can get very sticky indeed.
Penalties and back-payments could be huge, not only for the
employer, but for the employees agent, manager, etc. if at a later
date someone starts complaining that they were worth more,
forced to do things they didn't want to, got ripped off by those 
supposed to be looking after their interests, and so on.

Then there's the banks. Oh boy.
Contract law for banks in regard to young persons is a maze on
its own, but the fact that no bank will issue a credit card to anyone
under 18 (because they have great difficulty in enforcing any debt 
repayment on young persons) is an indication that they'll want a
lot more than a 16 year olds John Henry on instructions before 
they'll co-operate fully when large sums are involved. 

Naturally enough in these circumstances employers, banks and the
like want to protect themselves and the best  way is to put the onus
(regarding contract terms/agreements) onto parent/guardian (or 
anyone that has power of attourney) so that if there are screams of
manipulation or rip-off at a later date, they can show that they 
weren't in the business of conning kids. Any dust-up then tends
to be a family matter rather than an employer ending up in the dock.

Basically, the potential employer wants armour-plated CYA and the
best way is not to accept the unsupported signature of an under-age
person. 

In case you're wondering, no, I don't pretend to be an expert in contract
law, but a few years ago there was this legal secretary, and her boss
was getting richer and fatter with a case involving a three-cornered
fight over contracts signed by someone under-age, though not show-biz.  
By all accounts it was very messy indeed.

Kneasy







From hp at gulplum.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 21 14:16:30 2007
From: hp at gulplum.yahoo.invalid (Richard)
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:16:30 +0000
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Transfiguration here we come
In-Reply-To: <etr1fa+qnht@...>
References: <etpmle+pohv@...>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20070321132540.00b20550@...>

At 10:30 21/03/2007 , Barry Arrowsmith wrote:

>The courts can over-rule any employment contract made by a
>16/17 year old (up until they reach 21) if they think it's not in the
>best interests of the young person. Can apply to other types of
>contract, too.

18, actually, not 21. The only areas in which the age of 21 rather than 18 
remains in terms of the concept of "majority" in English (& Welsh) law is 
standing for election to a public post, applying for most categories of 
firearms licence and owning a public house (i.e. selling alcohol, although 
you only need to be 18 to serve it).

Although Emma won't be 18 until next April, given the fact that she's been 
doing this Potter lark since she was 10 and is apparently intelligent and 
astute, any court (i.e. judge) would probably assume that she knows what 
she wants and would consider her own wishes above those of anyone around 
her. Should she decide to sign a contract, clear and absolute evidence of 
some form of arm-twisting would have to be produced to have it nullified 
(exactly as it would in the case of an adult).

>Next question - who decides what 'best interest' is or isn't.
>Gawd knows.

<etc, etc>

A small factoid to add to the mix....

Emma's mother is a lawyer, specialising in commercial contracts, in 
particular with regard to the world of entertainment. I know someone who 
used to work with her (from before Emma was given the part until about 
CoS's completion). It seems that Emma's mother was happier than she was to 
have got the part and she was the driving force behind Emma's acting career.

So whilst Emma's mum is very well placed to know exactly what Emma and the 
production team can and can't do with regard to her employment, it's not 
impossible that she is pulling strings for her own reasons.

In other words, if Emma really doesn't want to continue playing Hermione, 
nobody can force her. But if this latest story is just PR to get her a pay 
raise, she's in a fairly strong position for it to be credible and for her 
to get what she wants.

As it happens, from my recollection of HBP (which I didn't really enjoy and 
haven't re-read since it came out), I don't think Hermione had a huge 
amount of page-time anyway so there is no real reason why Emma shouldn't be 
able to fit in an appearance around whatever else she's up to. Considering 
both Dan and Rupert have been involved in other acting projects since they 
started working on HP while she has done absolutely nothing (is that by 
choice or lack of offers?) there could be an element of sour grapes in all 
of this as well.




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 21 17:08:45 2007
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:08:45 -0000
Subject: Transfiguration here we come
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20070321132540.00b20550@...>
Message-ID: <etroqt+91dm@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Richard <hp at ...> wrote:
>
> At 10:30 21/03/2007 , Barry Arrowsmith wrote:
> 
> >The courts can over-rule any employment contract made by a
> >16/17 year old (up until they reach 21) if they think it's not in the
> >best interests of the young person. Can apply to other types of
> >contract, too.
> 
> 18, actually, not 21. The only areas in which the age of 21 rather than 18 
> remains in terms of the concept of "majority" in English (& Welsh) law is 
> standing for election to a public post, applying for most categories of 
> firearms licence and owning a public house (i.e. selling alcohol, although 
> you only need to be 18 to serve it).
> 

Ah, I didn't make myself clear - a court can intervene in under-age 
'not in best interest' complaints up until the 21st birthday even though the
offence or malpractice occured before their 18th birthday, i.e. a 3 year
time lag. Don't ask me why.
Once over 21 the 'victim' has other legal routes of redress.

> 
> A small factoid to add to the mix....
> 
> Emma's mother is a lawyer, specialising in commercial contracts, in 
> particular with regard to the world of entertainment. I know someone who 
> used to work with her (from before Emma was given the part until about 
> CoS's completion). It seems that Emma's mother was happier than she was to 
> have got the part and she was the driving force behind Emma's acting career.
> 
> So whilst Emma's mum is very well placed to know exactly what Emma and the 
> production team can and can't do with regard to her employment, it's not 
> impossible that she is pulling strings for her own reasons.
> 
> In other words, if Emma really doesn't want to continue playing Hermione, 
> nobody can force her. But if this latest story is just PR to get her a pay 
> raise, she's in a fairly strong position for it to be credible and for her 
> to get what she wants.

Ah, let speculation, theorising and dark suspicions of conspiracy commence!

> 
> As it happens, from my recollection of HBP (which I didn't really enjoy and 
> haven't re-read since it came out), I don't think Hermione had a huge 
> amount of page-time anyway so there is no real reason why Emma shouldn't be 
> able to fit in an appearance around whatever else she's up to. Considering 
> both Dan and Rupert have been involved in other acting projects since they 
> started working on HP while she has done absolutely nothing (is that by 
> choice or lack of offers?) there could be an element of sour grapes in all 
> of this as well.
>

I didn't enjoy HBP much, either. Nor have I  re-read it.
Hmm. Might be worthwhile conductinng an ad hoc survey.

As to the true state of affairs, we'll probably never get all the details - and
no real reason why we should - none of our damn business.
No doubt the white smoke will issue from W. Bros offices sooner or later
and no matter what the final disposition, all will be sweetness and light.

Kneasy





From jferer at jferer.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar 24 11:43:59 2007
From: jferer at jferer.yahoo.invalid (Jim Ferer)
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:43:59 -0000
Subject: Prisoner of Azkaban
In-Reply-To: <et7khs+oh0s@...>
Message-ID: <eu32tv+l48a@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "joywitch_z_curmudgeon"
<joym999 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Mike & Susan Gray" 
> <mikesusangray@> wrote:
> >
> > > Here's my list of them:
> > 
> > But you rather neglected to mention the most insidious discovery of 
> all:
> > 
> > JOYWITCH does NOT really eat BABIES.
> >
> 
> Well, actually, I do like to nibble on their tiny little toes.
>
Who doesn't? The only downside is they sometimes kick you in the nose.




From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid  Mon Mar 26 20:27:45 2007
From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail)
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:27:45 -0000
Subject: Transfiguration here we come
In-Reply-To: <etroqt+91dm@...>
Message-ID: <eu9ac1+7b63@...>

Not to worry. Emma's in:

http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=b3885102-c9ab-4114-9d1b-672b9c58338c

:: Entropy ::
http://www.SugarcubeDesign.etsy.com
http://www.SugarcubeDesign.blogspot.com




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 28 12:48:48 2007
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:48:48 -0000
Subject: Smile, and smile, and be a villain
Message-ID: <eudo7g+9b7t@...>

We all love a villain.
Not all villains, it's true, and quite often it's a fictional 
villain rather than the real-life variety, but even so it 
says something about human nature. Partly it's because
of a deep-down envy I think, a not-so-subliminal wish 
that you too could do nasty things to those you despise
- and get away with it.

Oh yes we do, don't try to deny it. As a rough estimate 
about 90% of all folk heroes were villains cocking a snook
at the law and authority. Of course their excuse was that 
the law was unjust or the authority oppressive, which 
allowed many of them to claim some sort of moral 
superiority. And besides, it was fun, at least from this 
distance. Others just had fun and made no claim to the 
moral high ground at all.

One of my heroes is Jack Sheppard (or Shepeard - 18th 
Century spellings were a bit hit-and-miss) hanged at 
Tyburn in 1724 aged 21. Thief, house-breaker, highwayman
and serial escapee, he was enormously popular for decades
afterwards, his escapades forming the basis of Gaye's 'The 
Beggars Opera', numerous other stage presentations and 
scores of pamphlets and popular songs. Estimates of the 
crowd come to see him hang were put at up to 200,000. 
It was a solo performance, too - very unusual at a time 
when crims were turned off in batches. 
So why was he so popular? 
He had style, and it caught the popular imagination.

How does this relate to HP, you may ask. Well, there's Sevvy
for a start. Intended as a nasty nogoodnik he's arguably 
(on the fansites at least, and to the apparent chagrin of Jo) 
the most popular character of the series. Mind you, much 
of that is down to  Alan Rickman. As a female of my 
acquaintance put it "He causes terminal failure in my knicker
elastic." Jason Isaacs as Lucius is reported to cause similar 
effects in some as well. If the films hadn't been made, or if 
the casting had been otherwise fan perceptions might be 
a bit different. Some of us would still be cheering Sevvy on 
though - as W.C.Fields put it - anyone who hates children 
and animals can't be all bad.

Perception is all. Reality becomes largely irrelevant once 
our imagination/wishful thinking/fantasies get to work 
and perversely turn someone criminal (like Jack) or 
Potter-phobic (like Sevvy) into figures of approbation. 
Yes, Sevvy killed DD, but so what? Nobody's perfect.

What happens in one direction can also happen in reverse.
Just what do we really know about Salazar Slytherin? 
Not very much - he preferred purebloods, fought with the
other Founders, left, and has had a bad press ever since. 
Can't recall any tales of him bringing death and destruction
on medieval villages, or even zapping pubescent Gryffindor
students who'd happened to piss him off, but he's regarded
as the archetypal WW baddy for all that. Ron reckons that 
he was a twisted old loony, but what does Ron know?

Time heals all wounds, so they say and it may take time 
before an individual's talents come to be truly appreciated. 
A little snippet in a newspaper got me wondering about ole 
Sally. Is it time for a re-appraisal? Jo spent years in Portugal 
and many readers assume that Salazar is named for Antonio 
Oliveira Salazar, repressive right-wing dictator of Portugal for
over 30 years in the last century. 
Except....

"Former dictator Antonio  Oliveira Salazar was chosen as the
greatest Portuguese of all times by viewers of a TV show.

Salazar, prime minister of a repressive  right-wing regime
 also known as the New State from 1932 to 1968, received 
41 percent in Sunday evening's final of "Great Portuguese".

The late leader of the Portuguese Communist Party, Alvaro
Cunhal, came second with 19 percent of the vote."

Could be Jo would be a bit disappointed about that.

As for our Salazar, what we think of him would probably 
depend on who got cast in the role.

The 'wrong' actor and that might end up disappointing Jo, too. 
Fans. Doncha love 'em?

Kneasy


P.S.
Not that I think Sally is a sympathetic character - rephrase
that - a nice character.  'Sympathetic' depends on the in-built
quotient of sadism, blood-thirstyness and contrariness of 
the reader. And on that basis...

Hmm. A couple of years back I did make a start on "Salazar 
Slytherin - his journal' intended as an aid to enthusiasts of 
magical history. Might get round to finishing it one of these days.





From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 28 15:39:27 2007
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:39:27 -0000
Subject: DH cover
Message-ID: <eue27f+d681@...>

I see that Deathly Hallows is being tailored for the Terry Pratchett 
market:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6503683.stm

David




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 28 18:51:14 2007
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:51:14 -0000
Subject: DH cover
In-Reply-To: <eue27f+d681@...>
Message-ID: <euedf2+4c23@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" <dfrankiswork at ...> wrote:
>
> I see that Deathly Hallows is being tailored for the Terry Pratchett 
> market:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6503683.stm
> 
> David
>

Interesting.... treasure and what looks like bits of armour.
And if you enlarge the picture, there appears to be
what looks like a sword-waving House-Elf hidden behind Harry.

Ah! Stabbed in the back by Dobby. 
Never did trust the little creep.

Kneasy




From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 28 19:13:29 2007
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid)
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: DH cover
Message-ID: <268956.16216.qm@...>

----- Original Message ----
From: Barry Arrowsmith <arrowsmithbt at ...>
To: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:51:14 PM
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: DH cover


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" <dfrankiswork at ...> wrote:
>
> I see that Deathly Hallows is being tailored for the Terry Pratchett 
> market:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6503683.stm
> 
> David
>

Kneasy:
Interesting.... treasure and what looks like bits of armour.
And if you enlarge the picture, there appears to be
what looks like a sword-waving House-Elf hidden behind Harry.

Ah! Stabbed in the back by Dobby. 
Never did trust the little creep.


SSSusan:
Ah, is it Dobby helping or Dobby attacking?  Or is it Kreacher?



From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Wed Mar 28 23:40:25 2007
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:40:25 -0000
Subject: DH cover
In-Reply-To: <euedf2+4c23@...>
Message-ID: <eueud9+65vm@...>

Barry:

> Interesting.... treasure and what looks like bits of armour.
> And if you enlarge the picture, there appears to be
> what looks like a sword-waving House-Elf hidden behind Harry.
> 
> Ah! Stabbed in the back by Dobby. 
> Never did trust the little creep.
> 

I assume they've been thrown into Harry's Gringotts vault for crimes 
against fashion.  Dobby's been put there too to show them how it's done.

David




From erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar 29 02:54:15 2007
From: erisedstraeh2002 at erisedstraeh2002.yahoo.invalid (Phyllis)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 02:54:15 -0000
Subject: DH cover
In-Reply-To: <euedf2+4c23@...>
Message-ID: <euf9on+5osc@...>

Kneasy:

<<Interesting.... treasure and what looks like bits of armour.
And if you enlarge the picture, there appears to be
what looks like a sword-waving House-Elf hidden behind Harry.>>

It looks to me as if the house-elf (whomever he/she is) could be waving 
Gryffindor's sword (note the ruby-encrusted hilt).

Swords, treasure, hallows - perhaps my Accio paper on Arthurian-HP 
connections might have actually had some foundation in reality after 
all :)

~Phyllis




From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar 29 17:41:40 2007
From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:41:40 -0000
Subject: Fire risk
Message-ID: <eugtok+g0kb@...>

hum, anyone else think that Hogwarts might be ablaze...all that 
glowing orange...???
Jo




From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Thu Mar 29 18:25:32 2007
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:25:32 -0000
Subject: A likely theory
Message-ID: <euh0as+bvbr@...>

Tom (my DH) noted that Harry and Voldie are apparently standing in an 
arena, watched by an audience, and are both trying to reach something.  
Clearly, they have decided to settle their dispute the only civilized 
way -- Quidditch!  First one to get the snitch rules the world!

I actually think Harry looks like he is trying to reach something that 
is coming from above, while Voldemort is trying to push it away. 

Here's a version where Harry and Voldemort are responding to the sudden 
appearance of Ceiling Cat:
http://community.livejournal.com/cat_macros/1367141.html#cutid1

-- Judy, hoping Yahoomort doesn't repost this a dozen times...




From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid  Fri Mar 30 01:02:56 2007
From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely)
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 01:02:56 -0000
Subject: DH cover
In-Reply-To: <268956.16216.qm@...>
Message-ID: <euhnk0+u744@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, susiequsie23 at ... wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Barry Arrowsmith <arrowsmithbt at ...>
> To: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:51:14 PM
> Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: DH cover
> 
> 
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" <dfrankiswork@> 
wrote:
> >
> > I see that Deathly Hallows is being tailored for the Terry 
Pratchett 
> > market:
> > 
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6503683.stm
> > 
> > David
> >
> 
> Kneasy:
> Interesting.... treasure and what looks like bits of armour.
> And if you enlarge the picture, there appears to be
> what looks like a sword-waving House-Elf hidden behind Harry.
> 
> Ah! Stabbed in the back by Dobby. 
> Never did trust the little creep.
> 
> 
> SSSusan:
> Ah, is it Dobby helping or Dobby attacking?  Or is it Kreacher?

Fran:
I bet its Dobby with what looks like GG's sword,as it has a ruby 
hilt. Anyone notice the red marks on the trio? Harry looks like he 
has a bite on his arm. You can see this when the pic is magnified 
400x. Regardless, looks like they are in deep doo.
>





From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar 31 13:33:28 2007
From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely)
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:33:28 -0000
Subject: US Book Cover,the headstones
Message-ID: <eulnv8+bi78@...>

On the US bookcover, it looks like headstones in the background. Is 
this the Deadly Hallow? Also, is that an amulet around Harry's neck.

So it looks like HRH will find GG's vault. Final showdown is in a 
graveyard. Nagini will be in the picture as well. Looks like she is 
contained in an orb on the back cover of the US book.

Fran




From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar 31 15:47:49 2007
From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail)
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:47:49 -0000
Subject: US Book Cover,the headstones
In-Reply-To: <eulnv8+bi78@...>
Message-ID: <eulvr5+tt1m@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "fhmaneely" <fmaneely at ...> wrote:
>
> On the US bookcover, it looks like headstones in the background. Is 
> this the Deadly Hallow? Also, is that an amulet around Harry's neck.
> 
> So it looks like HRH will find GG's vault. Final showdown is in a 
> graveyard. Nagini will be in the picture as well. Looks like she is 
> contained in an orb on the back cover of the US book.
> 
> Fran
>


No, no! It's arches! And a veil! Sirius is coming back! (Yippee!)




From coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar 31 18:21:59 2007
From: coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid (Caius Marcius)
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:21:59 -0000
Subject: A likely theory
In-Reply-To: <euh0as+bvbr@...>
Message-ID: <eum8s7+4i8i@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" <judy at ...> wrote:
>
> Tom (my DH) noted that Harry and Voldie are apparently standing in 
an 
> arena, watched by an audience, and are both trying to reach 
something.  
> Clearly, they have decided to settle their dispute the only 
civilized 
> way -- Quidditch!  First one to get the snitch rules the world!
> 

An arena, an audience, a curtain, a hero and a villain facing off, 
it all points to one thing: JKR decided to write the climactic 
confrontation as a filk-musical.

The evidence of ruins suggests that Harry and Voldemort's 
performance literally brought the house down.

Seriously, folks, the sky on the Book Seven cover doesn't really 
tell us whether we're outdoors or not - there are multiple 
references to faux sky tableaux magically projected upon the ceiling 
of the Great Hall (e.g., thunderstormy clouds when Mad-Eye makes his 
Book Four entrance)

   - CMC

   - CMC




From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar 31 19:11:51 2007
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:11:51 -0000
Subject: Smile, and smile, and be a villain
In-Reply-To: <eudo7g+9b7t@...>
Message-ID: <eumbpn+valk@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith"
<arrowsmithbt at ...> wrote:

> "Former dictator Antonio  Oliveira Salazar was chosen as the
> greatest Portuguese of all times by viewers of a TV show.
> Salazar, prime minister of a repressive  right-wing regime
>  also known as the New State from 1932 to 1968, received 
> 41 percent in Sunday evening's final of "Great Portuguese".
> 
> The late leader of the Portuguese Communist Party, Alvaro
> Cunhal, came second with 19 percent of the vote."
> 
Prince Henry the Navigator? Fernando Magellan? Aren't there any
Portuguese great authors?




From coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar 31 21:43:37 2007
From: coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid (Caius Marcius)
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:43:37 -0000
Subject: Smile, and smile, and be a villain
In-Reply-To: <eumk8e+c63l@...>
Message-ID: <eumkm9+nb7r@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius" <coriolan at ...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince 
Winston)" 
> <catlady@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith"
> > <arrowsmithbt@> wrote:
> > 
> > > "Former dictator Antonio  Oliveira Salazar was chosen as the
> > > greatest Portuguese of all times by viewers of a TV show.
> > > Salazar, prime minister of a repressive  right-wing regime
> > >  also known as the New State from 1932 to 1968, received 
> > > 41 percent in Sunday evening's final of "Great Portuguese".
> > > 
> > > The late leader of the Portuguese Communist Party, Alvaro
> > > Cunhal, came second with 19 percent of the vote."
> > > 
> > Prince Henry the Navigator? Fernando Magellan? Aren't there any
> > Portuguese great authors? 

Luis de Camoes (1524-1580) is usually ranked as Portugal's greatest 
author Some rank him as the equal of Homer, Virgil and Dante. (I've 
not read him, even in translation, so I have no opinion).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu%C3%ADs_de_Cam%C3%B5es

Maybe Portugal's educational system has been imitating America's too 
closely.....

   - CMC




From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Sat Mar 31 22:41:17 2007
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:41:17 -0000
Subject: Smile, and smile, and be a villain
In-Reply-To: <eumkm9+nb7r@...>
Message-ID: <eumo2d+s9tm@...>

Barry:
> > > > "Former dictator Antonio  Oliveira Salazar was chosen as the
> > > > greatest Portuguese of all times by viewers of a TV show.
> > > > Salazar, prime minister of a repressive  right-wing regime
> > > >  also known as the New State from 1932 to 1968, received 
> > > > 41 percent in Sunday evening's final of "Great Portuguese".
> > > > 
> > > > The late leader of the Portuguese Communist Party, Alvaro
> > > > Cunhal, came second with 19 percent of the vote."
> > > > 
Catlady:
> > > Prince Henry the Navigator? Fernando Magellan? Aren't there any
> > > Portuguese great authors? 
CMC:
> Luis de Camoes (1524-1580) is usually ranked as Portugal's greatest 
> author Some rank him as the equal of Homer, Virgil and Dante. (I've 
> not read him, even in translation, so I have no opinion).
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu%C3%ADs_de_Cam%C3%B5es
> 
> Maybe Portugal's educational system has been imitating America's 
too 
> closely.....

Those were my reactions at first, too (Vasco da Gama?), until I 
meditated on the implications of the phrase "a TV show".  No doubt a 
poll of all Portuguese would come up with something different.

David