# Harry Potter III or is it IIII



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

Grrrrrrrrr

Nothing clever about the stories when you can just "magic" flying cars into the story to get you out of a sticky situation, walk through walls and just flap your arms ( or whatever they do) to levitate.

Adults reading/watching Harry Potter?? Get a life.. Shrek II its out in the UK in July........ :-*


----------



## kctt (Nov 10, 2002)

barely_legal said:


> Grrrrrrrrr
> 
> Nothing clever about the stories when you can just "magic" flying cars into the story to get you out of a sticky situation, walk through walls and just flap your arms ( or whatever they do) to levitate.
> 
> Adults reading/watching Harry Potter?? Get a life.. Shrek II its out in the UK in July........ :-*


lisa - are you okay?
personally The worst witch will always rule


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Children love it! To them it's magical!


----------



## paulatt (Oct 28, 2002)

I'm waiting for Shrek II as well. 

Not hugely impressed by Harry Potter books or films although my kids love them!


----------



## sonicmonkey (Mar 20, 2004)

Each to their own? Or is that just a tad logical? :wink:


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

^Abi^ said:


> Children love it! To them it's magical!


Magical? yeah well. 
It's not kids enjoying it that bothers me (my eldest read all the books as soon as they were released) it's the adults that sit on trains etc openly reading a kids book and then rave about the film??!!! WTF???

I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the cinema to endure each of the first two films and I wasn't disppointed, it WAS the pile of shit I was expecting.

Bring on ShrekII


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Didn't realiase so many adults were so in to it! :?


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

^Abi^ said:


> Didn't realiase so many adults were so in to it! :?


Yeah, I bet a few on here have read it........

Just sit and wait.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Our 6 year old son loves the first film on video but after the first hour I get a bit bored of it! :roll:. He maybe a be young for the books I guess!


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

First couple of books were good, then they got a bit daft IMHO. HOwever, I've only seen the first film and I didn't pay to watch it (Plane I think) and that was poo, but only because it didn't follow the book.

Haven't read any of the books in public though.

Last book was awful.


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

<smug> I have read none of the books and seen none of the films. </smug>


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Lisa,

Please allow me to give you some feedback on this. I realise that Latin is not your strong point!

Number 3 in Latin is correct as you wrote it i.e., III, but number 4 is written IV.

Apologies for sounding like JampoTT.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

vlastan said:


> Lisa,
> 
> Please allow me to give you some feedback on this. I realise that Latin is not your strong point!
> 
> ...


Let me give you some feedback on THIS...

Try looking at a clock with Roman Numerals, Lord V 

No apologies necessary for sounding like me.

(NB I'm not suggesting that IIII is correct, just pointing out that it is not ALWAYS wrong.. *grin*)

*********
The real reason for the numbering is a mystery, the use of the IIII instead of the IV goes back at least to the roman times, as there are Clepsedora (water clocks) known to have this form of numbering even then.

Why Use IIII?

The most likely reason for it's use on round faced clocks is that if you look at a clock face, the 8 is VIII. To try and give some symmetry, the 4 was written as IIII. This way both numbers have four digits. However, not all clocks use the IIII. Some clocks, such as some Japanese tower (turret) clocks and also the Westminster Tower Clock, otherwise known as Big Ben use the IV.

Other possible reasons are:-

That in fact the Romans themselves up to the first couple centuries AD used IIII; and that IV is a "Late Latin" change, and numerous now-surviving classical Roman monuments with legends carved on them do use the IIII form. If we accept as fact the reality that the ancient Roman's did indeed prefer the use of IIII to IV for numbering (look in most museums at the statuary and other artefacts to be convinced), we need a viable explanation. The reason was probably religious in nature. Bear in mind the fact that in ancient Latin (i.e.: 2000 years ago), the language (and the carvers making statues etc.) used what we would recognise as a "V" for a "U", and they used "I" for what we now call "J". The Roman god Jupiter's name, when written in Latin, begins with IV, and it seems it would have been considered blasphemous to use it as a mere number. 
The book 'Famous Watch Houses" by Elena Introna & Gabriele Ribolini has this to say: Quoted from Page 42 "...Curiously, on all the dials with Roman numerals the number 4 is written IIII and not IV, Common enough practice today, but the reason for this goes back to 1364 when Charles V scolded a watchmaker for writing IV on a tower clock. The watchmaker, Henry De Vick, argued his case, but the King brusquely replied: "I am never wrong" and so IV had to become IIII". unquote. 
Why Use IV?

The IV form entered clockmaking practice in the last quarter of the 17th century when some makers (Knibb, most notably to me) made some clocks with "Roman Striking" a form of striking in which there was one large bell and one small bell. The large bell "meant" five. So four o'clock would be one stroke on the small bell followed by one stroke of the large bell (etc.). This ends up requiring many fewer strokes to tell the hour in the course of a day; hence the clock could run for longer, or better, etc. All clocks with genuine Roman striking have the IV on the dial. 
********

Thus endeth the history lesson for today


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

I'm gonna write out 100x

"I must resist being a complete cnut ALL of the time"


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

Ain tu? Scis quod dicunt uno viso, omnia visa sunt. Sequella numquam tam bona est guam origo. Die dulcie fuere.

:wink: IV


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

I actually read the first book with the express intent of NOT liking it.

However, I defy anyone who enjoyed reading as a kid to not like it. If you weren't a fan of kids' books as a kid, it's unlikely you're going to like it now.

What it is is a good old-fashioned yarn. Good guys versus bad guys with good ever-triumphant.


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

barely_legal said:


> Ain tu? Scis quod doodah uno viso, omnia visa sunt. Sequella numquam tam bona est guam origo. Die dulcie fuere.
> 
> :wink: IV


 V or is it πέντε ??

Maybe your latin isn't that good either :roll: Are you still translating??


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Shrek 2 - July....... hrm and I thought it was May....


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

No, that's in the states, we have to wait


----------



## Steve_Mc (May 6, 2002)

barely_legal said:


> Ain tu? Scis quod doodah uno viso, omnia visa sunt. Sequella numquam tam bona est guam origo. Die dulcie fuere.
> 
> :wink: IV


I reckon I understand the first part of your sentence, but disagree with the sentiment :wink:


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

Yeah in this case the sequel IS equally as bad as the original.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

barely_legal said:


> barely_legal said:
> 
> 
> > Ain tu? Scis quod doodah uno viso, omnia visa sunt. Sequella numquam tam bona est guam origo. Die dulcie fuere.
> ...


How did you manage to write Greek here? So can you count in Greek as well?

I used to be perfect in Latin. In the last exam that I had about 12 years ago I had a score of 98%. But as with everything in life, if you don't use it, you forget it.


----------



## Chip_iTT (Nov 14, 2003)

lol V, i think you should retire gracefully.... Lisa has, IMHO, definitely got one over you this time. 

(and for the record, my Latin is very rusty, being 30y since I last used in anger.... but I _think _I understood what you wrote, Lisa)


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

vlastan said:


> barely_legal said:
> 
> 
> > barely_legal said:
> ...


Your language skills maybe top notch, V, but your maths is obviously FUCKING SHITE.

Perfect =! 98%

Perfect = 100%


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

Kell said:


> I actually read the first book with the express intent of NOT liking it.
> 
> However, I defy anyone who enjoyed reading as a kid to not like it. If you weren't a fan of kids' books as a kid, it's unlikely you're going to like it now.
> 
> What it is is a good old-fashioned yarn. Good guys versus bad guys with good ever-triumphant.


Sorry Kell, are we ignoring you? We started on πέντε and some how that was a tad more interesting than Harry Potter....

I hear what you say, but...........nah, oh and that's another thing, a different cover for the adults so they don't feel "silly" reading a "kids" book on the train......hmmm


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

barely_legal said:


> No, that's in the states, we have to wait


Oh well........ better not say I've seen it then 8) Oh... And its better too.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > barely_legal said:
> ...


Almost perfect then.


----------



## paulatt (Oct 28, 2002)

vlastan said:


> Almost perfect then.


Never mind your prowess in a dead language.....
Have you read the Harry Potter books in English?

Can't read them myself, they are written for children and I find them trivial.
Get a copy of one of the audio book versions read by Stephen Fry. 
Now, he really makes the books interesting! Better than the films I think!


----------



## scavenger (Jun 25, 2002)

paulatt said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > Get a copy of one of the audio book versions read by Stephen Fry.
> > Now, he really makes the books interesting! Better than the films I think!


Fantastic listening in the car. Makes driving a little tricky when you really get into it [smiley=juggle.gif]


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

paulatt said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > Almost perfect then.
> ...


I am not a book person. I only read books for education not for entertainement.

Latin is the origin of many languages. If you understand Latin, you are good in French, Spanish and Italian.

The same applies to the Greek language. Not well used around the word but so many words originate from this language. If you know Latin and Greek then you can understand a few languages.


----------



## paulatt (Oct 28, 2002)

vlastan said:


> If you know Latin and Greek then you can understand a few languages.


Are you including the 'language of luv' here too?   
Cos it's all double dutch to me!! :roll:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

barely_legal said:


> Grrrrrrrrr
> 
> Nothing clever about the stories when you can just "magic" flying cars into the story to get you out of a sticky situation, walk through walls and just flap your arms ( or whatever they do) to levitate.
> 
> Adults reading/watching Harry Potter?? Get a life.. Shrek II its out in the UK in July........ :-*


the Swotty Little Shit has been irritating me for some time:

http://www.********.co.uk/ttforumbbs/viewtopic.php?t=14333&highlight=harry+bastard+potter

and,

http://www.********.co.uk/ttforumbbs/viewtopic.php?t=19996&highlight=harry+bastard+potter

And as for the fleece-wearing, latte drinkers clogging up Starbucks and various airport lounges reading the 'fun' Potter books - go fcuk yourselves you sad unimaginative dull wnakers. 

That's better.

ps Is there a new Potter title due ?


----------



## sonicmonkey (Mar 20, 2004)

garyc said:


> barely_legal said:
> 
> 
> > Grrrrrrrrr
> ...


I still don't get it. What's the problem with people who read these books? If they jumped up on a train, mounted their briefcase, pretended it was a broomstick and flew around you whilst reciting magical spells I'd agree with your sentiments.

If they're not and they sit there quietly reading the problem is what exactly? :?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

sonicmonkey said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > barely_legal said:
> ...


Do you watch childrens' cartoons?

Do you run outside and ride up and down on your bike wearing your anorak like a cape?

Do you go down the park and climb trees?

Do you play kiss chase?

Do you order a kid's meal at Burger King?

Do you have to be in bed before 8pm?

No?

Then you probably aren't a child anymore...

So why read books written for children?


----------



## sonicmonkey (Mar 20, 2004)

Because I can?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

sonicmonkey said:


> Because I can?


Fair enough - but why *that* and none of the things I listed above?


----------



## sonicmonkey (Mar 20, 2004)

Somebody sat on a train not bothering anybody else reading a book is not the same as an adult riding a bike wearing an anorak like a cape.

If I'm sat on the train reading a HP book - as long as I don't wave it in front of you and harp on about how great it is you wouldn't know if it was a JK Rowling or an Anton Pavlovich Chekhov. If HP bothers you and you spot me reading it, its self inflicted.

Judging a person's character by what they are reading at any given time seems short sighted. Someone who appreciates a wide diversity of literature should not be considered a lesser person then someone who restricts their literary capacity.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

sonicmonkey said:


> Somebody sat on a train not bothering anybody else reading a book is not the same as an adult riding a bike wearing an anorak like a cape.
> 
> If I'm sat on the train reading a HP book - as long as I don't wave it in front of you and harp on about how great it is you wouldn't know if it was a JK Rowling or an Anton Pavlovich Chekhov. If HP bothers you and you spot me reading it, its self inflicted.
> 
> Judging a person's character by what they are reading at any given time seems short sighted. Someone who appreciates a wide diversity of literature should not be considered a lesser person then someone who restricts their literary capacity.


well said - and besides - they're a cracking good read.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

sonicmonkey said:


> Somebody sat on a train not bothering anybody else reading a book is not the same as an adult riding a bike wearing an anorak like a cape.
> 
> If I'm sat on the train reading a HP book - as long as I don't wave it in front of you and harp on about how great it is you wouldn't know if it was a JK Rowling or an Anton Pavlovich Chekhov. If HP bothers you and you spot me reading it, its self inflicted.
> 
> Judging a person's character by what they are reading at any given time seems short sighted. Someone who appreciates a wide diversity of literature should not be considered a lesser person then someone who restricts their literary capacity.


Sonic,

Your points are perfectly reasonable. Although I could argue that it is incredibly _undiverse_ reading over-hyped and marketed unimaginative kids books - but I won't.

However this the Flame Room - home of irrational and unbalanced ranting and just as the mere existence of Robbie Williams irritates, so does the unhealthy adult fascination with the JKR HP books, when there are so many other more deserving authors out there covering that genre with far more imagination. insight and aplomb. If 10% of the marketing victims who have bought into HP tried their wares, then that would be good as I am all in favour of people reading more and watching telly less. But alas these folks tend not to sell T shirts, video games, crap movies, pencil case covers and all the other useless shit, _to kids_ , instead prefering their literature to stand on it's own merits.

Anyone is free to sit on a train and read the HP shit. But I'd be more impressed if I saw a fully grown man reading Enid Blyton 'Famous Five' books. :wink: :wink:


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

The thing is, I can see both sides of the argument very well.

For the record, as I stated earlier, I was not one of the people that started reading them when they first came out, but after the fourth one was launched and my Mum asked if I'd read them and was surprised when I said no, she recommended them to me - and she's in her fifties. Though she does get through about three books a week so it was inevitable that she would get around to the HP books eventually.

Anyway, to make a short story long, I read the first one and really enjoyed it. Perhaps the first one is still the best because in terms of the 'sell out' factor it is the most pure.

The last one I read purely because I'd read the others but it wasn't very good and felt very forced. I will probably resd the next one (if there is one).

I take the point that there is a wealth of other authors and books out there to discover, but then these are just five of the millions and shouldn't take too much of your time.

In conclusion, I read them because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. I read them with the express intent of being able to say, "I've read them and I don't like them because of...". I read them and was entranced by the magic.

Until book five that is.

And besides, I thought the original point was about the films - which I haven't paid good money to see - in fact I've only seen the first one and that was on a plane. And I thought that was very poor.


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

garyc said:


> Anyone is free to sit on a train and read the HP shit. :wink: :wink:


Is this about Harry Potter now or the Printer company formerly know as Compaq ?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

R6B TT said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone is free to sit on a train and read the HP shit. :wink: :wink:
> ...


There is both an irony and a truth there, possibly unintended, as I work for said printer company. Not being one to defame my employers on line I'll deffo keep those thoughts to myself. :twisted:


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

An irony not unintended Gary :wink:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

R6B TT said:


> An irony not unintended Gary :wink:


 :wink: :wink: :wink:


----------



## paulatt (Oct 28, 2002)

Anyone seen the film yet? I'm going tomorrow night - bonding with my kids!  
Please tell me I will enjoy the film


----------



## t7 (Nov 2, 2002)

Well I am looking forward to the film. 

And I enjoy reading the books.  

(but then I did do an engineering degree so I reckon I'm allowed to be semi-literate... :wink: )

L


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

paulatt said:


> Anyone seen the film yet? I'm going tomorrow night - bonding with my kids!
> Please tell me I will enjoy the film


" You will enjoy the film."


----------



## paulatt (Oct 28, 2002)

I saw THE film. 
It was quite good, lots of humour but some very scary bits.

The trailer to Shrek2 was brilliant - can't wait...........


----------

