another moment of confusion

[Jen Reese]

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" 
<quigonginger at y...> wrote:
> 
> When you look at "mistakes/perpetuating mistakes" it says to 
reject 
> things that we know now that weren't known at the time (eg 
the "married 
> couple" to whom Sirius refered).
> 
> How far do we take that?  And what effect does it have on 
predictions?  
> 
> For example, there are a TON of "Who will die in book 5" posts.  
We now 
> know who it was.  (sniff) so these go under predictions, right?
> 
> The entire 4th man Avery ship sank, but that's still good to code, 
> right?
> 
> What kinds of things do we reject? 
> 
> Ginger, the Eternally Confused


Jen: I'm wondering this, too. I haven't rejected many with this 
code, but just yesterday I debated over a post saying "how do we 
know Snape was ever picked on in school?" Now, it's still subjective 
in some poster's eyes, but I thought the Pensieve scene made it 
clear that on at least *one* occasion, Snape was indeed picked on. 
So I rejected that under perpretrating mistakes.

Am I putting my own bias on that one? The post didn't add much else 
so I would have rejected it anyway. But I wanted to use something 
other than my fave, "Adds nothing new" and this looked like a 
legitimate opportunity.

Jen with no answers, just more questions...