<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1479" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I've had a lovely time revisiting the MAGIC
DISHWASHER, and all the thoughts posted here,since I've been puzzled for
quite some time about what the current MD enthusiasts see as the essence of the
theory. I did get a bit carried away here, using up valuable coding time
but this fascinates me, and it's relevant (or at least I think it is) to the
breadth of posts that get assigned the MD tag.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>KathySnow wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> Hey who just smacked me up along side my head.
That hurt, I was just <BR>> kidding! I know the boy (150 year old) has a
plan. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Is this it? As someone who went through the
original MD debate in real time, I didn't see that as the essence of MD. I
have always put myself in the MD opposition camp, yet I never doubted that
Dumbledore has a plan. My MD objection was that </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Pip's originalSpying Game post posited a very specific plan in
which Pettigrew was intentionally permitted to escape (with or without a flawed
potion recipe). While I thought her theories were quite ingenious, and I
marvelled at her skill in weaving the threads together, in the end I found that
endorsing it required me to believe just a few too many impossible things before
breakfast.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Talisman wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> The question of whether MD is the mother of
all things after, or<BR>> more a step in a progression, is obviously relevant
to the scope of<BR>> posts that will be coded to the theory as we move
forward. I'll<BR>> enjoy taking a closer look at this, along with other
reviewers, and<BR>> coming to conclusions, joint or several.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Certainly MD engendered a lot of discussion about
Dumbledore and his agenda, but I believe that most listmembers at the time would
have argued that MD referred to Pip's two Spying Game posts and the
embellishments and variations on her theories, even though the OOP update
broadened (some will say superseded) the original focus of MD. I will go
with the flow, but think there are so many MD-specific posts in the archives we
should be wary of over-coding to the theory for fear that the *true* MD posts
will become lost in the forest.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>> Carolyn:<BR>> I'm not such a mad supporter not to agree with
this. I think the <BR>> first two parts are quite brilliant insights as to
what POA and GOF <BR>> are all about (indeed, the series up to that point).
The third (post-<BR>> OoP) part leaves a lot of questions, was a bit
disappointing, and <BR>> left us all hanging back in 2003. We are still
waiting for the next <BR>>; installment.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>I findit intriguing to read this from an MD fan, since my original
objections to MD were based on the *specific* agenda that was proposed. I
was quite baffled to discover that the MDDT were quite chuffed over OOP because
it proved that Dumbledore has *a* plan. I thought Tom Wall's response
summed up my reaction to the OOP update quite nicely:</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>"<FONT face="Courier New">The<BR>old theory used to revolve around several
basic precepts: one, that<BR>Snape was in the Shrieking Shack as an agent,
acting on behalf of<BR>Dumbledore, in order to: two) ensure that Pettigrew
escaped to<BR>Voldemort, thereby: three) facilitating (via his severed hand)
a<BR>flaw in the potion "Flesh, Blood, and Bone," which Voldemort used
to<BR>bring himself back to life, therefore: four) this flaw in the
potion<BR>would enable Harry to ultimately triumph over the Dark Lord.
<snip><BR><BR>But this latest post doesn't address these at all.. .
. My point is that the prophecy mentions nothing about a flaw in the<BR>potion
engineered by Dumbledore. And unless we take it very<BR>liberally and with much
salt, the Prophecy seems to nullify a great<BR>deal of the old MAGIC DISHWASHER
in the same fashion that it's<BR>hobbled 'Heir of Gryffindor.'"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></FONT>KathySnow:</DIV>
<DIV>I have Marina as the originator of the actual acronym <BR>> MAGIC
DISHWASHER post 39751.</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>ButGrey Wolfwas thecreator
ofthe dishwasher, in 39744:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"<FONT face="Courier New">I believe that there are
many options available to recuperate<BR>Voldemort's body. They come in a
variable degree of dificulty, but<BR>several do exist. Most of them will give
back Voldemort enough power to<BR>start winning again, and some will not, being
flawed in one way or<BR>another. Unicorn blood, for example, is flawed, since he
has to drink<BR>it continually. The PS was NOT flawed, and that was why the
Unicorn's<BR>blood was only interim preparation.<BR><BR>Let's suppose *for the
sake of an example* that other perfectly valid<BR>forms include an enchanted
dishwasher and the egg of some odd bird<BR>(pick one at random form FB, if you
want).<BR><BR>Now, Dumbledore and the old gang had a long talk after Voldemort's
fall<BR>and put together as many heads as possible trying to now what his
enemy<BR>would do. They came up with a number of possible solutions to
his<BR>problems, both flawed and not flawed. But they were greatly amazed
to<BR>discover one method that, while indeed flawed, at first glance it
did<BR>not seem to be so: the infamous potion."</FONT><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>On a different topic, Miss Carolyn Havisham has
commended the following:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><BR>> In a completely exceptional post [38398],
in which Elkins surpasses <BR>> even herself [warning - very long], she
eventually reasons her way to <BR>> this point, which has suddenly made me
think he could be the HBP <BR>> after all, but for quite the reverse reasons
suggested by most <BR>> people. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>This is IMO (along with Still Life with Memory
Charm) the best post ever written.If many ofyou areMD
adherents, I am a Memory adherent, and must insist that you read this as
well. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But, why would Neville be the HBP, unless the
statements that he's a pureblood are lies?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jen wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> Some old TBay'ers will probably know best
about Bangy, but I think <BR>> it should only be used for a particular kind
of theory and not the <BR>> Big Bang Destroyer in general. Cindy could make
anything sound bangy <BR>> though, eh? <BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I agree. To take a different example, we
don't code all of Tabouli's posts to LOLLIPOPS just because that's where she
kept the TAGS machine. OTOH, there was a point when it became de rigeur to
assert that one's theory was *bangy* as though that was additional canon in its
favor. I wasn't thinking that every assertion that a theory was bangy
should be coded to the Big Bang, but maybe it should. Miss Havisham, could
you give us a ruling?<BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Debbie</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>who promises to get back to work now</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>