Fudge is Way Evil/ Accurate attribution of quotes - another plea.

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 35737

Dicentra:

> Eloise later demands:
> 
> Dicentra, I want that cape and pipe back. Now. I can't do dramatic
> swirls with only a deerstalker.
> 
> Dicentra responds:
> 
> Hey, the pipe and the cape go to whoever is making a dramatic
> revelation at the time (rehashed or not). It just turned up whilst I
> was composing the FIDEDIGNO speech. Honest. When you have something
> 

Eloise:
Sort of like Fawkes?

E
> loise continues:
> 
> P.S. I've always wanted to say how cool I think your name is.
> 
> Dicentra answers:
> 
> ::blush:: Yes, it's a cool name-that's why I chose it! And 40 points
> to Gryffindor if you can tell me what Dicentra spectabilis alba means.
> 
> 

Bleeding Heart - the white variety, although at the moment you look more of a 
 *rosa*!
I have planted both in my garden. I'm a lousy gardener, but I like plants.
Can I have my 40 points, please?

Right. Better get this back OT, before the Mods send out the Howlers.

>Dicentra says:

>So, Black was laughing, was he? Do we hear that from Sirius when he
>tells his side of the story? Does he say, "as soon as Peter
>disappeared the absurdity of it all struck me and I couldn't help but
>laugh?" No! Why would Sirius be laughing? I maintain that he wasn't
>laughing at all--maybe sobbing, maybe convulsing in agony, maybe
>standing there, stunned, but not laughing like a madman. I maintain
>that Fudge willfully inserted that detail into his version of events
>to make Sirius look bad. 

>Eloise says:

>No, sorry I agree with those who think that Sirius *was* hysterical,
>and with good reason. Weren't there other witnesses? (shaky ground as
>it doesn't seem to matter really in the framing-of-Sirius scenario)

>Holly responds:

>...I must strongly protest against Sirius being branded 'hysterical'
>(although he had every reason to be).

Eloise replies:
Well.....
First of all...I see no criticism in declaring Sirius' reaction 'hysterical'. 
Yes, the term was first coined as almost a purgoritive: the kind of behavior 
that *only* a woman would fall prey to. It is certainly used in this way, 
still. But *true* hysteria, I would say, has no purgoritive overtones. 
Someone else a few days ago eloquently described just why Sirius would 
descend into hysterical laughter (unfortunately I seem to have deleted it) 
but the grief, the irony , the sheer cunning and cleverness of Peter's having 
managed to get the Potters killed, escape and frame him would be enough to 
provoke an inappropriate reaction in anyone. Laughter is often an unbidden 
reaction to grief/ embarassment/ fear - all sorts of unwelcome emotions and I 
do seriously think that the combination of grief, anger and fear together 
with an appreciation of how cleverly he had been outwitted ( by one not noted 
for his cleverness and by one moreover whom he had never suspected and always 
regarded as in his shadow) could easily provoke hysterical laughter. This 
then is misrepresented as the laughter of one who is mad, not mad with rage, 
but simply mad and gloating over achieving his aim.

Secondly, as I have said before, I think this matter of Sirius losing control 
( and come on, he *is* the kind of guy to lose control) is rather crucial in 
understanding what actually happened - particularly when we come to discuss 
whether anyone (Fudge) had anything to do with it.

I have argued that Pettigrew's escape plan has the hallmarks of being 
planned. He must have brought blood-stained robes (or else he would have had 
to conjour them just before or  after attacking the muggles, leaving him 
vulnerable to Sirius) and the finger- removal must surely have been planned ( 
unless it was an accidental by-product of blasting the muggles behind his 
back). And did he really sit back and wait for Sirius? No, he went after him 
with the express intention of framing him.

*But* ..   lets look at the various possibilities.
1)    a *compmos mentis* Sirius, with no Pettigrew accomplice needed only to 
explain exactly what had happened, the wand PI'd and all is cleared up.
2)   a hysterical Sirius, with no Pettigrew accomplice - well, Pettigrew 
would have time to escape, but Sirius could appeal from Azkaban to prove his 
wand innocent - no mention of even attempting this.
3)  a *compos mentis* Sirius *with* a Pettigrew accomplice. Now here, he can 
be framed. But we need to perform a wand switch to be certain.
4)   a hysterical Sirius *with*  a Pettigrew accomplice. Now his 'conviction' 
is certain: a 'confession' *and* the opportunity  to frame him by both false 
testimony and a wand-switch.

So in other words, by my reasoning, if Sirius didn't become hysterical, then 
Pettigrew *must* have had an accomplice to be sure of being in the clear.
(Yes, I know he became a rat, but surely he must have wanted the possibility 
of one day being human again? Spend your life as a rat? Might as well go to 
Azkaban. In addition to which, the plan may well have been hatched *before* 
Voldemort's unfortunate accident).
Pettigrew couldn't have predicted Sirius becoming hysterical, *ergo*, he had 
an accomplice. But if Sirius *was* hysterical, it  made the job easier.

FIE!

Now, I'm willing to concede that the laughter may be Fudge's fabrication, but 
I repeat that hysteria at this point would be totally a understandable, even 
commendable (in that it shows the depth of feeling involved) response. No 
disrespect to Sirius in any way, Holly. *But*.....whether he was or wasn't, 
we need an accomplice to frame him.

Eloise, suddenly finding herself cloaked, swishes dramatically from the 
scene, quietly choking on the smoke billowing from that dratted pipe.

PS. Can I commend Dicentra for how clearly she named the various list members 
she quoted in her post. I think she must have been reading my mind. Several 
times in the last few days, I have found myself either attributed with, or 
*apparently* attributed with things I haven't said. If it's happening to me, 
then it's happening to other people too ( and I'm sure that I've done it, 
too, only I'm now aware of it and am trying not to). I think the problem 
generally happens when we quote  a post which itself contains quotes. When 
these are snipped, the attributions sometimes become unclear, misleading, or 
simply wrong. *Please* can we try and make sure that we attribute things 
clearly. It's very irritating to be misquoted ( especially when someone 
attributes to you a quote that you were yourself arguing against) and it 
makes it difficult to follow the threads back if you're directed to the wrong 
person's post.
Thank you. I feel better now.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]