SHIPping Attitudes

[Petra Pan]

No: HPFGUIDX 55840

Yours truly:
> "Conceding?"  Interesting diction,
> Penny.  <eg>  Still sure you're
> not on a battleSHIP?

Penny:
> Nah, it's a cruiseliner, a party boat. 
> You're welcome aboard anytime. :--)

Thanks for the invite but I'm not 
boarding any ship before JKR does...and 
as of now, she hasn't ticketed any one 
of her many stateroom reservations...
despite rumors (that just won't die 
peaceful deaths) to the contrary.

<eg>

Besides, I seem to have ran out of my 
trusty seasickness pills.

And what the heck is a party boat doing 
cruising for "trumps" anyway?  

Yours truly:
> The statement "they are platonic friends"
> proves nothing and disproves nothing. 
> Convenient, eh?

Penny:
> Well, that's exactly *my* point, Petra. 
> It's the R/H crowd who are and have
> been so insistent that Rowling signed a
> death knell to H/H *forevermore* with
> the "they are platonic friends" quote.  
> 
> My view is that this statement was
> limited in scope, and, as you say,
> proves nothing and disproves nothing.  

So...do you see that "certain feelings 
between the three of them" also proves 
nothing and disproves nothing?  No 
death sentence being signed here?  No 
death knell being tolled?  No swan 
song being sung?

Penny:
> I also have the view that the
> recent DVD interview discussed above
> completely trumps the "platonic
> friends" quote in any case.  If they
> were and are forevermore platonic
> friends, then there is no *3*
> involved at all.  

Shamelessly quoting myself in reply 
to the above:
> No acts of trumping here...no acts
> of concession either.

Theoretically, if Ron has those 
"mature" feelings for both Harry and 
Hermione, then both (1) H/Hr are 
platonic friends and (2) there are 
"certain feelings between the three 
of them" are technically truthful 
statements.

Yours truly:
> Heck, you can't even make a strong
> case for considering more than the
> minimum of one person actively having
> feelings from this quote alone.

Penny: 
> As Stickbook pointed out, there must
> indeed be more than one person
> actively having "certain feelings"
> for JKR's statement to make sense.

I beg to differ: There must be AT LEAST 1 
person actively having "certain feelings"
for JKR's statement to be TRUTHFUL.  Not 
accurate...not logical...but just plain 
truthful while being noncommittal.  
Entirely possible that one of the Trio is 
'feeling' while the other two are being 
'felt' <leer> so to speak.

What JKR has said is too vague to rule out 
any possibilities.

Look, "certain feelings between the 
three of them" can mean anything between 
one extreme of 

Six Arrows - 
H -> Hr
H -> R
Hr -> H
Hr -> R
R -> H
R -> Hr
(that's in alphabetical order, BTW)

and the other extreme of

Only Two Arrows - 
FROM one of the Trio out TO each of 
the other two.

Penny, elsewhere:
> There's no Ginny or Cho involved in
> this equation.  She's talking about
> the Trio quite clearly.  

Tut-tut.  Dont stop at just two!  <eg>
How can you pass up this golden 
opportunity to shoot down Harry/Hedwig
...or...Harry/Draco...or what have you?!

"Certain feelings between the three 
of them" does not exclude arrows 
going outside the Trio or coming into 
the Trio.  It also doesn't exclude 
the possibility that these teenagers 
can be attracted to more than one 
person at the same time.

Maddeningly unspecific, eh?  How can 
a statement of so many possible 
interpretations 'trump' ANY assertion?

<eg>

Penny:
> I don't see how you can possibly argue
> that she would say *three* but only
> mean *one.*    

Because...

(1) ...its possible.  One of the Trio 
could be the origin point of such 
feelings going out to the other two.  
Though the other two may not issue the 
feelings, they are the recipients and 
thus this scenario involves a trio as 
opposed to a single or a double.

...and...

(2) ...its probable.  See, not only is 
it possible to argue that she could say 
*three* but only mean *one* (or two or 
three) actively emoting person(s), I 
have already done so.  Several times, 
mind you (and I'm plum out of 
metaphors!!!): 

Because to be specific now is to spoil 
the future books.  JKR cannot possibly 
wish to spoil Books 5-6-7.  Therefore 
shes going to be truthful without 
actually trump any ships.

Desire not clarity, m'dear, for such 
specificity from JKR at this point 
could deflate this fandom in significant 
ways.

Petra
a
n  :)

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com