What's annoying about Harry

[Melody <Malady579@hotmail.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51431

Tom, darling, I think somewhere along the lines we all got off on the
wrong foot.  Both Grey and I can be very aggressive posters to argue
with.  Frankly, so can you.  We did not mean to insult you or hurt
your feelings though.  I am greatly sorry if we did.  We can be a
little...intense at time, but that is just the debater in both of us.
 You should see Grey's and mine arguments against each other some
times.  :)

On to your post...


Tom reply:
> Wouldn't that be patently obvious? *IF* Harry had been forthcoming
> about what he knew, I think that the fact that he's a Parselmouth
> would have been very useful in locating the Basilisk, in tracking
> its movements, and in possibly preventing some of the attacks. I can
> back this up by saying that Harry is able to find the victims by
> following the voice of the basilisk. With some powerful wizard
> backup and a little more preparation and communication, it is not
> unthinkable that they could have found the creature. The fact that
> Harry kept his hearing of the basilisk secret allowed the creature
> to go on killing, and left the staff in no position to do anything
> about it.

Tom, frankly, it might be "patently" obvious.  Frankly, that is what I
said before when I said it should be obvious to the staff already that
the creature in question is a basilisk, but you did not accept my
argument then.  Why should we accept it when you tell us that if you
won't accept ours?

Harry is a twelve year of boy.  A twelve year old boy whose friends
told that the fact he hears voices and is a parseltongue is not a
"good" thing. (CoS, Ch11)  Now Harry wants to stay at Hogwarts.  That
is his only desire.  (CoS, Ch1)  I see this desire clouding his better
judgment in Dumbledore's office that day.

But if Harry had told Dumbledore what really would of changed.  If
they had found the basilisk.  Then they still would not of found the
person "controlling" the basilisk.  It would stop the petrified
students, but Riddle would still be taking control of Ginny Weasley
and then would of do something else maybe even worse.

Killing the basilisk is important, but the really important part of
that scene is the complete erasing of the diary.  *That* would not of
happened if Harry had not stayed quiet that day.  Now that is a
speculation on my part, but I do believe it is firm.


Tom:
> Refer to my post full of questions on canon, but aren't theories
> supposed to be justified or rooted in canon, or else you're supposed
> to speak from the "I?" You don't acknowledge that your assertion of
> Dumbledore knowing a basilisk is in the chamber of secrets is a
> theory until *this* post. The rest of the time you write as though
> it's fact. Which is why I asked for canon support.

We wrote as fact upon inferences in canon.  Inferences about what
isn't said by Dumbledore *to* Harry.  Frankly, much of MD is inferred
from canon.  We are trying to piece together what is not said to
Harry, so it is background stories.  Now it is canon, by way of
interviews, that JKR *did* write background stories.  So, we can
ponder as to what they are legally.  And many times it is not what is
said but rather what isn't said that is more telling.

I am sorry we did not properly notate our theory until the last post.
 We are both long time listees, well he is more than I, so many here
know what we mean by our style of posts.  Many times, people do not
post directly the quotes but more assume the other listees are just
following their line of logic.  Following the events we list as to how
we reached that conclusion.


Tom asked for canon proof:
> Where do we find out that Fawkes is immune to the Basilisk's stare?
> (This is the question I care most about, incidentally.)

Oh dear.  Grey Wolf is asleep now, so I can't ask him.  It was his pet
point really.  Let me get my books....hold on.  Darn, grabbed the
wrong one...hold on.

Ok.

I think is can be safety inferred because the phoenix was flying
freely and strategically around the basilisk and striking dead on its
eyes (CoS, Ch 16).  It is obvious the bird is not striking blindly or
flying without knowledge of where the basilisk is trying to strike.
We know an animal can be petrified (Mrs. Norris) so we cannot say the
phoenix couldn't be petrified as well.  So it seems to me and Grey
Wolf that a phoenix must be immune somehow from the death stare of a
basilisk since her eyes had to be open.

Was that a fair answer?  It is based on canon.

Option two: The phoenix tears are healing (CoS, Ch 16), so if the bird
did look at the basilisk, *maybe* the tears protected it.  <grin>


Tom:
> How do you know that Dumbledore sent Fawkes? How do you know that
> Dumbledore gave Fawkes the hat? How do you know that Dumbledore put
> the sword in the hat?

I guess we say that because Dumbledore clearly told Harry what to do
when and if he reaches the chamber.  He told Harry, "You will also
find that help is given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it."
(CoS, Ch 14)

That seems very telling to me frankly.  Dumbledore told Harry
*exactly* what to do.  All he has to do is ask for help and it will
arrive.  Magically.  Notice the help "given".  *Given.*  There must be
a giver for something to be given.  The fact Dumbledore informed Harry
of this nice little bonus to being at Hogwarts seems to tell me that
Dumbledore set up this little package for Harry.  *His* phoenix and
the sorting hat in *his* office.

I do hope this is a better explanation in canon as to why we said what
we did.  Both Grey Wolf and I are very good at quoting canon.  We know
it well.  I am sorry we slacked a bit and did not site specifically
where we were getting out theories.  We will strive for perfection
next time.


Melody