Objections to Magic Dishwasher - Shrieking Shack

[Melody <Malady579@hotmail.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51721

As I stand in ovation over Pip's post, I have a few points I want to
draw my sword on if I may.

::swish::  Oh, my trusty friend.


Tom wrote:
> Well, over the past few days, I've been reading up on Pip's posts:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39662
> and
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/40044
> as well as Grey Wolf's excellent and comprehensive summary:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39854
> and as many objections and defenses as I could stomach.

Good for you.


Tom:
> All of these serve as the premise for the
> Magic Dishwasher theory and just have to say: "Well done, Pip and
> MDDT's!" I *love* the idea that this is a terrorist war. I *love*
> the idea that they're using information against each other.
> Brilliant!

Well, to be honest.  The idea of the terrorist war was JKR's not
Pip's.  It is canon not theory, so the praise should go to JKR.  That
*is* what Voldemort and Dumbledore are doing before the fateful night
and after...or are you trying to say the terrorist war *is* just a
theory and not canon?

Really, what else are they doing?  Not ground war.

Magical Dishwasher itself really is what *Pip* discovered and
theorized as to be Dumbledore's hidden moves in this war.  Magical
Dishwasher completely is surrounded around Dumbledore working to let a
follower of Voldemort escape the SS to run off to aid Voldemort in the
flawed potion, so thus: the side of good has the advantage.  The fact
that Dumbledore orchestrated all that specifically for that purpose is
what the dishwasher is deep down in its core.


> Pip wrote in 39662
> "Snape (and Dumbledore) know about Pettigrew being the secret
> keeper."
>
> Tom replies:
> Yes, it is tricky. Granted (and nice memory, there) Hagrid *was* in
> Azkaban, and therefore *could* have heard the imprisoned Death
> Eaters rambling and wailing. Okay. That I can buy.

You can?  I'm shocked.  Isn't that ::small voice:: "inferred"?


> This is at the end of the book, in one of the `Dumbledore tells all-
> confessional' scenes (they occur in every book.)

Do they really?  Every book?  My my.

Seems to me Dumbledore has yet to "tell all" anyway.  He more works
his words to satisfy a young boy's curiosity while keeping him from
the full truth, or so it seems to myself.  But I will get to that next.


Tom:
> There is NO indication
> in canon that Dumbledore has lied at any point in any of
> these 'confessional' scenes. Every time he either a) answers
> truthfully (as far as he knows) or else b) he refuses point blank to
> answer.

Pip pointed out that we of MDDT actually disagree on this point.
(BTW,  Pip, I really never knew that.  I thought we agreed.  I am sorry.)

Let me say that I think I give more liberty to the definition of
"lying" than she does.  Well, that should not be too big of a shock.
I do think rather highly of Mr. Crouch Junior for not lying, but by
Pip's definition, he is lying.

Lying to me is out and out saying something that is not true.  I like
to play with words though and find that the act of it does not mean
you are lying.  Maybe I need to go to a priest on this...

Anyway.  My logic is that the truth is right there hidden *behind* the
words.  Seems they need to be as clever as Pip and find it.  :D

So to your point...yes.  Dumbledore has answered truthfully all the
time.  That does not mean he told *all* the truth.  Just because you
say something carefully, does not mean you lied.

Is giving a false impression lying?

Actually, I have had this conversation recently, and I guess I would
rather ask...is it lying if the person does not have a damn good
reason for the false impression?

Maybe this is situational ethics, but I do hope God does believe in
them.  No one but he can see all ends.

I see many reasons for people to give a false impression.  Most of
all, and most justified in my mind, is for their own protection.
They are protecting themselves.  Their family.  Their friends.
All those innocent people they love.  Once that reason is fleshed out,
you realize the purpose for the false impression.  You can understand
the need.

I think SpyMaster!Dumbledore has this "damn good reason."  He is
trying to save the world and does not need to have a
WellInformed!Harry Potter.  He can fill in the blanks later.  Does a
eleven year old need to start dealing with all the heavy baggage from
his infancy in PS/SS anyway?

But this is Pip's theory and her word is "god" over it, so take her
word on Dumbledore's truth telling over mine.  Not that you won't do
that anyway....



<<clip hospital scene>>
Tom:
>Reading anything into this scene is entirely not necessary. The facts
>are there right in front of us. Dumbledore can't let Harry and
>Hermione talk ? indeed, he gives them only minimal time to tell *him*
>the truth, nevermind tell Snape and Fudge and answer questions and so
>forth. Dumbledore has spoken with Sirius and believes him to be
>innocent. There's not enough time to let them talk, AND let them save
>Sirius. And he has no authority to overrule the Minister of Magic.
>And once Sirius is executed, the temporary advantage they have via
>Time Turner will be nullified.

::I reach down and pick up my m***thinking bunny and turn off the
dishwasher a minute::

I do not understand why it being "unnecessary" matters.  Just because
the events play out smoothly to the reader, does not mean that nothing
else is going on.  In GoF, the events and reasons are very easily
explained in the readers mind without any little ripples.  We are
content and very appeased.  But when you reach the end, there is that
Barty!Moody staring at us.  Was it "necessary" to read him into the
plot up until that point?  Seems she did not want us to so she can
*bang* her plot.  I see no harm in JKR building a long term *bang*
like that one.  Maybe I am alone in this view.

Oh dear.   Coney quite scratching me.

::Bunny kicks away and I switch the good old dishwasher back on::



> Pip wrote in 39662:
> Dumbledore certainly appears remarkably unconcerned with Pettigrew's
> escape when he talks about it to Harry later (PoA p. 311). In fact,
> he's *pleased*.
>
> Tom replies:
> Yes, I concur. Dumbledore is unconcerned. But by this point, he
> knows everything. He knows that Pettigrew just escaped, and he also
> knows that Pettigrew has a life debt to Harry. Convenient.
>
> Whether or not these were the result of his own machinations is
> irrelevant. He knows, and is pleased, because the life debt is a
> handy coincidence.

Well no.  It is not irrelevant.  If you just learned a loyal servant
is running back to his master, and you also heard from you resident
psychic that this will probably mean the stronger rebodiment of the
said master, then would you be so relaxed as Dumbledore if you did not
have a plan in mind already?  That is pretty fast thinking for
Dumbledore to be so sure that he is relaxed and almost breezy.  He
worked out his entire plan to use the life dept in a day.  A night
really.  A very long night.  Ah huh.  Sure.

Besides, if Dumbledore is so sure of how Peter's life dept to Harry is
to help the side of "good" after PoA, then I wonder how sure he is
after GoF if he did not expect *that* form of rebodiment.  Seems
Dumbledore needed to know that information before he knew how to apply
the life dept to their advantage and relax in the knowledge that it
*can* in fact help them.


Tom:
> In conclusion, I would say that the analysis of this scene is one of
> the difficulties I had with Magic Dishwasher. This may seem
> contradictory, but I don't believe it is. The theory takes this
> premise of a terrorist war (which I still love), and then uses all
> sorts of conjecture to prove that it's true, or at least, that
> `canon doesn't say it's untrue.'

Well as I said before, this scene *is* Magical Dishwasher.  If you
have problems with it, then MD is not for you.  Go look up Marina's
PRESSURE COOKER.  It seem more tailored for your liking.


Tom:
> Which I believe is twistabout logic, still. ;-) Sorry all, I won't
> be convinced that inferences are acceptable unless they have basis
> in canon.

Well as one of my fellow defenders said before...

I infer:  Harry Potter does go to the potty.
I have not canon to back that up only observed life experience.

Therefore by your logic:
You do not believe Harry Potter ever goes to potty.

Do you really want to say that?

If that is true he has never showered, eaten consistently, put on
trousers, brushed his hair (well ok that is a lost cause anyway),
washed his face, shaved, or brushed his teeth.

Ok Harry *is* a young teenage boy, so maybe that is true, but I hope
you see my point.  Many thing are happening behind the scenes that we
never hear about.  That does not mean that we are to assume they did
not happen.

See we all here start with a bit of canon.  A bit of canon that sent
us wondering.  We wonder what is going on behind the eyes of the
character or even what they are thinking.  We know they are seeing
things from different perspectives even though it is not told to us in
canon.  So, I see no harm is producing theories based on close study
of the words and actions that are and are *not* told to us by the
author.   This *is* what Pip did.  She did study canon and draw
conclusions from it.

Theorists can draw from RL for support.  They can draw directly from
canon.  They can infer so much just from a bloody "twinkle".  It
depends on your audience as to how much they agree with your
assessments and conclusions based on your research.  But to say it is
not a proper theory just because it is not canon fact, well
honey...fact is fact.  And theory is theory.  What definition of
theory are you using?


> And besides, I wonder why so much stock is set by this analysis, not
> that it's not creative Pip, please don't take me the wrong way here.

Excuse me?  That analysis is long, in depth, *incredibly* thought out,
and thorough.  What will it take for you to take stock in any theory
is what I wonder.  They are all based on inferences from canon
passages.  Even if I did not believe in MD, I would still respect it
greatly for the incredible task Pip took to find its trail.

And so much stock is set because we greatly, greatly believe in it.
We would not be defending it so much if we didn't.  Call us
Gryffindors for our blind faith in adversity, but we *do* defend that
which we hold so dear.  All three of us are loyal defender types that
do not shirk from challenge.  Good thing too.

And as a codefender to our precious Pip as well, might I ask how it is
you expected *us* to take that?

You say "creative" as if Pip sat down with crayons and thought up a
way to make HP three-dimensionable beyond what JKR intended.
Frankly the theory is based on the idea that JKR herself did that.
That the theory will be *proven*, and therefore, it is JKR's
creativity not Pip's.


Tom:
> I guess I would say that the analysis of the Shrieking Shack is
> *unnecessary* for the theory, and actually makes it IMHO, it makes
> Magic Dishwasher *weaker.*

Tom.  What posts did you read again?  How could you miss that MD *is*
the Shrieking Shack scene.


> But it doesn't *matter.* Dumbledore can *still* be a spymaster, and
> he can still be working behind the scenes to send misinformtion to
> Lord Voldemort. All of the basics of Magic Dishwasher can remain
> intack without assuming that Dumbledore had any control over events
> in the Shrieking Shack.

So I ask.  What misinformation (from precious canon) is Dumbledore
feeding Voldemort?  There is no say of precise misinformation, so you
must be trying to say you are "inferring" that he is.  After all,
there is no canon proof he has in fact done such an act.


Melody
putting her sword away now  ::swish::