Objections to Magic Dishwasher - Shrieking Shack

[Melody <Malady579@hotmail.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51744

> Melody wrote:
> Really, what else are they doing? Not ground war.
>
> Tom replies:
> Well, we really don't know that for sure. However,
> I'm curious as to how giants would be used if there
> wasn't some sort of pitched battle from time to time.

They could also be out to pillage and terror causing havoc on poor
unsuspecting wizards.  Given that Charlie Weasley has dragons in his
back pocket, I can image the side of good can defend against that
attack and it would not reach pitched battle.

Though how Muggles miss large giants and dragons in battle is a
mystery to me.  Seems any pitched battle with giants would make Muggle
press in an instance.


> Melody wrote:
> ::I reach down and pick up my m***thinking bunny and turn off the
> dishwasher a minute::
>
> Tom replies:
> Eh?  What's a m***thinking bunny? ;-)
> M-E-T-A? That's all I can come up with.

Yes Tom.  I meant metathinking.


> Melody replied:
> 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.
>
> Tom replies:
> Well, first, I don't see how whether or not Dumbledore planned for
> the Shrieking Shack to happen as it did has anything to do with
> relevance to whether or not he's pleased. He's ostensibly pleased
> because Pettigrew has a life-debt to Harry. If I was Dumbledore, I'd
> be pleased too, whether I'd planned for it to happen or not.

How can someone be so happy about an event and not be planning on how
to use it?  Is Dumbledore *hoping* that Harry will continue to be a
target of Voldemort's, so that life dept will matter?  Seems to me the
life dept is only good if Harry continues to be in situation where his
life is in danger.  Isn't a non-spymaster Dumbledore supposed to be
trying to keep Harry from harm?


> Melody wrote:
> He worked out his entire plan to use the life dept in a day. A night
> really. A very long night. Ah huh. Sure.
>
> Tom reply:
> Yes, well, this is a case of starting from MD and working backwards.
> There's no indication that he has to have a plan all worked out by
> now, nor why he should have it worked out by now, nor that he
> necessarily has a plan at all, just yet.

Well what good is it to be a spymaster if you do not have a plan to
remove the enemy from threat.

I guess that is my biggest objection.  From your point of view,
Dumbledore did not plan the SS.  He did not plan the GG.  What is it
that spymaster!Dumbledore *is* doing in these books to date then?  By
that read, he is doing nothing except sending scouts and reading the
newspaper.  He must not have any plans or is even that worried until
he knows Voldemort is back in flesh and ready to rumble.


Tom:
> <being defiant> I want to take the parts of MD that I like, and leave
> or try to repair the parts that I don't. So there. =P  I don't have
> to accept that the Shrieking Shack scene is pre-planned to like the
> other stuff. And the other stuff doesn't necessarily follow from the
> notion that the Shrieking Shack may be pre-planned.

Tom, what else is left if you take the SS and thus the GG away?  The
whole Dishwasher is constructed around that.



> Melody wrote:
> 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.
> END QUOTE.
>
> Tom reply:
> I know that you're kidding, because that is such an extreme example
> of not being allowed to infer. And extreme examples are always a
> sign of having nothing closer to work with. And if there's nothing
> closer to work with, then the argument must have a flaw, otherwise
> there'd be a better example.

Yes it was an extreme example.  But I did not use it because I had
nothing else to work with Tom.

Example from canon:
Flitwick runs into Harry in PS/SS and is excited because Harry is a
first year seeker for Gryffindor.

We never knew how it is that Flitwick learned this.

We must *infer* he did.

Can we only assume the most obvious answer of Flitwick learning it in
the teacher's lounge?

I say we can't.  There are many ways he could have learned of Harry's
good fortune.  Why must I limit that to only the obvious inference?


Tom:
> But I'll tell you I reserve
> the right to like what I like and not like what I don't, regardless
> of ideology.

Yes you do have that right.  I did not think I was trying to take that
away from you, and even if I wanted to, it would not deter you.


Melody