Washing dishes and powders

[Tom Wall <thomasmwall@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 52134


The MDDT wrote:
"As if being part of the old crowd means anything. Black, an 
accused murderer, is also a part of the 'old crowd' so I am sure 
the 'old crowd' has their problems."

I replied:
Sirius Black is not canonically part of the "old crowd." That is an
inference. IMHO, a decent one, but an inference nonetheless.

Pip replied:
OK, Tom, you've got me. No argument's possible after that, really. I 
am not allowed to infer anything from canon. Not even that Sirius 
Black is one of the old crowd.
<snip>
If you don't wish me to make the kind of inference I make above, 
then I *do* have to withdraw the DISHWASHER. In its entirety.

I also have to withdraw every other post I have ever made.
END QUOTE.

I reply:
I have absolutely no problem with inferences, or assumptions, in any 
way at all. What I draw the line at, and when I call for canon, is 
when people get so used to their inferences that they stop referring 
to them as inferences, and thereby confuse the issue. At least, the 
issue gets confused for me, so I'm only guessing that others get 
confused as well.

I believe that most of the time, when I make an inference, I say that 
it's an inference and work from there. But again, I make sure to 
state that I'm inferring, or I use an IMHO, or an "I submit" or 
something to indicate that what I'm talking about isn't canon.

That's not what happened in this recent discussion, and that's not 
what happens in a lot of the defenses for MD. Just my own semantic 
complaint, that's all. Reread the bits you quoted me on:

 
Quotes from my previous posts:
"IMO the text, i.e. Lupin's indisputably reasonable and calm stance
in the Shrieking Shack is sufficient canon to go on if one wants to
argue for an Agent!Lupin."

"I think that there must be a connection between Voldemort and
Grindelwald that we haven't been made privy to, as of yet."

"I'll submit that Voldemort must be the inheritor of Grindelwald's
legacy and work, <snip>"

I reply:
See? In every one of those I make inferences – but I tell everyone 
that that's what I'm doing. You guys do not always do that – and 
IMHO, that confuses the issue.


Pip wrote: 
So it appears that you are happy to make inferences. You simply 
don't want me to make inferences.

I reply:
Nope. I love some of your inferences, particularly your reasoning on 
Azkaban!Hagrid, for instance. Just admit that it's an inference, and 
we're all set. Again, my gripes with some of the defenses for MD are 
derived directly from the "I'm accepting my inference as fact and 
using it thus" school of thought. IMHO, that just doesn't cut it. See 
where I called you on those minor points. In each case, it's either 
off-reasoning, blatantly wrong, or a misuse of canon. However, if you 
had prefaced those remarks with "we infer," like you did 
re: `expelliarmus,' then it'd be fine.


The MDDT wrote:
"Dumbledore would not have told him his plans about the night, so
Snape would have been in the dark on that."

I [Tom] replied to that:
Whoa! Did I miss something massive in MD? Where in MD does it 
suggest that Dumbledore orchestrated, or controlled in any way, Sirius
Black's behavior on the night of the Shrieking Shack?

Pip replied:
No, you didn't miss something massive. Just the line following the 
sentence you quote. And the line preceding the sentence you quote. 
Both of which refer to Lupin, not Black. Where did you get the idea 
we were referring to Sirius Black? 

I reply:
I understand that you were referring to Lupin. What I was questioning 
was, in particular, the "Dumbledore would not have told him about his 
plans.. ." In other words, I read that as implying that Dumbledore 
had plans for the night of the Shrieking Shack. And that's what I 
didn't get. As you follow with:


Pip wrote:
I agree with you entirely; I don't think Dumbledore has the 
slightest control over Sirius Black until after he talks to him in 
Chapter 21 of PoA. 

I reply:
Cool. That's all I was confused about. Just want to make sure we're 
all on the same page, here.


I wrote, re: `expelliarmus':
At all other times, the use of 'expelliarmus' on a wizard results in
the removal of an object from the wizard's hand. It does not, most of
the time, result in a knock-out. Pip's 39662 posits: "This spell does
knock the wizard off their feet."

That is not what 'expelliarmus' does.
END QUOTE.

Pip first quoted CoS, and then replied: 
So, in canon, knocking someone off their feet (and into a wall) is 
*exactly* what expelliarmus is known to do. The spell's *intent* is 
to remove the wand from a wizard. The spell's *side effect* is to 
knock the wizard off their feet. As you point out, the Shrieking 
Shack is the *second* time a wizard has been knocked off their feet 
in by Expelliarmus in canon.

If it's not believable to you, then it's not believable.
END QUOTE.

I reply:
My point was that a KO is an unintended side-effect of expelliarmus, 
and is not what normally results. So, since that's not what normally 
results from its use, then I don't see how Snape could have been 
planning it in his head. Sure, it occasionally 
happens. `Occasionally' meaning twice in canon. But most of the time, 
that's not what happens. So, if a KO is an unintended side-effect, I 
don't see how Snape could have been working it into a plan.


Pip wrote:
"The thing in this scene I find *unbelievable* is that all three 
children manage to beat Snape to the draw. Canonically, he's 
described as knowing something about duelling (CoS, Ch.11,pp. 142 - 
146 UK paperback). He's already got his wand up, and doesn't have to 
draw it."

I reply:
I agree with that. The only thing I can say is what others have said, 
and you concede in the original post – he could have just been 
overtaxed from too much multi-tasking.


Pip wrote:
Your major points: You've withdrawn point one and replaced it with 
the argument that Lupin's wolfsbane potion could have been taken 
previously in the week, and still been effective.

It's arguable. There's no canon against it, and I can hardly 
complain about that:-)

I reply:
Thanks. I think that there's enough benefit of the doubt to cover it 
adequately, again, without drastic or difficult inferences.

You're right about Lupin's `probably' remark, but that's where I 
figured we'd have enough benefit of the doubt to go on. `Probably' 
isn't `definitely,' after all.


 

Pip wrote:
Further canon. Snape was a spy on Lord Voldemort. [GoF UK hardback, 
p. 513, Ch. 30].

A spy is described in the Sphinx's riddle in GoF.

"Think of a person that lives in disguise
who deals in secrets and tells naught but lies." [GoF Ch. 31, p. 546]

('a person who lives in disguise and tells naught but lies' is also 
a pretty good description of an actor at work, btw.)

I can't recall any canon evidence for Lupin ever being a spy. Or for 
his ability to control himself in full (non-potioned) werewolf form. 
You seem to be simply making an assumption, where you are reasoning 
from no evidence, rather than an inference.
END QUOTE.

I reply:
Um, you're right, I guess. There's no canon for Lupin ever being a 
spy, per se. But does there have to be? I guess I'm taking for 
granted that anyone can act out a part. If you want to call me on 
*that,* then okay, you're right... I will submit, though, that if the 
Marauders were anything like HHR, then Lupin would be able to lie 
effectively. I'll also quote PoA, Ch 14, pg 288:

"Harry had the impression that Lupin was doing some very quick 
thinking. <snip>
`Harry do you know any of these men?'
`No,' said Harry quickly.
`You see, Severus?' said Lupin turning back to Snape. `It looks like 
a Zonko product to me –`"

So, one way or the other, we definitely have canon support for 
Lupin's ability to think under pressure, and his ability to twist 
words to get what he wants out of a situation.

Besides, I think this whole discussion has confused the point I was 
trying to make: I'm not suggesting that Lupin would make a good spy 
in the sense of `secret-double-James-Bondy' kind of spy. I thought it 
was clear that I was suggesting that as an agent in the Shrieking 
Shack, he was the perfect candidate because of his relationships to 
everyone there, as opposed to Snape, who IMHO is the worst candidate 
because just about everyone there loathes him, and he loathes them.



I previously wrote:
Remus Lupin has very real and tangible reasons for wanting to kill
Peter Pettigrew.

Pip replied:
<snip most of sarcasm>
But Lupin doesn't want to keep Pettigrew alive, so that's ok. He can 
afford to force a showdown that will kill Pettigrew in 10 seconds if 
things go wrong.

Dumbledore's going to be a bit annoyed about his potion plan, but 
you can't have everything.
END QUOTE.

I reply:
I just can't figure out why the sarcasm. Anyways, look, I don't see 
where you're going with this. Lupin was banking on Harry making the 
right decision. It's just as ridiculous to let all of that hang in 
the balance in DL as it is in MD, and MD assumes the same thing. The 
point is that, if part of the plan involved Lupin hoping Harry'd make 
the right decision, then he did, and it's all good. See below:


Pip wrote, in 39662:
"Does Dumbledore think Harry will let Black kill Pettigrew? 
No. 
"I knew your father very well, both at Hogwarts and later, Harry. He 
would have saved Pettigrew too, I am sure of it." (PoA p. 311)
And he was sure of Harry."
END QUOTE.

I reply:
See? Same deal here. Your reasoning is just as bad, in that sense, as 
mine is, and there are definitely inherent risks to leaving the 
choice up to Harry. Why is it that you can reason this way without 
accepting mine to the same effect? It's a chance, one way or the 
other. I can accept that completely. My response to your objection 
wasn't meant to go this way – I was just illustrating that Lupin can 
have real desire to kill Pettigrew, that's all.


**Lupin's Plan**
Tom:
1) Assess the situation and discover the truth, and
2) Get all the information out in the open, so that
3) A well-informed Harry can get Pettigrew in a life-debt.

Right. Except that you've just argued against point 3 in the point 
above?

I reply:
Why? Why is it impossible for Lupin to want to kill Peter but realize 
that the greater good will be served by letting him survive with a 
debt. All that means is that we have to accept that Lupin can choose 
one over the other. Nothing more. Arguing that Lupin has a real 
desire to kill Pettigrew doesn't contradict his ability to get a life 
debt by letting Harry make the choice.

And, I'm guessing that you accept Azkaban!Hagrid, so on to Snape.


I previously wrote:
By DL's analysis,
there is *no* hidden agenda from Snape. He is acting *only* for the
reason that we're given ostensibly in the text: REVENGE.

Pip replied: 
Why didn't he take it then?
Sorry, Tom, but I keep missing this bit.

I reply:
Well, how? You give a perfectly acceptable answer to this as well, in 
39662.

Pip wrote in 39662:
"Snape's orders (or possibly his own integrity) mean he has to bring 
Black and Lupin back alive if possible. The moment when Black moves 
to attack would have been the perfect time to kill him if Snape had 
intended to. Instead he gives Sirius a very clear warning not to make 
any false moves - because Snape is prepared to kill if he has to."

I reply:
So, what's wrong with Snape maintaining his own integrity? I think 
your response is perfectly adequate. As angry as he is, IMHO, Snape 
probably realizes he should still defer to Dumbledore. I'm okay with 
that.


I wrote:
I was to realize one very
important point - they didn't use canon once to support their
objections or observations.

Pip replied:
In a quick re-read I counted twelve references to canon in #51925. 
Do you need page and Chapter references in future? Or would you 
prefer quotation marks around any canon?

I reply:
Yeah, page numbers or some kind of valid reference is what I have 
noticed seems to be the convention when one is arguing a point. At 
least, that seems to be your methodology when presenting a theory in 
the first place. It kind of makes things easier, you know, especially 
since you guys do have a tendency to treat what you consider to be 
acceptable inferences and assumptions as canon.

But, really, I don't understand any of this. I wrote my alternative 
as a possible way to strengthen MD, as in, `okay, say there's an 
*agent* in the shack. What are the other options?' I was expecting 
something from you three like `hey, that's not too bad, how can we 
tweak it?'

I was not expecting a post from you three shredding it to bits. 

Nor was I expecting that post to say that my alternative has problems 
with canon, without you guys quoting the canon. Just seems to me like 
fair play. When I contest something from MD, I give you the canon. If 
you cry `abmiguity' to that, well, that's your right. But if you're 
gonna refer to canon, then make it clear, right? I mean, if you do 
that everywhere else, then why stop here?

But still, from what I read here, you don't really have any canon to 
argue with my alternative, except that Lupin's not canonically 
established as having a spy record. Which is fine, he's not, I can 
deal with that. But he can think under pressure, and can demonstrably 
lie, or at least twist the truth a little. ;-)

But I hope that, at the least, I've demonstrated that the ambiguity 
sword you guys use does cut both ways. And that IMHO, it's terribly 
funny that the arguments you tried to use against me you've already 
refuted for MD because they've been used before. 

So, if you three are as tickled-pink with the results of this as I 
am, then we can drop the subject until a later date. <grin>

-Tom