[HPforGrownups] Re: Deathday - 100 years discrepancy

[Random]

No: HPFGUIDX 69570


On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 01:25 PM, joanne0012 wrote:

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Random <random832 at r...> wrote:
>>
>> Well, perhaps on the big deathday anniversaries (100th and 500th) he
>> _does_ eat... that is what i've always thought. time since last eaten
>> hardly means time since death.
>>
>> --Random832
>
> This is a well-known Flint, of special importance because Nick's 
> deathday is
> the only specific date (with year) given as a reference point for the 
> books.
> Anyway, I figure that Nick merely misspke when he said 400 and meant 
> 500
> but the thought was just too awful to bear.  Or he was rounding down.

explain just _why_ my theory isn't valid? it's automatically a flint 
because you've never considered the angle that would make it 
not-a-flint? I got the impression the book described a big feast for 
the 500th, there's no reason there couldn't have been for the 100th as 
well. and, rounding down doesn't explain "nearly" 400. do we have _any_ 
canon evidence that the last time he'd eaten was when he was alive?

--Random832