[HPforGrownups] Re: The 12 uses of Dumbledore's omniscience

[Ladi lyndi]

No: HPFGUIDX 57716

--- abigail wrote:
> To which Lynn objected.  I hope Errol doesn't
> mind me jumping in:
> 
> > How do you know
> > Dumbledore doesn't know the extent of the
> castle?
> 
> Because he says so himself in GoF.  I don't
> remember the exact occasion, but Harry hears 
> Dumbledore tell someone over dinner that there
> are rooms in the castle that he doesn't 
> know, and gives for example the room full of
> bedpans which he found once and has 
> never been able to find again.


Lynn:

Yes, Dumbledore does say to Karkaroff at the Yule
Ball that he would never dream of assuming he
knew all Hogwarts' secrets.  (GoF, p. 363, UK) 
Indeed Dumbledore may not know all the secrets,
however, that may also be Dumbledore's 'modesty'.
 I see it much the same way as when Dumbledore
concedes to Madame Maxime that he may have made a
mistake with his Age line.

Or, perhaps it was a way to lead into a
description of 'The Room'.  I believe that was
actually foreshadowing, a way to tell Harry about
the room in an understated way.  Dumbledore has
done this before, such as with the Mirror of
Erised.  I personally believe Dumbledore knows
all about that room and that it will play a part
in the plot.  Sorry, but I just don't believe
that Dumbledore took a wrong turn going to the
toilet and I get the impression Harry didn't
either.

abigail wrote:

> >  What do you mean he has no control over the
> > actions of mean or cowardly people 
> 
> Quirrel, Lockhart, to a certain extent Snape,
> Bagman, Karkaroff, Crouch Jr.  All hatched 
> dastardly plans and carried them out right
> under Dumbledore's oversized nose.


Lynn:

First, what I really meant by this question was
what exactly was meant by no control over the
actions.  Unless someone is under the Imperious
Curse, no one has control over someone's else's
actions.  People chose their actions for
themselves.  If, however, what was meant was no
control over the consequences of people's
actions, that's different.  (This is probably
clear as mud but I hope someone understands what
I mean.)

Now, what dastardly plans did Lockhart, Bagman
and Karkaroff carry out?  Maybe I missed those. 
Yes, I would say that Lockhart was a dolt, Bagman
a sleaze and Karkaroff just an all around nasty
guy, but what was Dumbledore supposed to control?
 What was Dumbledore supposed to do about
Lockhart?  Give Lockhart Veritaserum and make him
confess that he's a fraud?  Was Dumbledore
supposed to slap Bagman on the wrist for gambling
too much?  I can't even figure out what Karkaroff
was doing bad.  These three may be doing some not
so nice things, but Dumbledore doesn't have the
right to control those actions.  They, as grown
men, have the right to make mistakes themselves
if they want to or do bad things if they wish.

As to Snape, as much as I'm not inclined to
support his way of teaching, as has been pointed
out in other postings, that's a judgment call.  

Now, Quirrell and Crouch, Jr. did perform
dastardly deeds and these two I agree with
regarding controlling the consequences of their
actions.  Perhaps Dumbledore should have stopped
Quirrell, however, it may be as Harry speculates
that Dumbledore armed him so that he could face
Voldemort himself.  As for Crouch, Jr.,
Dumbledore did know something was happening, had
finally come to understand who was doing it but
apparently didn't know how they were doing it. 
I'm really not sure just what Dumblefore could
have done to prevent it but am certainly open to
suggestions.  And, as I said, I may agree with
the examples and I certainly do agree with
Quirrell and Crouch, Jr.  These are two examples
of people in which Dumbledore should have had
more control over the consequences of their
actions.

abigail wrote:
> or can't see
> > or fix loopholes?  
> 
> Well, he couldn't get Harry out of being a
> Triwizard champion, could he?

Lynn:

Where is the loophole in Harry being Triwizard
champion?  In fact, it's the lack of a loophole
which prevents Dumbledore from getting Harry out
of that situation.  There isn't a loophole that
says, if someone uses the name of a 4th school
they can't be champion, if there is already one
champion chosen from a school, the second is
disqualified or even if someone's name was put in
the Goblet without their consent the contract is
not binding.  Rather, what we have here is an
absolute with no loopholes to see or fix.

Now, if you were saying why didn't Dumbledore
foresee various ways that someone could not only
get Harry's name into the Goblet but also get him
to be chosen as champion, we'd have agreement
again.  This is something Dumbledore most
certainly should have foreseen and taken steps to
prevent, particularly in light of what happened
at the World Cup.  However, I submit that the
Dark Arts aren't the same as a loophole.

Lynn
(now wondering if the teachers get their own
personal toilet or are left wandering around the
school looking for the teacher's toilet all
night.)



=====
For the international news that's fit to print
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cnnworldnewsq-a

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com