Vampire/Half Vampire/Schvampire -was all the other vampire Snape stuff

[junediamanti]

No: HPFGUIDX 88723

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jakedjensen" 
<jakejensen at h...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, 
> Jake:
> > > I am not sure why, but you seem determined to be very angry at 
> anyone 
> > > who even suggests that Snape might be a vampire. Let me be the 
> > first 
> > > to say that I understand you don't agree.  That is cool with 
me. 
> I 
> > > don't see why you get angry?  It really takes all of the fun 
out 
> of 
> > > this (I put up with enough angry people in my real life as a 
> > > teacher). 

June:
Well let me say I'm very glad not to have you as a teacher if your 
attitude is so very intolerant.  There, that's a personal attack if 
you like.  And if your professional attitude is like this, I'm not 
surprised people get angry around you.

You have persistenly attributed your emotions to me.  That is 
flawed.  I'm not angy and never have been.  Slightly dismayed by the 
total lack of even vestigial sense of humour show, but I can live 
with that.  I was finding this all rather amusing.  It started as a 
reasonable discussion - canon versus theory if you like.  However 
over the past few days I have been increasingly responded to by the 
likes of you as if I had no right to any opinion at all. 


 I know you have a lot of passion in what you believe. 
> I 
> > > know you make some good points.  Just take a deep breath and 
make 
> > > your case.  People will listen.   
> > 
> > June:
> > Firstly, I'm not angry - 
> 
> If you're not angry, then why be so rude?  Personally, I'm not 
> offended by your arguments, just the way you demean everyone you 
> argue against by stereotyping and slandering.  Most people refuse 
to 
> respond to you because they find you highly offensive.

June:
You mean YOU find me offensive because I don't agree with you!  

I'm not rude.  I haven't been rude.  My posts have taken issue with 
the discussion and whether or not Snape is a vampire.  Your post 
that I am now replying to however is a personal attack on me and I 
find THIS deeply offensive.  A full perusal of my posts on this 
subject will plainly make clear that I have not been insulting 
towards persons as individuals, though I have taken issue with some 
of the arguments given to me.   I could also have taken issue with 
the tone of a number of the posts made in response to mine.  I 
didn't because I think getting emotional about this issue is silly. 
I still do.  I think the issue is  a theory.  There are a number of 
people on this board who think it is a good and valid theory.  
Fine.  I think it is misguided and there are a number of people who 
agree with me too.  They haven't joined in because they agree with 
what I have said.  I don't generally get involved in supporting 
posters who say what I entirely agree with.  On a smaller board I 
might well do so, not on this one. 

The majority of the posts in direct reply to what I have said have 
indeed been emotional in tone.  I never began this.  It was whomever 
you are saying considers me rude?  You perhaps?  Why is that?   I 
made valid points about the popular conception of vampires on Sunday 
and was told repeatedly to everthing I said - no, that's wrong.  So 
I argued some more - and I know I made good points.  However, if the 
sum response offered is "No you are wrong" then I'm not impressed 
with this theory lobby's debate skills.  The fact is there have been 
a number of posters who have made some good and well taken points 
too. I have not posted a reply to them because their points are 
valid, politely made, in the spirit of discussion rather than the 
posts that I have replied to which have been from the outset, 
hectoring and patronising in tone.  Please cease accusing me of NOT 
reading the posts.  Of course I have read them - with interest in 
most cases.  I'm not going to reply to every single post on this 
board, because I don't have time.  And board rules preclude my 
posting an "I agree!" or "Me too" reply.  

It would have been better etiquette if as you had a major issue with 
what I am saying and the way that I say it (which a good many people 
do not perceive to be a problem, whatever you may think) was made to 
me in the spirit of conversation off list.  I have participated in a 
good many off list mailings and provided they are not overly 
aggressive, do not mind discussing matters off list with people who 
disagree with me.  I've had some interesting conversations that way, 
and actually made some good "net" friends.  We still don't 
necessarily agree, but we can agree to differ.

The problem I have been seeing in these posts on this thread since 
Sunday is a complete reluctance on the part of you and your co-
theorists to "agree to differ".  You believe in your theory (and I 
have pointed out in every post that you are quite entitled to this) 
but unfortunately do not wish to participate in a reasoned 
discussion of it and in the end have resorted to cheap abuse.  

I find the charge that I demean people deeply offensive too, because 
it just isn't true.  Perhaps you yourself feel demeaned by not 
winning the argument, because I've certainly noticed an increasing 
shrillness in the approach over the last two days.  First one 
theorist then another pops out of the woodwork to have a go.  Not 
one has been able to argue my very valid points.  I have commented 
that I think a number of the cruxes of the argument are silly - not 
that you the arguer are silly.  And I am very tired of saying in 
posts "Please understand I am not criticising the person only their 
argument" - and then having it ignored.

And please do expand ,if you must, on what you mean by slandering 
and stereotyping?  Who is stereotyping who? Who is slandering who?  
I have made no comments on anyone who has posted on this thread and 
how, therefore, can you possibly correctly make that charge against 
me?


> 
> > > June:
> > > Big question - still unanswered, why is it SO VERY necessary 
to 
> you 
> > > > all for Snape to be a vampire?  I prefer him human because I 
> > > believe 
> > > > he is a more interesting character as a flawed human being.  
So 
> > go 
> > > > on - what's your excuse?
> > > 
> Jake:
> > > Did you read the post I tossed up last night?  
> 
> June:
> > I've read all the posts on this part of the thread.  I can't 
> > individually answer them all - that would be the kind of 
monomania 
> > that would fit me for induction into your ranks!  (That was 
irony 
> > folks - enjoy!)
> > 
> > I think it is an even more fun idea for him to have just an 
> attitude 
> > problem.  As a human being.  There's a lot of canon support for 
> that 
> > too.  More in my not so humble opinion.
> > 
> 
> I see.  We (the Snape!vampire group) commit (in your opinion) the 
> huge mistake of never responding in full to your posts (even 
though 
> we have).

June:
No - you have not.  

  You, on the other hand, are allowed to freely attack one 
> (or no) argument at a time and then rudely dismiss the person and 
> look for high fives from your buds.  I often get the feeling you 
do 
> not actually read previous posts.

June:
Yes I have.  Whatever you choose to think.  I noted from your first 
post on Sunday night when you said people should calm down, and then 
you attacked my views quite roundly that you are not capable of 
stepping away from this argument any more than I am.

You have pretended to be neutral whilst patently being nothing of 
the kind.

  This confirms it.  Example: Snape 
> having a wand.  Yes, two different people have already offered 
canon 
> refuting that.  For example, Hagrid isn't allowed to have a wand 
> (according the the Ministry), but something appears to be in his 
> umbrella.  In addition, just because something is against 
the "law" 
> doesn't mean DD would shy away from it.  If Snape is a vampire 
than 
> clearly few others know (not the MoM, that's for sure).

June:
No they have not in this thread.  I've read the posts.  Have you? I 
begin to doubt it.  Presumably you have been rather selective.  
 
> 
> To be honest, I can't think of a single argument of yours that 
hasn't 
> been addressed (by canon) more than once.  You keep saying it 
> hasn't.  But it has.  You keep saying we don't give any reasons 
for 
> this being important.  No, we have.  You just didn't read them.
> 
> Sorry to get highten my tone, but I'll only put up with bullying 
so 
> long. 

June:
Once again, as  parent I have to say I'm frightfully glad no child 
of mine has a teacher like you.  Another personal attack - but I 
feel you deserve it.  I think we have very different definitions of 
bullying.  Mine would be that to make a public post that is a 
definite attack on someone because their views do not agree with 
yours is bullying.  My saying that I was not convinced by the views 
offered doesn't sound like bullying to me.  



 I have tried (in the past) to bring this conversation back to 
> a civil level and hope it can still be.

June:
I think you may have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory 
there.  If this was an attempt to bring the conversation back to a 
civil level, I hardly think a personal attack is the way forward.  

I have to listen to three posters over four days who have taken an 
increasingly unpleasant and hectoring tone.  As far as I can see, 
mainly because I don't agree with them.  I haven't personally 
offered insults to any of them, though I do think some of their 
reasoning deeply flawed and have said so.  I don't see that I am the 
person with the problem here. 

If your theory is so good, why is it necessary to crush any 
opposition to it?

I will not post any further response on this subject because this 
flagrant and unecessary personal attack demonstrates to me that I do 
not have to say anything further to make my point.  

In short - if anyone else is planning a response to me of this 
kind:  shove it.

June