Something wrong with this Fudge

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 107457

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" <hpfanmatt at g...> wrote:
> > SSSusan wrote:
> > MY original point was that some people have claimed 
> > Fudge is a good ESE! candidate because he opposes DD, 
> > is friends w/ Lucius, is unfair to Harry in his trial, 
> > won't take the position of informing the WW that Voldy's 
> > back even though the evidence is clear, etc.-- all the 
> > CLEAR, SURFACEY detail from canon....
> > Wouldn't it be interesting if, in the end, we find that 
> > Fudge truly *is* ESE! but not for the reasons typically 
> > stated?  What if it's because he really has been 
> > orchestrating truly evil things, such as setting the 
> > Dementors on Harry, being in on the Potters' death or 
> > helping Wormtail somehow, having Barty, Jr. "kissed" 
> > before he could testify so as to protect or hide 
> > something, helping Voldy return? ...
> > 
> > Why does this NOT reinforce the "people are complex" theme?
> >
> > Meltowne had listed some places where things which 
> > happened in canon *could* have included Fudge behind the 
> > scenes or in ways not fully revealed.  Yes, there's some 
> > speculation in it, but these also include incidents where 
> > Fudge was at least present or an active participant 

Matt:
> Wait, what if Fudge really *IS* Voldemort?  We've never seen them in
> the same scene at the same time!
> 
> -- Matt, who still thinks that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


SSSusan:
Well, maybe you're intending to be funny and I'm just not seeing it, 
but I don't get where this comes from!

I mean, there are theories, hypotheses, arguments all over this 
board, some of them based totally on wishful thinking and not one 
whit on canon, while I & others have at least presented SEVERAL 
situations where Fudge was present and could have been involved in 
ways that would point to his being evil.  How does that translate 
into my arguing something as outlandish as Fudge = Voldemort?  

*Of course* sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  In this case there 
are a LOT of circumstances which are at least questionable.  
Yesterday Joyfulstoryteller said something I liked:  "once is 
accident, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action."  As 
more people wrote in with info from the books about Fudge, some of us 
felt we'd ended up beyond the "accident" or "coincidence" stage.

If you disagree with me, that's fine & dandy.  You have several 
options for what to do with that:  ignore me; point out canon 
refutation; explain why my theory holds no water.  You don't have to 
write in just to belittle my position by equating it to something I 
never said or implied.

Siriusly Snapey Susan