Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General)

[snow15145]

No: HPFGUIDX 124397


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:
> 
> Alla:
> And I wanted to quote again Phoenixgod's analogy from his 123415 
> post:
> "Regardless of whether or not Harry has transcended the limitations 
> of his upbringing, it does not excuse the actions that put him in 
> the situation in the first place.If I throw you into a room with 
axe 
> wielding maniac suspecting that you're a master martial artist and 
> will survive the encounter, that doesn't mean that my actions were 
> right.Dumbledore abandoned Harry to people that none of us would 
> want to know or live with. That is wrong regardless of Harry's 
> mental resilience."<
>  
> Betsy:
> 
> See, this is a perfect example of hysterical hyperbole that seems 
to 
> be developing around Harry's life with the Dursleys.  "Axe wielding 
> >maniac"?!?!  Wha...?  The Dursleys never even *struck* Harry for 
> > heavens sake. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Hysterical hyperbole? Petunia definitely tried to hit him with 
> frying pan, but it is OK, right? Makes you stronger.
> 
> Let me post you another hypo. Suppose Dursleys tried to hit Harry 
> multiple times every day, BUT all of those hits magically rebounced 
> and Harry did not feel anything at all. Do you think Harry is 
abused 
> in such situation or not?
> 
>  
> Betsy:
> And "abandoned"?  Harry wasn't doomed to live with the 
> > Dursleys forever.  (And we'll just ignore Voldemort and his Death 
> > Eaters -- because they're really sort of fluffy if you squint.)
> 
> Alla:
> 
> No, just first ten years of his life, when child needs love the 
most.
> 
> And I just had an interesting thought in my previous post. It seems 
> that protection is not against DE, only Voldemort, unless I forgot 
> something, in which case I will eat my words.
> Why exactly Harry was left there? 
> Because if Bella wanted to stop by privet Drive, it seems to me 
that 
> she could do so.
> 
> 
> Betsy:
> Harry is alive.  Harry is sane.  Harry is remarkably self-
> confident.  My goodness but Dumbledore let him down!
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yep, he is. No because of anything Dumbledore did though, IMO.
> 
> By the way, I know you don't look in the interviews much, but JKR 
> definitely considers Harry to be abused by Dursleys. Juli quoted 
> this quote about Dursley being just as abused as Harry in her 
123444:
> 
> "On Dateline, 2000 she said:
> `I like torturing them,` said Rowling. `You should
> keep an eye on Dudley. It's probably too late for Aunt
> Petunia and Uncle Vernon. I feel sorry for Dudley. I
> might joke about him, but I feel truly sorry for him
> because I see him as just as ABUSED as Harry. "
> 
> 
> 
> Alla earlier
> By the way, I suspect I am wrong on this one, so can somebody please
> refer me to the quote , which says that Harry cannot be touched by
> Voldemort's servants at Privet Drive? I must have been forgotten the
> part, because if blood protection is only against Voldemort, then
> Dumbledore's decision is even more shaky than I thought before.
>  
> Snow:
>  
> If Voldemort cannot touch him at the Dursley's neither can his 
> followers. 
>  
> "
Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic, to ensure the boy's 
> protection as long as he is in his relations' care. Not even I can 
> touch him there
"GOF pg. 657
>  
> Not EVEN I can touch him there! Big one. 
>  
> 
> 
> Alla 
> Thanks, but it does not exactly helps me.
> Voldemort confirms that he cannot touch Harry there. Nowhere does 
he 
> say that my faithful DE could not touch him.
> 
> 
> Just my opinion,
> 
> Alla

Snow:

You asked for canon to support my views and I supplied it. Where is 
your canon that can support any evidence of a maladjusted child?