The Order's means of communication...

[adeptandinept]

No: HPFGUIDX 122524



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com,

> LisaMarie said:
>>> I am enclined to agree with Meng Yu, who stated upthread that 
the > most likely means would be the Patronus (or something that 
looks  > very much like a Patronus), as we see it used in GoF when 
DD summons > Hagrid to the edge of the Forest when Crouch Sr. 
appears and Krum is > attacked.

> Reason #1 It requires /only/ a wand.  
> Reason #2 DD is an Order member.  (obviously)
> Reason #3 We didn't know about the Order at this time, but we were 
> about to find out about it.
> Reason #4 It is not vulnerable to interception or trickery 
> (something else Jo mentions in the above link).

Adept:

I dont agree with the patronus theory.  A real patronus is too short 
lived a bit of magic.  It's also too obvious.  The protean charm on 
a galleon was discreet, but is vulnerable to interception and 
trickery.

 JKR said, "a chocolate frog card, or any object that would have to 
be remembered and carried on the person, would always be vulnerable 
to loss, destruction or trickery. The Order communicates in a way 
that requires nothing but a wand. You saw the Order's method of 
communication in use even before you knew about the existence of the 
Order; it was employed by an Order member."

Loss, destruction or trickery.  A wand is capable of being lost
(Harry in GOF).  A wand is capable of being destroyed (Neville in 
OotP).  I dont know of any evidence regarding trickery but why not? 
 
I think JKR means something else.  I'm new here and am not ready to 
jump into the fire, but I don't agree wholly with your 
interpretation of her quote.