Academic dishonesty.

[eggplant107]

No: HPFGUIDX 139597

"colebiancardi" <muellem at b...> wrote:

> How does LV, Umbridge & Snape have 
> anything to do with Harry not 
> returning the book when asked? 

It puts the level of misdeed, if there was a misdeed at all, into
perspective.

> many students would have given
> Snape the proper respect that 
> as a Professor he commands.

Unlike many other students it has been Harry's policy to give Snape
the absolute minimum level of respect he can get away with, and for
that I applaud Harry.

> Dumbledore and others are always
> reminding Harry to give Snape respect 

Yes and we now know that Dumbledore can be disastrously and fatally
wrong. 

> unless you have canon that Harry
> knows about Dumbledore's *murder* 

Chapter 27.

> he cannot be a superior authority figure. 

Harry's situation has changed, he is no longer the naïve little boy we
saw in book 1.  Harry is an adult now, he's no longer in school,
Dumbledore is dead, and he is the only one on the planet who has a
chance of killing Voldemort; I'm sure Harry will always be open to
suggestions but at this point in his life he no longer has a reason to
defer to anyone's authority. Harry is the Authority now. 

> Harry does not know at this point
> in the book that Snape is a murderer

But Harry does very strongly suspect that Snape is a traitor, a
suspicion that proved to be correct. 

> You stated Harry *deserved* the book

Actually what I said was that right or wrong if I were Harry I'd feel
like I deserved that book.

> I stated he deserved an education.
> Which he didn't get by using other
> people's(Snape's) notes. 

I think Ron said it best when he said Harry was just following a
different (and better) set of instructions.

> I don't believe for one NY minute 
> that Rowling wishes Harry not to
> have moral fiber and a moral compass. 

Not exactly a controversial statement. Obviously she doesn't want to
turn Harry into a Snape, but I don't think she wants to turn him into
a goody two shoes Dudley Doright character either. I hope not anyway. 

> wishes posters wouldn't just cut 
> a sentence here & there, as the
> whole meaning of my post is lost 

Those wishing to read your entire post will have absolutely no
difficulty doing so, thus I see no need to clutter things up and
repeat all of it here, just enough to let people know what I'm
responding too.  I think one of the worse inventions of all time is
the "respond" button, I'll bet if people had to laboriously type in
all quoted material we wouldn't see things like a full screen of
quotes followed by a 5 word comment.

> the responder has no clue 
> what I was trying to post 

Well, could be, but I do my best.

  Eggplant