Copyediting Errors - Listed? (was:Voldemort killed personally?)

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 157217

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67"  wrote:
<snip>
> We *know* that Tom was sixteen when he killed Myrtle. He would    
> have to have been near the end of his fifth year at that time.
> We know that he killed the Riddles after that, <snip>

Mike:
How do we *know*? What is the evidence? We know he was sixteen when 
he killed Myrtle because he told us he preserved his sixteen-year-
old self in the diary. We can also backtrack 50 years to arrive at 
Tom's fifth year at school. Where's the evidence that Tom killed the 
Riddles *after* his fifth year?

<snip>
> Carol again:
> The line about being "in his sixteenth year" has to be simply a 
> typo or mathematical error based on JKR's misconception of the
> concept of "sixteenth year." (A *lot* of people think it means
> that he was sixteen. It's a common misconception.)
 
Mike again:
I know, like I said, I misread it the first time myself. But that 
certainly doesn't prove that I was right on my first reading.

<major snip>
> 
> Carol responds:
> <snipping the recap of Tom's pursuit of his heritage thru killing 
his Riddle relatives. No mention of Tom's age in there>

> (He *isn't* wearing a ring in CoS, or surely the narrator would 
> have mentioned it.) 

Mike again:
I would have thought so too. But *not* mentioning the ring is not 
proof that he *didn't* have the ring. I'll even give you more fuel, 
check out CoS, p.243, Riddle in Dippet's office (memory scene):

"'Oh', said Riddle. He sat down, gripping his hands together very 
tightly."

You would think if Tom had a ring on, we would have noticed it right 
here. But, it still isn't proof that he *didn't* have it.

> Carol again:
<huge snippage>
> I don't see the problem, actually--just a small error ("sixteenth
> year" for "age sixteen"). He certainly killed the Riddles, and he 
> must have done so in the summer following Myrtle's death.
<snippage again>
> There is no canon whatever except the "sixteenth year" statement,
> which is similar to the error in "Spinner's End" indicating that 
> Snape had taught for sixteen years when we know that it should be 
> fifteen, to indicate that Tom killed his parents when he was 
> fifteen. Logic and canon indicate that it occurred when he 
> was sixteen, after he had killed Myrtle.
>  
> Call "sixteenth year" canon if you like. I call it an 
> inconsistency, almost certainly a Flint.

Mike:
Not proof, conjecture. Snape said he was spying for sixteen years 
not that he was teaching for sixteen. Logic, maybe...canon, not 
buying it even though I'd prefer it.

> Carol again:
> We do *not* have a canonical statement that the murders occurred 
> before he killed Myrtle, 
<snipping the rest>

Mike:
Yes we do! We have DD's statement in HBP. What we don't have is a 
canonical statement that the murders occurred after Myrtle's. I read 
your post through three times, hoping to find that piece of 
contradictory evidence. You just didn't have it.

I think this list loses all integrity if we start calling 
inconvenient but non-contradictory canon Flints.