Dumbledore Does Lie

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 159148

--- "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "Steve" <bboyminn@> wrote:
> > 
> > bboyminn:
> > 
> > ...edited...
> > 
> > It's the difference between the awarenss of a vague
> > muffled sound occurring in some other location, and
> > the hearing of clearly define speech. You can be 
> > aware that something is going on without being aware
> > of precisely what is going on.

> 
> Mike:
> 
> ... My take on this scenario is simply that without any
> coordination between Albus and Aberforth that Albus 
> could not be as sure, as he was, when Snape got cut off
> from overhearing the prophesy. Albus is sure Snape 
> overheard everything up until "...as the seventh month 
> dies" but not not a word of "and the Dark Lord will 
> mark him as his equal..." If you are sure that Albus 
> could draw a definite line of demarcation based on 
> muffled noises, then I'm not going to convince you 
> otherwise. 
> 

bboyminn:

One small thing that you seem to be overlooking, and that
is that what Dumbledore is saying now today is not based
on his instantaneous realization in the moment his 
interview of Trelawney was interupted. He has had well 
over a decade of time to research the matter, to gather
information, and to get his story straight. 

It is perfectly possible that in the moment Dumbledore
didn't know what Snape had or hadn't heard. He pieced 
that information together over time. When he explains it
to Harry, he is not explaining instantaneous realization
but accumulated information.

/Then/ he suspected that Snape might have overheard 
something, /now/ because he has had years of access to 
Snape and trusts Snape, he thinks he knows exactly what
Snape overheard. 

I leave an element of doubt because we don't really know
for a fact that Snape can be trusted, but Dumbledore 
thinks he can, and so he takes his statement of what he
heard as fact.


 
> ...edited...
> 
> montims:
> I've missed something. Why was Snape there at all? OK,
> he was following DD around, and spying for LV. ... But
> why, actually, was he listening (or trying to listen) 
> to DD interviewing Sybill?
> 
> Mike:
> Another point to answer. (Thank you montims) Instead 
> of reaching to try to figure out how to reconcile the
> two versions of events, we should be asking why Snape 
> would be eavesdropping on a teachers job 
> interview. ...edited...

bboyminn:

But that is assuming Snape knew who Dumbledore was 
meeting and why. Snape can't possibly know if something 
worth hearing would occur unless he heard it and made a 
determination.

Dumbledore was having a private meeting, and private 
meeting are usually private because something 'private' 
is being discussed. Snape has no way of knowing if it
will be interesting or boring, significant or 
insignificant until he listens and finds out. 

I suspect in real-life spies spend countless boring hours
listening to tediously mundane conversations before they
hit upon that one conversation that is significant.

I think the same it true of Snape, Dumbledore was going 
somewhere to do something, and it was Snape's job to 
find out what it was and if it was significant. I suspect
to him it was just one more boring tedious day in the 
life of a spy. Only as it turned out, it was the most
significant day of his life, but again, there is no way
he can know that in advance.


> Mike:
> I just think that JKR was trying to send a message with
> the difference between DD's explanation and ST's reveal.
> ...
> 

bboyminn:

Here's the thing, I don't think the two version are 
inconsistent. Each is in a conversation, each is relating
detail that the individually feels are relevant to the 
conversation at hand. Neither is intent on giving a 
precise detailed minute-by-minute historical account. 

Further, there is very likely a third set of details that
neither of them are relating because they are not 
relevant to the conversation at hand. I have no problem
piecing together the two version, and until something in
that third set of unknown details appears to contradict 
it, I take both to be true in the context in which they
were spoken.

> Mike: 
>
> Let me be clear here. IMO Dumbledore lies to protect
> Snape. If Voldemort ever knew that Snape heard none or
> all of the prophesy, but only reported the first two 
> sentences, Snape - dead man! Even if you want to say 
> that DD was only protecting Snape's identity as the 
> eavesdropper from Harry in OotP, now that Snape is 
> going into deep cover close to Voldemort is not the 
> time for DD to tell anyone the true story, especially 
> Harry.
> 
> And, if my prediction that Snape was already working 
> for Dumbledore by the time of the prophesy, it makes 
> perfect sense that Dumbledore does not tell anyone the 
> true story, that he and Snape stick to their *likely 
> story* to protect Snape's position vis-a-vis Voldemort.
> 
> JMO
> Mike
>

bboyminn:

On this last part, we, surprisingly, are in agreement. 
Independant of what Snape really heard, it is critical
that in this now critical moment, Snape and everyone
else believe the story Dumbledore is telling. 

Certianly, the resolution of the Snape storyline is going
to be one of the most interesting in the book. 

Just passing it along.
Steve/bboyminn