Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of - Trelawney Attacked

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 159211

Steve:
<SNIP>

> Again, I conceed that I may have lost the flow of the 
> thread, but I think the point that was being made, 
> relative to Draco's attack on Trelawney, is that there is
> no law against 'whooping', that is not a crime, but Draco
> attacked Trelawney and that IS a crime. Relative to this
> incident, fixing the cabinet for purposes of attacking 
> Hogwarts is irrelavant. Not irrelevant in the larger
> scope but irrelevant relative to this isolated incidence
> and whether Dumbledore hasa motivation to take action.
> 
> Since a clear 'crime' was commited, at teacher was 
> physically attacked, that could have been the provocation
> Dumbledore needed to confront Draco. 
> 
> Now that that is cleared up, I have to point out that we
> the reader know it was Draco, Harry-The Suspicious knows
> it was Draco, but there is no proof it was Draco. 
> Trelawney didn't see her attacker. Still, Dumbledore may
> have had enough background information or information
> unknown by others, that he could have reached the same
> conclusion as Harry, and as suggested, used that to 
> confront Draco; thereby preventing the attack and perhaps
> drawing Draco into protective custody  before things went
> as far as they did. 
> 
> So, Harry neglecting to mention this aspect, Trelawney 
> attacked, to Dumbledore is significant. We can't say it
> would have altered things, but it is reasonably possible
> that in might have been enough to prompt Dumbledore to
> immediate action.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Sorry Steve for confusing you. Yes, this is how I interpreted 
Pippin's  original point too. Sorry for mudding the waters, but what 
I was trying to say  is that judging by Dumbledore's general 
reaction to Draco's activities so far I see no definite proof that 
this would have triggered different reaction from Dumbledore.

Maybe I misunderstood what Pippin was saying later, but I found 
*Dumbledore moved on it once Draco confronted him* to be confusing 
for example.
It was way too late to do anything on the Tower IMO ( well, unless 
Dumbledore arranged all that, conspired with Snape, etc), but in 
regards to Draco, physically Draco indeed has the upper hand now, no?

Dumbledore has an upper hand morally, he is in charge, sure ( my 
mercy that matters not yours), but to call what Dumbledore did on 
the Tower **moving on it** is not what I would say.

Ugh, babbling again. Back to Harry not mentioning Draco's atatcking 
Trelawney.

Yeah, that is a crime, just as preparing Dumbledore's assasination 
and in the process almost killing two students is a crime, where 
Dumbledore did not do anything.

We may say he did not have enough proof, I am not so sure about it, 
I think he was hoping of Draco having a change of heart by himself 
or something, which if it is true, I find careless to the extreme.

So, what I am trying to say in so many words is that I of course 
cannot exclude the possibility that Dumbledore would have done 
something about Draco, had he known that he attacked Trelawney, 
personally I don't find it very likely.

What you said about maybe not having enough proof, maybe Dumbledore 
would have felt the same way, since he seemed to have more than 
enough proof of Draco trying to assasinate him before, that is 
unless he was bluffing.

Hope that was clearer :) Ask again if it was not.

Alla.