Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of/Why didn't Snape turn Harry in?

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 159238

> Sherry now:
> 
> This isn't a complete "me too" to Alla.  I don't believe for one 
moment that
> Dumbledore would have paid any attention to Harry if he'd told 
about
> Trelawney.  <SNIP> He was too sure of himself, too certain he
> had it all under control and that he was right to let events play 
out.  If
> he didn't take action after the near deaths of two students, why 
should we
> expect him to take more care after an assault on a teacher?


Alla:

Well, of course I cannot say for sure whether Dumbledore would have 
done something or not , although I am with you obviously based on 
the pattern of his behaviour through the book.

What I am completely not buying is the idea that Harry is somehow to 
blame for Dumbledore not taking him seriously about Draco.

Through the book Harry was the **only** one AFAIK who insisted over 
and over and over again that Draco is up to something. Harry went to 
everybody - kids and adults included, was dismissed by 
**everybody** - kids and adults included ( yes, I know Arthur 
checked, but IMHO not enough), went to Dumbledore when Draco was 
whooping, was dismissed **again** - really hope that he was not 
dismissed because Dumbledore thought that Harry was too angry about 
the person who contributed to him becoming an orphan and now the 
argument is made that if only Harry did not forget to tell him about 
Trelawney, Dumbledore would have behaved differently?

I am very sorry, but I am not convinced.

JMHO,

Alla