Dumbledore Does Lie

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 159329

---  "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
> 
> 
> edited....
> 
>  
> > 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. <snip>
> 
> Mike:
> It's not the details, it's that Dumbledore said the 
> eavesdropper was discovered "only a short way into the
> prophesy and thrown from the building". This does not 
> sound like the eavesdropper was allowed to remain 
> *inside the building* long enough for Sibyll to finish 
> the prophesy, much less to appear in her room *after*
> the prophesy is finished. 
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> 
> > bboyminn:
> > 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:
> Curious. I wonder what framing you would put on this 
> third set of details? Could you be referring to 
> Aberforth's version? Else, I'm not following what you 
> mean by a third set.
>


bboyminn:

By 'third set of details' I mean that neither Dumbledore
or Trelawney are giving a /complete/ minute-by-minute
historical account of the event. They are both summarizing
what they think is relavant. Consequently there is a third
set of detail which are simply the unspoken details that
they feel at the moment aren't relative to the discussion
at hand.

For example, ...the eavesdropper was discovered "only a
short way into the prophesy and thrown from the building".
All that is true but details are left out. In this 
example, Aberforth discovered Snape a short way into the
Prophecy (fact), Snape was thrown from the building 
(fact), that is all Harry needs to know at that point. In
fact, given the animosity between them it is probably 
critical that Harry NOT know it was Snape, so Dumbledore
leaves out the middle part, the part that was related to
us by Trelawney in which, after a struggle, Snape is 
brought into the room, and Dumbledore suggests 
(supposition) to Aberforth that Snape be thrown out. 

Those two versions mesh if you assume they are partial 
tellings of the same story. So, Snape was discovered part
way through the Prophecy and thrown from the building, but
those do not have to be chronologically consecutive 
events. Something could have occurred between those 
suggested events as Trelawney clearly relates to us in 
her version. 

So, again, neither person is giving a full and complete
account of events, both are leaving details out because,
at that moment, in that conversation, they either don't
think those details are relevant, or in the case of 
Dumbledore naming Snape, they are consciously NOT telling.

Both are leaving out details, those detail represent a
third set of unspoken facts about the event. Until those
unspoken facts are revealed and contradict what we 
already know, I am going to continue to say that both
Trelawney and Dumbledore's accounts are accurate but
incomplete.

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn