I See No Difference (was Re: Draco is quite the wizard

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 160760

> > Alla:
> > 
> > Okay, wasting my third post of the day, but that is  what we now 
> call his way of ignoring the incident?
> 
> Potioncat:
> I am reduced to tears! You consider replying to my posts a waste of 
> your post?......(I'm teasing...on the other hand, it may explain 
why 
> so few of my posts are ever responded to...OK, now I'm whining)

Alla:

LOL. Soooorry. I mentioned that it was a waste of my post ( and 
seriously I think it was) because I did not think that my post was 
substantive enough, still do not.

 
> 
> > Alla:
<SNIP>
> > I mean, ignoring is when nobody punished, not when guilty is not 
> > punished. when guilty is not punished I call it favoritism. Am I 
> > missing something here?
> 
> Potioncat:
> Snape favors the Slytherins. No argument there. At least he does 
> where Quidditch is concerned. <SNIP>

Alla:

Good to know we agree on that part.

Potioncat: 
> In this one case, Snape comes out and stops a ruckus. He asks what 
> happens and chooses Draco to speak. If you ask me, he isn't 
> particularly "nice" to Draco at that moment. Imagine how Harry 
would 
> feel if Snape if pointed his long yellow finger at him.
<SNIP>

Alla:

But who cares if the end result is precisely that - Draco is getting 
away with something he should not have gone away?


Potioncat:
 <SNIP> Personally, I find "I see no difference" just as disturbing 
as the 
> Pensieve incident between James and Severus. But it is also very 
much 
> like the eyebrow incident in nature.

Alla:

Okay maybe this is again just semantics. I am confused why you would 
call that **ignoring** the incident when guilty party goes unpunished?


 
>  
> > Potioncat then:
>  I think it's noteworthy that he doesn't tack on any 
> > extra punishment to Harry for the duel. (This is Snape, you know.)
> 
> 
> Potioncat now:
> I mean, he could have, being the nasty git he is, punished Harry 
for 
> attacking Draco and also punished Harry and Ron for disrespect. (I 
> don't mean it would be fair, I mean, he didn't do it.)

Alla:

Oooooo, I see it now. You actually **believe** Snape when he says 
that punishment is for disrespecting him and not for the duel, yes?

But see the reason why I do not believe him is because he 
**provoked** Harry and Ron, so this is something that they did 
because of Snape, accordingly I make the conclusion that Snape really 
wanted to punish Harry and needed something to justify it, that's all.

I find it very strange to think that Snape punished Harry for 
disrespecting a teacher, when this teacher was deliberately hurtful 
and disrespectful first.

> Carol adds:
> 
> I agree with Potioncat that Harry, like Draco, was not punished for
> duelling. He and Ron were punished for talking back and calling 
Snape
> names that JKR can't specify in a children's book (but I think we 
can
> imagine them fairly easily). 
> 
> Now I'm going to surprise Alla by agreeing with her point (upthread)
> that Snape may have deliberately provoked Ron and Harry with his "I
> see no difference" comment. <SNIP>

Alla:

Blink. :)