fajitas, "Crush", broomsticks, youngest House player in a century, Weasleys

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

No: HPFGUIDX 164834

Hey, Steve bboyminn, it's fajitas, not fRajitas, altho' R does seem to
be the slipperiest letter, always falling in and out of words, and
moving around inside them. (For example, the Online Etymology
Dictionary says 'bird' was 'bridd' until the 15th century
<http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bird>.) 

Ronin wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/164584>:

<< I also agree that Snape would crush Luscious Malfoy. I'd rather
Harry, Ron or Hermione had at him though. >>

Is that Snape has a 'crush' on Lucius Malfoy, or Snape will smash him
into pulp? Is Lucius or Severus the 'him' you'd rather HRH would 'have
at'? 

It has always seemed to me that young Severus was infatuated with
Lucius (hero-worship, not necessarily something erotic*), and Lucius
seduced the usefully talented boy into the Death Eaters, while
Serverus took Lucius as the role model from whom he learned to make
dramatic entrances, walk gracefully, and threaten in a silken whisper. 

I see DDM!Sevvie as very good at lying to himself, and therefore
believing Lucius's claim of having been under Imperius, and only
realized that Lucius was still on the Dark Side when Harry mentioned
seeing him in the graveyard of GoF. Thus the 'almost imperceptible
movement'. Such a Sevvie would be dedicated to redeeming Lucius rather
than destroying him, unless it were necessary to destroy Lucius to
save Draco (or Harry, which would *really* irritate Sevvie). 

ESE!Severus, on the other hand, would have been confident that Lucius
was still on the Dark Side, and his reaction to hearing Harry mention
Lucius would be fear of Lucius getting caught. 

DDM!Sevvie has the problem of how to convert Draco to the Light Side
and ESE!Sevvie has the problem of how to toughen Draco into a useful
killer. I prefer DDM!Sevvie because I don't like Dumbledore to have
been so greatly deceived, but *cross fingers* JKR can make anything work.

(* Altho' I personally do see it as erotic and therefore I oppose all
Snape/Lily, Snape/Narcissa, and Snape/Regulus romances, and any
Karkaroff/Snape before they were both Death Eaters. Altho' ever since
GoF I have admitted that the plots are constructed in a way that
appears to be leading up to LOLLIPOPS. Maybe JKR can make even that work.)

bboyminn wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/164595>:

<< Pure speculation but I don't think McGonagall actually bought Harry
a broom. Nor do I think she charged Harry's own vault for it. I think
it is much more likely that the school bought a broom for Harry to
use. That is, not only was the broom paid for with school funds but
was technically considered school property. >>

If Hogwarts bought a decent broom for each kid accepted to the varsity
Quidditch team, then why didn't Ron borrow Harry's broom for try-outs?
If he made the team, Hogwarts would buy him a broom, so it wouldn't
matter that all the brooms he could borrow were already being used by
the team (Harry's, Fred's, George's). Instead, Ron didn't bother with
try-outs until he had a decent broom of his own. Surely that was
because, no matter how well he did on the try-outs, he couldn't be
accepted to the team without a broom. I don't like this fact, because
I did like the theory that Hogwarts did buy the first team broom for
each kid.

If Hogwarts didn't buy a decent broom for each new team member but did
buy one for Harry, that is just as special treatment as if McGonagall
or Dumbledore bought it with their personal savings. (I feel that DD,
still working at 150, has *lots* of savings.)

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/164605>:

<< Harry is the youngest Quidditch player in a century >>

Harry is one of the youngest first-years, having turned 11 only one
month before start of term. If there was a player as young as him only
a century ago, that suggests that there was a first-year player as
often as every 20 or 25 years. In wizarding time, that's not such a
*rare* exception.

Steve bboyminn wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/164832>:

<< Arthur actually has a relatively large family; several brothers. >>

JKR stated: "Arthur Weasley was one of three brothers. Ginny (full
name Ginevra, not Virginia), is the first girl to be born into the
Weasley clan for several generations."
<http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=7> 

So Arthur only had two siblings. I believe that one of them was Ron's
Uncle Bilius, who died after seeing a Grim, and after whom Bill's
first name and Ron's middle named were named. If the other was named
Ronald, could the three of them have been R.A.B?

The Malfoy statement about "all the Weasleys have red hair, freckles,
and more children than they can afford" sounds to me like it refers to
people with more than three children. Arthur has more than three
children, but his father didn't. "All the Weasleys" could mean Arthur
and his brothers, but we haven't encountered any Weasley cousins yet.
Even the rumored Mafalda was Mrs Weasley's accountant second cousin's
daughter rather than a Weasley. By the way, there's no evidence of
Molly have any siblings besides the last Fabian and Gideon.