Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux)

[esmith222002]

No: HPFGUIDX 164043

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Anyone who has been around a while and has been reading
> opinions here will find it no surprise that Carol and I
> are kindred spirits, or kindred-ish spirits. We 
> frequently hold similar opinions based on similar 
> analysis.
> 
> First, before I address the issue, let me ramble a bit.
> There are two ways to approach any problem or mystery.
> The first is to rationalize and the second is to be 
> rational. To be rational means you gather evidence and
> accept whatever conclusion the evidence tells you. 
> Rationalize means you start with a conclusion and seek
> out evidence you can interpret to support it. 
> 
> How does that apply to us? Well to some extent, here in
> this group, we are all rationalizing, but we have no 
> choice. We are dealing with a well crafted mystery in
> which the most critical and revealing information is
> withheld from us. Consequently, we are all force to 
> strike a balance between 'rational' and rationalize'. 
 
Brothergib; 
I just want to say that this was one of the best couple of paragraphs 
I've read in a long time. As a scientist, I take a slightly different 
view. I often start with a conclusion (a hypothesis really), so by 
your argument I am 'rationalizing'. However, my aim is always to do 
my utmost to disprove the conclusion that I believe to be true. If 
you fail to disprove your initial conclusion/hypothesis, then you can 
trust that your initial conclusion was sound! More on this below!!
 
bboyminn again> 
> Mike wants Harry to be a Horcrux, so he seeks out and
> interprets available information to support that idea.
> Others, don't want Harry to be a Horcrux, and so seek
> out and interpret available information in a way that
> supports that idea. The difference is that some of us
> are stretching a little more in order to reach our
> conclusions.
> 
> I believe, and surely no one is surprised, that Carol 
> has stretched the least to reach her conclusions. My
> first reason to support Carol is Dumbledore; directly
> and tangentally, Dumbledore is the source of all 
> information on this matter, and he doesn't seem to 
> agree. Noted though, that Dumbledore is famous for 
> withholding information, and I'm willing to change
> my preception when new information is revealed. But
> give what we have, Dumbledore's apparent lack of 
> belief in 'Harry the Horcrux' settles it for me.
 
Brothergib now;
Firstly, let me state that I am leaning towards Harry not being a 
Horcrux. I therefore try to find evidence to prove otherwise. You use 
DD to support your theory. However, in COS, DD directly tells Harry 
(or at least confirms Harry's comment) that Voldemort put a piece of 
himself inside Harry! It is possible that the 'piece' refers to 
something other than a 'Horcrux. The most obvious answer, however, is 
that this piece refers to a piece of soul. This is further supported 
by the fact that JKR would have known all about Horcruxes at the time 
of writing COS, so would have been very aware of what the interaction 
between Harry & DD implied. This is also supported by the very strong 
link between Harry & LV. A shared piece of soul can explain this. A 
rebounded AK spell certainly cannot!

This one piece of canon is what keeps me firmly in limbo on the 
subject of Horcrux Harry.

Brothergib