Did Snape set up the Pensieve scene? - Montague

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 169831

---  "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "lizzyben04" <lizzyben04@> wrote:
> 
> >> zanooda:
> 
> >> "As you may know, it is usually impossible to 
> >> Apparate or Disapparate within Hogwarts. The 
> >> headmaster has lifted this enchantment, purely 
> >> within the Great Hall, for one hour, so as to
> > > enable you to practice" (HBP, p.382 US hardback).
> 
> 
> > lizzyben04:
>  
> > Seems pretty clear to me. Everything so far has
> > told us that people can't apparate or disapparate 
> > inside Hogwarts - yet somehow, Montague did both.
> 
> 
> zanooda again:
> 
> You know, the quote that I gave may lead to a very 
> different  conclusion. This entire passage only shows
> that the No-Apparition-in-Hogwarts rule is not absolute.
> ...
>
> It shows that the anti-Apparition defense really exists,
> but at the same time it shows that this defense is not 
> impenetrable.
>

bboyminn:

Here is the question that I have, when we hear that you
can't apparate inside, into, or out of Hogwarts, what
does that mean. Does it mean it is impossible, or does
it mean you will pay a tremendous price if you try. Is
it functionally impossible or are the consequences of
doing so so grave as to make it impossible.

Also, Montague, in a sense, was in a nether-world; he
wasn't anywhere, he wasn't at Hogwart, he wasn't 
outside Hogwarts, he was in some magical in-between 
world. And perhaps, being jambed inside a toilet was
the price he paid for entering Hogwarts by Apparation.

Yes, you can penetrate the anti-apparation protections
at Hogwarts, but what good does it do if you are disabled
as a consequence? If an entire army ends up jambed and
therefore trapped in the toilet and further disabled
for several week as they recover from the experience.

So, in the simplest terms, is the anti-apparation 
protection an impenetrable barrier or is it a 
punishment for trying?

Steve/bboyminn