[the_old_crowd] Re: Some speculations on the night at GH

[Charme]

"nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> wrote:

>> As I wrote here before, it is dangerous to base a theory on the
>> suspicious absence of events that, in the opinion of the theorist,
>> *should* have happened. I'm not saying such clues are worthless, and
>> I've used this type myself more than once, but I'd usually try to
>> corroborate a theory with additional and more reliable canon.

Charme:

Neri, I humbly submit my apologies for what I am about to ask. :) Well, not 
humbly, but give me credit for the good intentions anyway. ;) I gotta tell 
ya....I read that paragraph above, guffawed, and spewed Coke through my nose 
(which shows how much a failure I am at multitasking no less, a considerable 
shame) thereby necessitating the immediate cleaning of my display. The 
troublemaking wench I am, I just can't fight the urge (have pity on me, I'm 
weak) to inquire about it.

I have an insatiable, albeit slightly mischievious, curiousity about why it 
is "dangerous" as you've noted above. Why is speculation on anything in 
Potterverse "dangerous" no matter how you get to the concept or exchange 
ideas with another Potterhead?  If I were to take that paragraph literally 
as you've suggested,  I'm all aquiver waiting for this "dangerous"  fallout 
to bear its horrendous payload.....what will happen now?  Will my computer 
explode? <Gasp>  Will my accessories not match tomorrow?????  Heh. :)

Waiting for Doom To Pass,
Charme