From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 11 08:47:27 2006
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:47:27 -0000
Subject: Play Christie For Me ( was: book 7 mayhem
In-Reply-To: <89DFAE4E-8309-49CD-B7E2-C1494B245B29@...>
Message-ID: <ebhg6v+d4go@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, sean dwyer <ewetoo at ...> wrote:

>I've always felt JKR is at least unconsciously influenced  
> by Christie, it does explain howlers like Ginny. >snip rapid 
development issues< 
>(Bloody Unfair is a perennial character in her works).



I was watching the Harry, Carrie & Garp video (video.msn.com), and 
when I came to this part, I thought only of ewe:

*********************************
Martha Hoover: Good evening. Thank you. It has been an honor. This 
evening my question for you is, what is the one question your fans 
have never asked you, and should have? (crowd laughs and applauds). 

JK Rowling: Oh, God (crowd laughs). How can I answer that? I can 
think of a couple of things that give away the ending of book seven 
(crowd laughs). Having got this far ... having got 16 years down the 
line, I kind of feel that would throw it away (crowd laughs). For 
me, anyway, having put the effort in. I think that I've been asked 
excellent questions, it's just that the final book contains a couple 
of pieces of information that I don't think you could guess at. So 
umm - I would umm - I'm sorry. 

*******************************************************

T, again
::faking voice of our "fair" (of locks, at least) author::

"Yeees, it's just that ::snort:: you lot could *never* ask the right 
questions because I'm fixing to pull a couple of BIG ones--right out 
of me bum! 

Possibly while I'm in the shower....

::immodest tittering:: "



Yes, this is what happens when a mighty penguin invokes The Agatha.  

Seems JK is dipping *deep* into that trough. 

Now all we need is for David's prediction to kick in...

Talisman

(practicing raspberries)







 






From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 12 08:25:09 2006
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:25:09 +1000
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Play Christie For Me ( was: book 7 mayhem
In-Reply-To: <ebhg6v+d4go@...>
References: <89DFAE4E-8309-49CD-B7E2-C1494B245B29@...>
	 <ebhg6v+d4go@...>
Message-ID: <91d14f320608120125o68bcfa03p4619804e2eee8308@...>

On 8/11/06, Talisman <talisman22457 at ...> wrote:
> I was watching the Harry, Carrie & Garp video (video.msn.com), and
> when I came to this part, I thought only of ewe:

Not surprising, is it. *sigh*

> Yes, this is what happens when a mighty penguin invokes The Agatha.

Hmm thinks mighty penguin, perhaps invoking other authors might repair
the damage! Err...Fay Weldon,  Ngaio Marsh, Enid Blyton! Flippers
crossed...

>
> Seems JK is dipping *deep* into that trough.
>
> Now all we need is for David's prediction to kick in...

Now there's a scary thought, another Moral Tale, and begs the question
how you can expect the moral to be taken seriously under such duress.
The Christie did on occasion moralize but was more careful. She knew
her readers were more interested in juicy murders.

ewe2

-- 
Emacs vs. Vi flamewars are a pointless waste of time. Vi is the best



From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 19 14:16:37 2006
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 14:16:37 -0000
Subject: Yahoo!Mort strikes again..
Message-ID: <ec76g5+8gsr@...>

Anyone know if Yahoo is having major problems lately? This is the only 
message board I can get into at the moment. If I try and access any of 
the others (eg my own catalogue group!), I get a white square reversed 
out the background and that's it. All my browser settings are identical 
for all the MB..

Any theories??

Carolyn






From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 19 14:39:58 2006
From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (Anne (But not "Mehr."  Heh.))
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 14:39:58 -0000
Subject: Yahoo!Mort strikes again..
In-Reply-To: <ec76g5+8gsr@...>
Message-ID: <ec77ru+231l@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" 
<carolynwhite2 at ...> wrote:
>
> Anyone know if Yahoo is having major problems lately? This is the 
only 
> message board I can get into at the moment. If I try and access 
any of 
> the others (eg my own catalogue group!), I get a white square 
reversed 
> out the background and that's it. All my browser settings are 
identical 
> for all the MB..
> 
> Any theories??
> 
> Carolyn
>

I don't know -- but Tonks_op sent a similar message to HPfGU-
OTChatter saying she can't get into any of her Yahoo groups at all.  
Some guy from Microsoft she talked to blamed it on Norton, but I'm 
running Norton and don't have any trouble.

Anne








From sherriola at ...  Sat Aug 19 14:50:52 2006
From: sherriola at ... (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 07:50:52 -0700
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Yahoo!Mort strikes again..
In-Reply-To: <ec76g5+8gsr@...>
Message-ID: <E1GESA5-000260-OW@...>

Anyone know if Yahoo is having major problems lately? This is the only
message board I can get into at the moment. If I try and access any of the
others (eg my own catalogue group!), I get a white square reversed out the
background and that's it. All my browser settings are identical for all the
MB..

Any theories??

Carolyn


Sherry now:

No theories, but you are not alone.  I received hardly any mail from yahoo
groups yesterday.  I'd get an intermittent one, and it would be on some
subject but I'd never seen the original post.  This morning, I woke up to
nearly 300 messages.  Going through the folders for my yahoo groups, I'm
finding one group alone had 100 new messages, most of which should have been
received yesterday.  they are all out of order and mixed up in crazy ways.
And the problem seems to be continuing this morning.

Very frustrating, as I'm a moderator on a couple of those lists!

Sherry




From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 20 15:24:06 2006
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:24:06 -0000
Subject: Of Hxs and parasites
In-Reply-To: <eal0pc+epme@...>
Message-ID: <ec9uqm+n4r3@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote
  in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/4367>:

<< I think [Horcruxes}'ve been there all along, or at any rate since
Book Two, when we learned that Sally left. The school survived when it
should have died, but  in a weakened, fragmented state, unable to heal
itself. || Sound familiar? >>

Do you mean the idea of Horcruxes was there metaphorically in terms of
something that should have died but remained in "a half-life, a cursed
life"? In which case, the idea was there in PS/SS, where Firenze
explained what happens to one who drinks unicorn blood.

Or do you mean it literally, that when we wondered how Tom could have
left himself as a memory in a diary, and when we saw that Salazar had
put the Chamber of Secrets in Hogwarts, we should have figured out
that Tom had put a piece of his soul into the diary and Salazar had
put a piece of his soul into the Chamber? But canon has stated that
Tom put the memory into the diary long before he put a piece of his
soul into it, and canon has not yet stated that Salazar made any
Horcrux at all.

The idea that there is a piece of Salazar's soul in the Chamber of
Secrets inspired me to digress on Possession Theory, but I had better
insert the rest of this thought *before* the digression:

The only evidence I see that the school SHOULD have died when Salazar
left is The Sorting Hat's New Song (in OoP, long after CoS): 
"The houses that, like pillars four,
Had once held up our school,
...
And never since the founders four
Were whittled down to three
Have the houses been united
As they once were meant to be."
And I see the school left on three pillars as weakened, in danger of
collapsing, but not dead.

But if there is something that says the school can't live without its
Four Founders, not just its Four Houses, then either the other three
also left Horcruxes there (and therefore were evil enough to make
Horcruxes; are Filch and Pince and Pomfrey really Godric and Rowena
and Helga in disguise?) or the school should have died eight or nine
centuries ago of 'natural causes'. 

I really, really, really *like* Possession Theory (that there is one
Dark Lord, either a memory+soul piece of Salazar or a parasite that
came into the school on Salazar, which lurks in the Chamber of Secrets
and seduces one exceptionally talented student every 50 to 150 years
into being its host, so the host can use the parasite's strong magic
powers but gradually has its mind/personality/self/soul eaten by the
parasite) but I don't think it's true.

Possession theory suggests that the wizarding culture wouldn't keep
producing Dark Lords on its own, despite good discussion in past years
of the cultural traits (e.g. great admiration for power regardless of
what is done with that power) that produce Dark Lords. I think *human
nature* keeps producing Dark Lords on its own, and I'm always a bit
surprised that Kneasy, of all people, supports a theory which offers
to let human nature off the hook. 

It also suggests that Salazar was already evil when the school was
founded or at least became evil due to the parasite before he left the
school.  I *like* the idea that Salazar was already evil when the
others invited him to help found the school, them thinking that he was
less dangerous inside their team than outside it, but that contradicts
the Sorting Hat's statement that Godric and Salazar were best friends
before they quarrelled and the current conventional wisdom that
Salazar's image is the victim of the winning side's propaganda.

<< And we don't know *why* Sally up and quit the place, do we. I'd 
bet there's a death at the heart of it all,>> 

Why a death? (Why not a chicken?) I don't think you've come around to
my story of the Fifth Founder, Tavish Tartanwool, who was a much
lesser wizard than 'the four greatest wizards and witches of their
era' but provided the location for the school on his family's
hereditary territory but he was murdered and memory of him was
suppressed. For me, Salazar, already evil and not at all Godric's bet
friend, murdered him and the other three were displeased but covered
it up because they didn't want to expel Salazar.

<< a death for which Sally alone was blamed, when in truth none were
innocent and all were responsible. >>

That's a good expression of the current conventional wisdom to which I
referred, above.

<< We all know Salazar left something of himself behind. The question
we should be asking, IMO, is, What did he take with him? Return that
to the school and the Houses can exist in harmony once more. >>







From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 20 16:54:18 2006
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 02:54:18 +1000
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Of Hxs and parasites
In-Reply-To: <ec9uqm+n4r3@...>
References: <eal0pc+epme@...> <ec9uqm+n4r3@...>
Message-ID: <91d14f320608200954r174c2f29va637cf9ac289dcaf@...>

On 8/21/06, Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) <catlady at ...> wrote:
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote
>   in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/4367>:
>
> << I think [Horcruxes}'ve been there all along, or at any rate since
> Book Two, when we learned that Sally left. The school survived when it
> should have died, but  in a weakened, fragmented state, unable to heal
> itself. || Sound familiar? >>
>

I don't think Harpsicruxes have anything to do with Salazar other than
that they are very old ideas that noone had thought (or dared) to try
for centuries. Tom seems to be a miner of old lore, methodically going
through every avenue of magic to see what was possible, what could be
adapted or updated. To me they are deliberately reminiscent of fairy
tales, to suggest that old magic had been lost, and the fairy tales
are dim memories (ala Tolkienian myth yet again).

> I really, really, really *like* Possession Theory (that there is one
> Dark Lord, either a memory+soul piece of Salazar or a parasite that
> came into the school on Salazar, which lurks in the Chamber of Secrets
> and seduces one exceptionally talented student every 50 to 150 years
> into being its host, so the host can use the parasite's strong magic
> powers but gradually has its mind/personality/self/soul eaten by the
> parasite) but I don't think it's true.
>
> Possession theory suggests that the wizarding culture wouldn't keep
> producing Dark Lords on its own, despite good discussion in past years
> of the cultural traits (e.g. great admiration for power regardless of
> what is done with that power) that produce Dark Lords. I think *human
> nature* keeps producing Dark Lords on its own, and I'm always a bit
> surprised that Kneasy, of all people, supports a theory which offers
> to let human nature off the hook.

I'll waddle to Kneasy's defence and point out that there are plenty of
self-evidently evil people in the Potterverse that are neither Dark
Lords nor wizards and none seem to require possession possibly because
they aren't obsessed with immortality to the exclusion of all else.

Given that, and the moral framework we've been threatened with,
perhaps the idea that evil stems from attempting to subvert human
limitations fits in very well with wizards who have more power than
they know what to do with and deciding they'll use it for their own
ends. Ironically wizards use just as many machines to achieve this as
Muggles do to achieve similar goals. But tools are dangerous things,
particularly when you come to so depend on them, you see them as an
end in themselves.

I'm dreadfully afraid that what we'll get is a lesson about How Our
Limitations Are Good For Us And Look Where It Got Those Wizards,
Praise God.

> It also suggests that Salazar was already evil when the school was
> founded or at least became evil due to the parasite before he left the
> school.  I *like* the idea that Salazar was already evil when the
> others invited him to help found the school, them thinking that he was
> less dangerous inside their team than outside it, but that contradicts
> the Sorting Hat's statement that Godric and Salazar were best friends
> before they quarrelled and the current conventional wisdom that
> Salazar's image is the victim of the winning side's propaganda.

Conveniently we know next to nothing. What did Sally do after he was
"cast out"? Did he, like Melkor, infect the very fabric of the Wizard
World so his influence could never be removed? Were his "results"
horrifying enough that all knowledge was suppressed and Tom has been
hunting that very knowledge? Given Tom's carelessness with his own
soul, I'd venture to suggest that souls are the key and Horseboxes are
merely one of many soul-related contraptions. The Hat is another, and
useful though it is, I would take care not to believe everything it
says. The moral lessons are fine, but after all it's just a school,
there are others; it's difficult to understand the apparent fervour of
the Founders unless something else very important was involved.

My theory? They came across something best left hidden and the school
is there to hide it. Salazar wanted to use it and when the others
refused to allow that, he left, but secretly prepared a way to
retrieve it, or more likely, prevent the others from controlling it
without his knowledge. Tom and DE's have been trying to control that
school from the beginning of the tale, and I always wondered why the
Headmaster's position is such a prize to Lucius, he's not in it for
vanity's sake, there's real power to be had. I'll wager Lucius thought
he could bypass old Tom in the hunt.

And the diary story is also odd. Why imprint a memory and then a
soul-piece? It seems clumsy not to do both at once or just one and the
intentions clash. One is to be picked up by an innocent and then
devour them, the other is to hide and be retrieved when desired, which
suggests Tom has a way of knowing where they are. In that sense the
diary could be a breadcrumb on a more important trail. And we know who
lives in gingerbread houses....

-- 
Emacs vs. Vi flamewars are a pointless waste of time. Vi is the best



From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Mon Aug 21 13:45:17 2006
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:45:17 +0100
Subject: Of Hxs and parasites
Message-ID: <49486D0B-798F-4706-8827-55C346A5921A@...>

catlady:
 >
 > I really, really, really *like* Possession Theory (that there is one
 > Dark Lord, either a memory+soul piece of Salazar or a parasite that
 > came into the school on Salazar, which lurks in the Chamber of  
Secrets
 > and seduces one exceptionally talented student every 50 to 150 years
 > into being its host, so the host can use the parasite's strong magic
 > powers but gradually has its mind/personality/self/soul eaten by the
 > parasite) but I don't think it's true.
 >

Um.
Well, one *could* get into a chicken and egg situation - what was it
that caused ole Sally to go bad? Or was he merely a self-starter?
The suggestion that evil can be considered, for the sake of argument,
as a force/entity independent of personality was made to simplify the
presentation of the thesis and was intended to have roughly the same
impact as a Greek chorus - it helps things along but is not necessarily
literally true (though it is tempting to stretch it further than the  
simile
strictly warrants). Frankly, I found the metaphysics of a disembodied
bit of Salazar's mind swanning round the Chamber difficult to describe
in simple terms - a bit like having a magnetic field without the magnet.
But, once formulated, such an entity (combined with the roughly
coincidental(?) dates of Grindelwald) does become extremely seductive.
And I love being seduced. Usually. Sometimes. By a Nigella Lawson
lookalike (she can cook too!).

As for past Dark Lords;  it's neat and tidy if it's the same force  
for evil struggling for dominance time and again. Adds to the  
continuity.
Besides,  there's a possible hint from DD "....destroy the Dark Lord for
good...". If Voldy is as difficult to dispose of (as has been  
described throughout the series) then how did they get rid of any  
predecessors
'for good'? But if it's been aspects of the same entity down the  
ages....


 > Possession theory suggests that the wizarding culture wouldn't keep
 > producing Dark Lords on its own, despite good discussion in past  
years
 > of the cultural traits (e.g. great admiration for power regardless of
 > what is done with that power) that produce Dark Lords. I think *human
 > nature* keeps producing Dark Lords on its own, and I'm always a bit
 > surprised that Kneasy, of all people, supports a theory which offers
 > to let human nature off the hook.
 >

Let human nature off the hook? Me? Never!
ESE!Sirius, Puppetmaster!DD, ESE!Fudge, ESE!Bagman, Harry to
replace Voldy as the next threat to public health - it's fair to say  
that my morbid cynicism (and mordant wishful thinking) has distressed  
many
a fluffy. Hopefully, anyway.

But. Sally was one of the most  powerful wizards *of all time*. This
gives him lots of scope for getting up to  all sorts of mischief that  
lesser
wizards are incapable of. The implication is that DD was not in his  
league,
otherwise why would he need Harry to knock off the Voldy construct?
Infected!Harry will result in Sally destroying Sally, evil defeating  
evil;
trite - but acceptably so IMO.

 > I *like* the idea that Salazar was already evil when the
 > others invited him to help found the school, them thinking that he  
was
 > less dangerous inside their team than outside it, but that  
contradicts
 > the Sorting Hat's statement that Godric and Salazar were best friends
 > before they quarrelled and the current conventional wisdom that
 > Salazar's image is the victim of the winning side's propaganda.
snip
 > For me, Salazar, already evil and not at all Godric's bet
 > friend, murdered him and the other three were displeased but covered
 > it up because they didn't want to expel Salazar.

Mm, I lean the other way. His search for immortality changed him,
became an obsession and ends started justifying the means.
Betcha.
Bet he killed at least one, perhaps two, of the other Founders, too. Or
am I the only one to find it odd that the books are totally silent   
as to
what became of them - a fair amount about their beginnings, nothing
about their ends.
That's why he's been after their relics/totems; his Hxs were emplaced
at the the time, 'cos they aren't strictly Voldy's Hxs, so much as  
Sally's Hxs.
He's the one who's planning the big return tour. Voldy is yet another
means to an end.

ewe2:
 >
 > And the diary story is also odd. Why imprint a memory and then a
 > soul-piece? It seems clumsy not to do both at once or just one and  
the
 > intentions clash. One is to be picked up by an innocent and then
 > devour them, the other is to hide and be retrieved when desired,  
which
 > suggests Tom has a way of knowing where they are. In that sense the
 > diary could be a breadcrumb on a more important trail. And we know  
who
 > lives in gingerbread houses....

Very true. My jaundiced eye has lighted on that before now.
In CoS it reads as if he made the Diary when he was still a teenager,
with the sole intention of "leading another in my footsteps". No hint of
a Hosscrutch - which presumably should become evident when the
Diary was accessed - and would be a damned sight more up-to-date
with maleficent properties than the merely nasty, spiteful, teenage Tom.

Kneasy




From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 22 09:55:57 2006
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:55:57 -0000
Subject: Of Hxs and parasites
In-Reply-To: <49486D0B-798F-4706-8827-55C346A5921A@...>
Message-ID: <ecekbd+4fbq@...>

Barry Arrowsmith <arrowsmithbt at ...> wrote:

> In CoS it reads as if he made the Diary when he was still a teenager,
> with the sole intention of "leading another in my footsteps". No 
hint of
> a Hosscrutch - which presumably should become evident when the
> Diary was accessed - and would be a damned sight more up-to-date
> with maleficent properties than the merely nasty, spiteful, teenage 
Tom.

My memory of HP is getting ever more unreliable, but doesn't HBP imply 
Tom bumped off his dad and grandparents at the *beginning* of the 
fifth year?  And the simulacrum in COS, presumably frozen at the age 
of his last memory input to the diary, is a prefect.

Or did he use another murder to turn the diary into a Horcrux?

Re chickens and eggs, I always feel that debate, however tasty, is 
framed in a way that discriminates against roosters.

David







From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Tue Aug 22 19:30:35 2006
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:30:35 -0000
Subject: Of Hxs and parasites
In-Reply-To: <ecekbd+4fbq@...>
Message-ID: <ecfm0r+fr6s@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" <dfrankiswork at ...> wrote:
> 
> My memory of HP is getting ever more unreliable, but doesn't HBP imply 
> Tom bumped off his dad and grandparents at the *beginning* of the 
> fifth year?  And the simulacrum in COS, presumably frozen at the age 
> of his last memory input to the diary, is a prefect.
> 

Dunno.
Can't recall either, only managed to plough through it one and a bit times.
But if so it's yet another reason for my not liking HBP much.
Ah! Let me recount the ways!
 
> Or did he use another murder to turn the diary into a Horcrux?
>

Is it 100% definite certain and indupitably for sure that it was a Hx? 
Cos if it was, why was it so different from the other known/putative Hxs?
Mind you, if it wasn't it makes life easier for us Sally speculators.

> Re chickens and eggs, I always feel that debate, however tasty, is 
> framed in a way that discriminates against roosters.
> 

I avoid roosters. Difficult to scramble. The feathers get stuck between 
my teeth. Coq au vin is alright, I suppose - if you're prepared to sacrifice
booze. But sacrilegious IMO. Alcohol is a major food group after all - and 
boiling it off so that it condenses on the walls? Hope your paintwork 
tastes better than mine.

Kneasy






From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid  Wed Aug 23 02:37:33 2006
From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 02:37:33 -0000
Subject: Of Hxs and parasites
In-Reply-To: <ecfm0r+fr6s@...>
Message-ID: <ecgf1d+ag6o@...>




David:

My memory of HP is getting ever more unreliable, but doesn't HBP 
imply  Tom bumped off his dad and grandparents at the *beginning* of 
the fifth year? And the simulacrum in COS, presumably frozen at the 
age 
of his last memory input to the diary, is a prefect.

Kneasy:

Dunno.
Can't recall either, only managed to plough through it one and a bit 
times.
But if so it's yet another reason for my not liking HBP much.
Ah! Let me recount the ways!

David:

 Or did he use another murder to turn the diary into a Horcrux?

Kneasy:

Is it 100% definite certain and indupitably for sure that it was a 
Hx? 
Cos if it was, why was it so different from the other known/putative 
Hxs?

>snipped<

Snow:

Ewww, I like it! Dumbledore has a certain way of casting a spell on 
the readers to trust everything `he' says as so. Dumbledore does 
however admit many times that he is running on assumption when 
speaking of the Horcruxes although the Memory!Horcrux incident with 
the Diary is not one that he directly admits to but could it be
an 
assumption? Is the Diary the only Horcrux with a memory or is it the 
only one with a memory of Tom? 

A half-truth from Dumbledore surly must be absurd!

It's one of those unknowns that we are dealing with, which is the 
Horcrux and its affects. Does a Horcrux creation hold a copy of the 
owner's self when it was created or more so the death it was created 
with? 

Does a Horcrux hold the same powers that the owner itself does and/or 
was the Diary the only Horcrux so far that exhibited a memory? 

We have seen a possible Horcrux (the locket) act on memories
is there 
a connection?

Also does the selective death in making a Horcrux cause the Horcrux 
to act in a specific manner if attacked? Would this give credence to 
Sirius accusation that his brother was not important enough to 
directly be killed by Voldemort? Voldemort aimed for specific, 
important individuals to make his Horcruxes didn't he? 

Something to think about for sure

Snow - realizing that this is far from the Kneasy chessboard but 
interesting all the same
thanks Kneasy and David







From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 24 03:36:10 2006
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 03:36:10 -0000
Subject: Of Hxs and parasites
In-Reply-To: <ecgf1d+ag6o@...>
Message-ID: <ecj6ra+n90g@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" <kking0731 at ...> wrote:

>  Is the Diary the only Horcrux with a memory or is it the 
> only one with a memory of Tom? 

Lyn here:
Now that's a most interesting matter to consider. So did TR just come up with something 
that had never been done before? I think not or DD would have shown greater surprise 
when the nature of the diary was first revealed. No, someone must have done it before, 
and DD knew of that, so what are, or have been the prior examples? Who did them, and do 
any other examples remain. Now wouldn't it be so very interesting if SS had made 
someting similar, or better yet, that each of the founders had done something similar. And 
what information might they contain for the present generation of wizards? Harry is now 
familiar with the workings of a diary, so will he be prepared to use other memory objects 
for his future purposes. 
> 
> It's one of those unknowns that we are dealing with, which is the 
> Horcrux and its affects. Does a Horcrux creation hold a copy of the 
> owner's self when it was created or more so the death it was created 
> with? 

Lyn again:
Yes too many unknowns are feasible for my tastes. I kind of doubt your current 
speculation just because of the great fragmentation of experience. If the diary held the TR 
before age 16, then would another Hx contain him just as 22, and another at 27, etc. Kind 
of makes one wonder what would happen if they were all able to materialize themselves 
through the contributed life force of another (like Ginny was meant to be), then would they 
recognize themselves? Would they all hang around as a "band of brothers?" Nah, this is 
just not elegant enough for me.  
> 
> Does a Horcrux hold the same powers that the owner itself does and/or 
> was the Diary the only Horcrux so far that exhibited a memory? 

> 
> We have seen a possible Horcrux (the locket) act on memories
is there 
> a connection?

And again:
I just love these speculations. Did the locket really act on memories, or just the fluid in 
which it was held? It seems the latter, but what if the fluid was indeed changed by its long 
relationship to the locket. Again, a bit to complicated for my tastes, but very interesting 
none the less. 
> 
> Also does the selective death in making a Horcrux cause the Horcrux 
> to act in a specific manner if attacked? Would this give credence to 
> Sirius accusation that his brother was not important enough to 
> directly be killed by Voldemort? Voldemort aimed for specific, 
> important individuals to make his Horcruxes didn't he? 

Again:
Yes, it seems very likely to be some link between the deceased and the nature of the Hx. I 
agree, it there is reason to believe TR was VERY selective in who he killed for the makings 
of a Hx. Was it really that LV could not have killed "the spare" in the graveyard, or was it 
that "the spare" was not worthy of being killed. Still, lots of folks are killed without a Hx 
being made, indeed that's the standard way of things. So surely TR could select which 
murders would be significant enough "rents" in his soul to be worthy of Hx formation. Just 
I can't really grow fond of the Hx thing. What if a guy kills a thousand people? what if a 
person kills ten thousand? Do we really have a little tear in the sole for each and every 
individual death--does their sole look as ragged as a fringed leather jacket on David 
Crosby?
> 
> Something to think about for sure
>
Yah, some of the most interesting things to consider that I've come across in a long time. 

Thanks,

Lyn









From katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid  Thu Aug 24 20:48:44 2006
From: katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid (Kat Macfarlane)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:48:44 -0700
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Of Hxs and parasites
References: <ecj6ra+n90g@...>
Message-ID: <007d01c6c7be$c41a2800$482fdcd1@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" <kking0731 at ...> wrote:

> Is the Diary the only Horcrux with a memory or is it the 
> only one with a memory of Tom? 

Lyn here:
Now that's a most interesting matter to consider. So did TR just come up with something 
that had never been done before? I think not or DD would have shown greater surprise 
when the nature of the diary was first revealed. No, someone must have done it before, 
and DD knew of that, so what are, or have been the prior examples? Who did them, and do 
any other examples remain. Now wouldn't it be so very interesting if SS had made 
something similar, or better yet, that each of the founders had done something similar. And 
what information might they contain for the present generation of wizards? Harry is now 
familiar with the workings of a diary, so will he be prepared to use other memory objects 
for his future purposes. 
> 
> It's one of those unknowns that we are dealing with, which is the 
> Horcrux and its affects. Does a Horcrux creation hold a copy of the 
> owner's self when it was created or more so the death it was created 
> with? 

Lyn again:
Yes too many unknowns are feasible for my tastes. I kind of doubt your current 
speculation just because of the great fragmentation of experience. If the diary held the TR 
before age 16, then would another Hex contain him just as 22, and another at 27, etc. Kind 
of makes one wonder what would happen if they were all able to materialize themselves 
through the contributed life force of another (like Ginny was meant to be), then would they 
recognize themselves? Would they all hang around as a "band of brothers?" Nah, this is 
just not elegant enough for me. 

Gatta now:

Given what we've seen of TR's social sensibilities, they'd probably fight like cats and dogs.
> 
> Does a Horcrux hold the same powers that the owner itself does and/or 
> was the Diary the only Horcrux so far that exhibited a memory? 

> 
> We have seen a possible Horcrux (the locket) act on memories.is there 
> a connection?

And again:
I just love these speculations. Did the locket really act on memories, or just the fluid in 
which it was held? It seems the latter, but what if the fluid was indeed changed by its long 
relationship to the locket. Again, a bit to complicated for my tastes, but very interesting 
none the less.

Gatta now:

If the locket did indeed leak memories into the potion, might not Dumbledore be reliving the memory of TR killing his father and grandparents, and mightn't his plea not to hurt "them", kill him instead be that of TR Sr.?


Purrs!

--Gatta



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 25 00:18:45 2006
From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:18:45 -0000
Subject: Of Hxs and parasites
In-Reply-To: <ecj6ra+n90g@...>
Message-ID: <eclfl5+paqv@...>



Me previously:

Is the Diary the only Horcrux with a memory or is it the 
only one with a memory of Tom? 

Lyn here:

Now that's a most interesting matter to consider. So did TR just come 
up with something 
that had never been done before? I think not or DD would have shown 
greater surprise 
when the nature of the diary was first revealed. No, someone must 
have done it before, 
and DD knew of that, so what are, or have been the prior examples? 
Who did them, and do 
any other examples remain. Now wouldn't it be so very interesting if 
SS had made 
someting similar, or better yet, that each of the founders had done 
something similar. And 
what information might they contain for the present generation of 
wizards? Harry is now 
familiar with the workings of a diary, so will he be prepared to use 
other memory objects 
for his future purposes. 

Snow:

Harry may have already done just that. The Sorting Hat, that has said 
the four founders had put a bit of themselves in him, along with the 
fact that certain objects can materialize via the Hat for the sake of 
Harry's survival. Harry asked for help, and as long as anyone asks 
for help at Hogwarts they will find it, suddenly a sword is on top of 
Harry's head. Harry may have done as you suggested and used a memory 
for his own purpose
unknowingly of course ? to Harry. 

This sounds very similar to the memory inside the Diary. The Diary 
was just a book until someone wrote in its pages bringing the memory 
stored inside to the surface. Likewise, the Hat, which was placed on 
Harry's head while Harry was thinking that he needed help, produced 
help from one of the Hat's memories; which was from Gryffindore. 

Slytherin's Chamber could only be opened by his heir, which had a 
natural gift of parceltongue. It sounds like Slytherin left the gift 
of parceltongue in the Chamber to awaken the entrance when used (like 
Ginny awakened the entrance to the Diary), wherein the memory of 
Slytherin waits to be seductive. 

Maybe the Slytherin possession is not to far-fetched when you look at 
the Chamber in the same way as the Diary. The Chamber couldn't be 
opened `til a parcelmouth said the magic word, like the Diary didn't 
respond until Ginny first wrote in its pages. Chamber!Slytherin, like 
Diary!Tom could not be released until the catalyst stoked the fire. 
It would appear that Diary!Tom could not possess Ginny's soul in one 
fell swoop so might it have been for Chamber!Slytherin. 

Sixteen-year-old Tom might not have been inside the Chamber long 
enough to complete the possession effect, which is why Voldemort 
longed to get back inside the castle (can I have a job hear at the 
school sir). (Dumbledore was suspicious of this when he told Harry 
that the castle was a stronghold of magic)

Diary!Tom couldn't have been possessed by Slytherin until Ginny was 
dead and young Tom was fully mortal again, which if it would have 
came to light, would have made him stronger than Harry because Tom 
would have something that Harry didn't at that point, a bit of 
Slytherin. 

Me previously:

Also does the selective death in making a Horcrux cause the Horcrux 
to act in a specific manner if attacked? Would this give credence to 
Sirius accusation that his brother was not important enough to 
directly be killed by Voldemort? Voldemort aimed for specific, 
important individuals to make his Horcruxes didn't he? 

Lyn Again

Yes, it seems very likely to be some link between the deceased and 
the nature of the Hx. I 
agree, it there is reason to believe TR was VERY selective in who he 
killed for the makings 
of a Hx. Was it really that LV could not have killed "the spare" in 
the graveyard, or was it 
that "the spare" was not worthy of being killed. Still, lots of folks 
are killed without a Hx 
being made, indeed that's the standard way of things. So surely TR 
could select which 
murders would be significant enough "rents" in his soul to be worthy 
of Hx formation. Just 
I can't really grow fond of the Hx thing. What if a guy kills a 
thousand people? what if a 
person kills ten thousand? Do we really have a little tear in the 
sole for each and every 
individual death--does their sole look as ragged as a fringed leather 
jacket on David 
Crosby?

Snow:

This has been the whole debate on the road to acceptance. What does 
murder include; is it anyone that dies at your hand; is it anyone 
that dies because you persuaded another to kill; or is it an innocent 
person who is inflicting no harm to you that dies at your hand? 

Some while back on this list, I brought up this point about murder 
and the Horcruxes and whom ever it was that replied totally came up 
with a rebuttal that I quite agreed with (wish I could remember who). 

It was something to the affect that if a person was fighting back it 
wouldn't be murder because both persons are armed, ready for battle, 
and both persons realize the outcome of fighting
but someone who was 
unarmed and was not issuing confrontation was innocent from the 
battle therefore it was murder if they died.

I quite liked it because Voldemort was selective about who he thought 
worthy of killing. The majority of persons, who have been killed at 
the hand of Voldemort himself, are small Pickens. 

It makes more sense when you think about Voldemort asking Lily to 
stand aside, as if she was meaningless, which she was. Harry was his 
designed last death in which to make his final Horcrux but here 
stands a defenseless Lily in the way of his objective, the boy the 
prophecy said had powers, Voldemort couldn't risk it, the boy was too 
close
oops reluctantly kill Lily, soul split. 

I really like it and will stand on this one as a very good 
possibility for the unarmed-murder-equals-soul-infraction. 

Thanks for your thoughts Lyn

Snow
 









From elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 25 03:08:30 2006
From: elfundeb at elfundeb2.yahoo.invalid (elfundeb)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:08:30 -0400
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Of Hxs and parasites
In-Reply-To: <ecj6ra+n90g@...>
References: <ecgf1d+ag6o@...> <ecj6ra+n90g@...>
Message-ID: <80f25c3a0608242008l798d3c38o9c6d1faa04a2caf@...>

Delurking briefly to contemplate one of my favorite topics (with apologies
in advance for any wonky formatting) --

David:
My memory of HP is getting ever more unreliable, but doesn't HBP imply
Tom bumped off his dad and grandparents at the *beginning* of the
fifth year? And the simulacrum in COS, presumably frozen at the age
of his last memory input to the diary, is a prefect.

Debbie:
I doubt we can pin this down exactly.  CoS states that TR was "about
sixteen" and a prefect when he framed Hagrid for opening the Chamber.  In
the spring of fifth year he would have been sixteen.  Slughorn's Whorecrux
memory shows TR at approximately sixteen as well.  The diary was 50 years
old in CoS and purchased in London.  Unless TR had a blank diary hanging
around during fifth year, the evidence suggests it may have been purchased
that summer, in London -- after fifth year and after the murders of the
elder Riddles, and, if so, probably for the express purpose of experimenting
with a dual-purpose Whorecrutch.  I don't recall any evidence that he put
the memory in the diary first and then decided to use it as a horsecrutch.

So, timing is uncertain, especially given JKR's mathematical talents, but
the JKR shows Slughorn's Horsecrux memory back-to-back with Morfin's memory
of the Riddles' deaths, suggesting that TR used this knowledge first on dear
old dad, and used some later death (or even a grandparent) to create the
Diary Hx


>    Lyn here:
> Now that's a most interesting matter to consider. So did TR just come up
> with something
> that had never been done before? I think not or DD would have shown
> greater surprise
> when the nature of the diary was first revealed.
>

Debbie:
I dunno about that.  DD's later testimony seems to suggest he suspected it
was a Whorecrux immediately. A mere memory doesn't seem capable of
possession; you need a soul for that.  In fact, I have long believed that a
Potterverse soul *does* encompass the owner's memories (so that all
Horsecruces contain memories), and not because of the diary.  One look at
Vapormort, who was little more than soul fragment, reveals that he retained
his memories as well as his personality when he was, as he puts it, "pure
spirit."  Even as a spirit, he could interact with others, just like the
diary.

Kneasy:
No
hint of
> a Hosscrutch - which presumably should become evident when the
> Diary was accessed - and would be a damned sight more up-to-date
> with maleficent properties than the merely nasty, spiteful, teenage
Tom.

Debbie:
The genius of the diary, IMO, was not that Voldemort put a memory in it, but
that he enchanted the diary so the so-called memory could interact with
others *without* destroying the Horsecrux.  And if there's any sleight of
hand on JKR's part, it's that in CoS the soul bit is described as a memory
rather than as a bit of TR's soul.  Perhaps not a lie, but far less than the
whole truth.

Snow:
Slytherin's Chamber could only be opened by his heir, which had a
natural gift of parceltongue. It sounds like Slytherin left the gift
of parceltongue in the Chamber to awaken the entrance when used (like
Ginny awakened the entrance to the Diary), wherein the memory of
Slytherin waits to be seductive.

Debbie:
So perhaps the Diary's access charm was not so unique after all.  Like
Hermione's charm on the coin, which borrowed from Dark Mark technology, TR
merely created a means to access the diary (by writing in it) by borrowing
and adapting from the means Slytherin used to seal and open the chamber.
TR's charm was more advanced than old Sally's, though, in that the
memory/whorecrux inside was in control, instead of some random Parseltongue.


Lyn:


>   No, someone must have done it before,
> and DD knew of that, so what are, or have been the prior examples? Who did
> them, and do
> any other examples remain. Now wouldn't it be so very interesting if SS
> had made
> someting similar, or better yet, that each of the founders had done
> something similar. And
> what information might they contain for the present generation of wizards?
> Harry is now
> familiar with the workings of a diary, so will he be prepared to use other
> memory objects
> for his future purposes.
>

Debbie:
I don't doubt he'll make good use of, e.g., Dumbledore's portrait.  (Old
Sally's portrait, sadly, seems to be missing.)  But portraits, and mere
memories, aren't capable of possession.  At least DD seems to think so ("A
mere memory starting to act and think for itself . . . sapping the life out
of the girl?")



>
> Lyn again:
> If the diary held the TR
> before age 16, then would another Hx contain him just as 22, and another
> at 27, etc. Kind
> of makes one wonder what would happen if they were all able to materialize
> themselves
> through the contributed life force of another (like Ginny was meant to
> be), then would they
> recognize themselves? Would they all hang around as a "band of brothers?"
> Nah, this is
> just not elegant enough for me.
>

Debbie:
Or, they would merge into one?  The four outstanding soul-bits don't merge
into Voldemort's body because they are encased in their Whorecoffins.  If
they were released (not destroyed as the ring and diary whorecruxes were),
chances are they would go join their brothers.



>   Lyn Again:
> Yes, it seems very likely to be some link between the deceased and the
> nature of the Hx. I
> agree, it there is reason to believe TR was VERY selective in who he
> killed for the makings
> of a Hx. Was it really that LV could not have killed "the spare" in the
> graveyard, or was it
> that "the spare" was not worthy of being killed. Still, lots of folks are
> killed without a Hx
> being made, indeed that's the standard way of things. So surely TR could
> select which
> murders would be significant enough "rents" in his soul to be worthy of Hx
> formation.
>

Debbie:
Well, it could be that the depth and extent of the tear depends not on the
importance of the victim but on TR's intent.  Criminal law distinguishes
between one who kills in the heat of passion and one who calmly selects his
victims and plans the crime.  TR planned his parents' murders carefully,
brooded over it for years before he had the opportunity, but Cedric was only
an annoying fly to him, unworthy of a moment's consideration.  As for
Regulus, if Voldemort didn't think he was worthy of killing himself, perhaps
the death (which probably counts as a murder by Voldemort if he ordered it)
didn't create a big enough tear for a really good Whorecrux

Snow:
It makes more sense when you think about Voldemort asking Lily to
stand aside, as if she was meaningless, which she was. Harry was his
designed last death in which to make his final Horcrux but here
stands a defenseless Lily in the way of his objective, the boy the
prophecy said had powers, Voldemort couldn't risk it, the boy was too
close?oops reluctantly kill Lily, soul split.

I really like it and will stand on this one as a very good
possibility for the unarmed-murder-equals-soul-infraction.

Debbie:
The Riddles were unarmed, too.  And while I think that's not the
sole distinction between a killing that tears the soul and one that does
not, under criminal law (which was my worst subject in law school so you
shouldn't believe any of this!), killing an armed victim raises the
possibility of self defence and at a minimum creates circumstances that
remove the killing from the "cold blood" category.

Lyn again:


>    Just
> I can't really grow fond of the Hx thing. What if a guy kills a thousand
> people? what if a
> person kills ten thousand? Do we really have a little tear in the sole for
> each and every
> individual death--does their sole look as ragged as a fringed leather
> jacket on David
> Crosby?
>

Debbie:
Oh, what a great image!  Except the jacket would be full of patches where
attempts had been made to heal, or repair, the tears.  And missing pieces,
one for each Horsecrux.  But the tears are metaphorical, of course, because
the soul is not corporeal.

Debbie
who rather likes Whorecruxes, but found the Prophecy to be really lame


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From aberforthsgoat at aberforths_goat.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 25 07:10:07 2006
From: aberforthsgoat at aberforths_goat.yahoo.invalid (Aberforths Goat / Mike Gray)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:10:07 +0200
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Of Hxs and parasites
In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0608242008l798d3c38o9c6d1faa04a2caf@...>
Message-ID: <004e01c6c815$7ee541a0$0300a8c0@hwin>

Hi ho!

I was reading along when I hit upon this:

> And if there's any sleight of hand 
> on JKR's part, it's that in CoS the soul bit is described as 
> a memory rather than as a bit of TR's soul.  Perhaps not a 
> lie, but far less than the whole truth.

Hum. Something to wonder about: did JKR even know about Hosecrotches when
she wrote the ending to CoS?

Baaaaaa,

Mike




From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Fri Aug 25 08:05:00 2006
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:05:00 +1000
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Of Hxs and parasites
In-Reply-To: <004e01c6c815$7ee541a0$0300a8c0@hwin>
References: <80f25c3a0608242008l798d3c38o9c6d1faa04a2caf@...>
	 <004e01c6c815$7ee541a0$0300a8c0@hwin>
Message-ID: <91d14f320608250105m32a56b19o669ab462e4bc3c4a@...>

On 8/25/06, Aberforths Goat / Mike Gray <aberforthsgoat at ...> wrote:
> Hi ho!
>
> I was reading along when I hit upon this:
>
> > And if there's any sleight of hand
> > on JKR's part, it's that in CoS the soul bit is described as
> > a memory rather than as a bit of TR's soul.  Perhaps not a
> > lie, but far less than the whole truth.
>
> Hum. Something to wonder about: did JKR even know about Hosecrotches when
> she wrote the ending to CoS?

the penguin considers:
I thought that was the point behind all the folderol about "almost
giving it away" in the first write of CoS. Add to that the admission
that there will be Stuff We Weren't Told and my Bloody Unfair meter
went ZING. A thought: if Harry has  done in this Housebox then dear
Tom is starting from two behind, not one, as when he attempted to use
Harry. He'll have to find another soul to horsecrack, won't he?
Besides trying to do Harry in, I mean, that's a given. Tom's a bit
obsessed with Harry. If Harry does in a few more, will there be a
whirlwind of desperate horkscrowing, or do they just blow away in the
wind and Tom is steadily diminished?

>
> Baaaaaa,
>
> Mike

eeek!

ewe2

-- 
Emacs vs. Vi flamewars are a pointless waste of time. Vi is the best



From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 26 22:48:06 2006
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 22:48:06 -0000
Subject: Of Hxs and parasites
In-Reply-To: <004e01c6c815$7ee541a0$0300a8c0@hwin>
Message-ID: <ecqj36+6njd@...>

Mike the Goat wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/4383>:

> Hum. Something to wonder about: did JKR even know about
> Hosecrotches when she wrote the ending to CoS? 

Lexicon Steve believes she did.

She spent years planning her plot. When she put Scabbers, and 'young
Sirius Black''s motorcycle in the first book, she already knew the
Marauders, Animagi, Secret Keeper, betrayal, curse that killed 12
Muggles, sent to Azkaban without trial plotline. When she had Cedric
want to replay the Quidditch match because winning due to Dementor
interference isn't *fair*, she already knew she was going to kill him
in the next volume. 

I don't doubt that she knew all the major plot gimmicks before she
sent the first book out to publishers. 






From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sat Aug 26 22:45:23 2006
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 22:45:23 -0000
Subject: Of chickens, eggs, and roosters, (was: Hxs and parasites)
In-Reply-To: <ecekbd+4fbq@...>
Message-ID: <ecqiu3+u5du@...>

David Frankis & Stein wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/4376>:

<< Re chickens and eggs, I always feel that debate, however tasty, is
framed in a way that discriminates against roosters. >>

I bet you like the pun-song "The Little Red Rooster". 

Lyrics:
We had an old (x), nothing would s/he lay
(repeat)
Until the little red rooster came in our yard
(repeat)
Now s/he (y) every day.

First verse: x = hen, y = gives eggs

Additional verses ad nauseum, examples:
x = cow, y = gives eggnog
x = prostitute, y = gives egghead.

Last verse:
We had an old rooster, nothing would he lay
(repeat)
Until the little red hen came in our yard
(repeat)
Now he lays hens every day.

I just realised that remembering as much of this song as I do, and
having thought it was funny back when I used to hear it, is solid
proof that I drank too much in those days.







From katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid  Sun Aug 27 01:40:04 2006
From: katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid (Kat Macfarlane)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 18:40:04 -0700
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Of chickens, eggs, and roosters, (was: Hxs and parasites)
References: <ecqiu3+u5du@...>
Message-ID: <002601c6c979$ca454180$482fdcd1@...>

Gatta now:

As sung by the Ruffwater Clear Band:

I had a hen, no eggs would she lay,
I had a hen, no eggs would she lay.
One day a rooster come in the yard,
He caught that hen right off her guard.
Now she's layin' eggs just like she uster,
Ever since that rooster come in the yard.

I had a cow, no milk would she give,
I had a cow, no milk would she give.
One day that rooster come in the yard,
He caught that cow right off her guard.
Now she's givin' eggnog just like she uster,
Ever since that rooster come in the yard.

I had a gas pump, no gas would it give,
I had a gas pump, no gas would it give.
One day that rooster come in the yard,
He caught that gas pump right off its guard.
Now it's givin' Shell gas just like it uster,
Ever since that rooster come in the yard.

I had a gum tree, no gum would it give,
I had a gum tree, no gum would it give.
One day that rooster come in the yard,
He caught that gum tree right off its guard.
Now it's givin' Chiclets just like it uster,
Ever since that rooster come in the yard.

I had a rooster, no love would he give,
I had a rooster, no love would he give.
One day that rooster come in the yard,
He caught my rooster right off his guard.
Now he's layin' hens just like uster,
Ever since that rooster come in the yard.

Apparently male birds are remarkably single minded about these things. One of the most riveting experiences of my bird-watching career was having a male mallard try to initiate an intimate relationship with my ankle. (Perfectly clear on concept, a little vague on the specs.)

Purrs!

--Gatta

  David Frankis & Stein wrote in
  <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/4376>:

  << Re chickens and eggs, I always feel that debate, however tasty, is
  framed in a way that discriminates against roosters. >>

  I bet you like the pun-song "The Little Red Rooster". 

  Lyrics:
  We had an old (x), nothing would s/he lay
  (repeat)
  Until the little red rooster came in our yard
  (repeat)
  Now s/he (y) every day.

  First verse: x = hen, y = gives eggs

  Additional verses ad nauseum, examples:
  x = cow, y = gives eggnog
  x = prostitute, y = gives egghead.

  Last verse:
  We had an old rooster, nothing would he lay
  (repeat)
  Until the little red hen came in our yard
  (repeat)
  Now he lays hens every day.

  I just realised that remembering as much of this song as I do, and
  having thought it was funny back when I used to hear it, is solid
  proof that I drank too much in those days.



   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]