From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Wed Feb  1 04:57:51 2006
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 04:57:51 -0000
Subject: Yardley Platt
Message-ID: <drpf4f+apiu@...>

I couldn't help but find a bit of amusement in the current Wizard of the Month, Yardley 
Platt. 

We just get done noting how the ages of all the individuals on the Black Family Tree 
fragment were rather unremarkable with respect to age, and what do we get a few days 
later, a 111 year old wizard from the 1500s. Now that's a really remarkable lifespan for 
that era. 

Is it that goblin killing is life enhancing, or was JKR simply pouting, "'tiss so that wizards 
live longer" ?  I don't have a clue, but it is an interesting coincidence that a long-lived 
wizard should appear just now.






From coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid  Wed Feb  1 14:19:05 2006
From: coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid (Caius Marcius)
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:19:05 -0000
Subject: Yardley Platt
In-Reply-To: <drpf4f+apiu@...>
Message-ID: <drqg0p+cp5a@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Lyn J. Mangiameli" 
<kumayama at e...> wrote:
>
> I couldn't help but find a bit of amusement in the current Wizard 
of the Month, Yardley 
> Platt. 
> 
> We just get done noting how the ages of all the individuals on the 
Black Family Tree 
> fragment were rather unremarkable with respect to age, and what do 
we get a few days 
> later, a 111 year old wizard from the 1500s. Now that's a really 
remarkable lifespan for 
> that era. 
> 
> Is it that goblin killing is life enhancing, or was JKR simply 
pouting, "'tiss so that wizards 
> live longer" ?  I don't have a clue, but it is an interesting 
coincidence that a long-lived 
> wizard should appear just now.

Of course, we don't know at what point Mr. Platt was bought to 
justice (such as it is in the WW) - it's possible that he spent his 
final decades at Azkaban, or conversely. might have lived to a 
Dumbldedore-ish span of 150 years or so, but was cut short by a 
Goblin hit-squad.

Anyway, there may a filk in there - "The Goblins, I'll get 'em if 
they don't watch out!"

   - CMC 








From coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid  Wed Feb  1 15:14:14 2006
From: coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid (Caius Marcius)
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:14:14 -0000
Subject: FILK: Muggle Ducky
In-Reply-To: <drqg0p+cp5a@...>
Message-ID: <drqj86+sjdd@...>

Muggle Ducky

To the tune of the Sesame Street classic Rubber Ducky

Dedicated to CV

Lyrics & MIDI at:

http://www.walkthroughlife.com/midis/kidsmidis/rubberducky.htm

THE SCENE: A ward on St.  Mungo's - Healers try (unsuccessfully) to 
repair the Dark Arts damage done against Junior Minister Herbert 
Chorley.

HERBERT CHORLEY:
Oh! Muggle Ducky
I'm the flack
Who Lord Voldy
Taught to quack
Muggle Ducky
I'm awfully bird-brained, too! (bobobodeo)

Muggle Ducky
I'll attack
When I strangle, I'll still quack
Muggle Ducky
Far away all my reason flew

Since the day that they
Cast that curse rather poorly
I'm quackin' like a birdy who's
Mean and dirty
But sorely
Herbert J. Chorley!

Muggle Ducky
I must go 
To a back ward at Mungo
Muggle Ducky, now locked up with Lockhart, too!

    -	CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm








From erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid  Wed Feb  1 21:12:45 2006
From: erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid (Eileen Rebstock)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 14:12:45 -0700
Subject: The Founders and the Hat RE: [the_old_crowd] Re: Prophecy Pub/Less Than The Meanest Ghost/Black Family Tree
Message-ID: <5B35CABF8982E640B33467ACCBBB4E5F01089AEC@...>

Acck. Proof #90890808 of my poor reading comprehension. I thought Pippin
was proposing two different Slytherins. Slytherin the Elder and
Slytherin the Younger. Which I must admit is an amusing proposition. 

But rereading, yes, the Hat was created when Slytherin was younger, I
think. 

> Since the Hat is sincere, we can't posit eeevil Slytherin who was
> always planning to betray his pal Godric.

You mean because Slytherin's brains were in the Hat, and so the Hat
knows what he thought at the time of making? 

> Slytherin  was tolerant enough to be satisfied with the House system
> and his friends' selections: "Thus the Houses and their founders/
> Retained friendships firm and true." --Hat Song, OOP

Well, did the other Founders take Muggleborns at first? Or was that a
later innovation? I can't really recall if canon says. 

Eileen




From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Wed Feb  1 22:22:33 2006
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 22:22:33 -0000
Subject: Thrall to forces beyond my control...
Message-ID: <drrcb9+k1rg@...>

Kneasy, et al:

Last night, while innocently composing my response to Kneasy on the 
matter of primary evidence, I had an unrelated, and shattering 
epiphany.  

It started as an unbidden idea.  Exciting, but a bit silly.  Then 
three pieces of supportive canon flew into my head simultaneously, 
and I stopped laughing.  

Sobered, I scanned my noggin, applying the several plot patterns, 
which I assure you do exist, albeit somewhat more sophisticated than 
many readers suspect, and it all panned out.

By that time, I was too giddy to type.  I alternated between pacing 
around yammering about implications, and double-checking text in 
relevant books.  

I am now thoroughly convinced that I have been hit out of the blue 
with the pre-realization of a major twist for Book 7.

I am having a great deal of trouble keeping my mind on boggarts or 
Voldemort's graveyard antics.

I will try very hard to get that logic/primary evidence answer out 
to you, but the analytical muse is upon me, and I must obey....

Talisman







From kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid  Thu Feb  2 00:07:24 2006
From: kumayama at kumayama.yahoo.invalid (Lyn J. Mangiameli)
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:07:24 -0000
Subject: a mid day ramble among
Message-ID: <drrifs+4t1r@...>

I was changing the month today on my Dragonolgy calendar when my eye fell on an 
introductory  paragraph:

"Spell to Catch a Dragon. Take a mirror and sprinkle it with dragondust. then place a 
sapphire or other treasure outside the dragon's lair. When the dragon emerges to 
investigate the gemstone, quickly bring out the mirror so that the dragon sees its own 
reflection, and cry, "Ecce Narcisso Draconus Attractivae!" This spell will tame the dragon -- 
but watch out when it wears off!"

I can't find a previous use of this phrase, so perhaps the modern authors made it up for 
our amusement--yet I suspect it may be a quote from some early text. 

Now an attempt at tranlating the phrase took me down an interesting path. My pidgeon 
tranlation comes out as this: " Behold, the precious gemstone that attracts the dragon." 
This translation, though clearly consistent with the direction within the Dragonology 
paragraph (i.e., "place a saphire...") puts forward a much different definition of "narcissus" 
than our usual association of the word with the flower and the Greek myth. Apparently this 
use of the word was originally contemporary with the usual meanings, and though it made 
the jump from Greek to Latin, seems never to have made it into our English 
understandings. [this mostly comes from the OED and the Oxford Latin-English 
dictionary]. 

A couple of other tidbits I encountered. Narcissa as a stone was from Pliny. There is a 
reference to this in the OED and in The History of Egypt: 
The list of precious stones which Pliny tells us were
     found in Media, contains several kinds which we are unable
     to identify, e.g. the Zath?n?, the gassinades and
     narcissitis. Pliny calls lapis-lazuli sapphirus, and
     declares that the bright specks of pyrites it contained
     rendered it unsuitable for engraving. In the Assyrian
     inscriptions Mount Bikni, the modern Demavend, is described
     as a mountain of Uknu, or lapis-lazuli. 

I'm rather suspicious that the narcissitis is a yellow sapphire. If so, it could be seen as 
rather reminding one of a star. It is also interesting how many have associated Cissy with a 
blue sapphire.

I know this all may mean nothing, particularly as JKR has stated that Cissy was named for a 
flower, but you all know the credibility I place in her public comments.

Just another bit of trivia. Draconite is a stone. 
One source describes it this way. 

Draconite is the dragon stone. In Western culture this is a precious stone, said to be found 
in the head of a dragon.... The western dragon stone was ... said to have magical 
properties. For those that believe in magic, this is the most likely contender for the source 
of a dragon's magical powers. For those that do not believe in magic, possibly the stone 
had something to do with the dragon's breath. In flame breathers, it may have acted to 
ignite the vapour, or it may have acted to filter the vapour in some way.

and from the Lexicon of Alchemy:
DRACONITES, DRACONTIAS, or DRACHATES --- is a Precious Stone which Pliny represents 
(1. 37, c. 11), as also Solinus (c. 33), to be found in the brain of serpents, but unless it is 
removed while they are alive, it will never become a precious stone, by the inbred malice 
of the animal who, conscious of death approaching, destroys the virtue of the stone. 
Therefore the head is removed from dragons while asleep, and thus the gem is secured. 
The energy of the living soul is imparted to many things which the corruption of death in 
the humours impairs. The colour of the Draconite is white; it drives away all poisonous 
animals and cures envenomed bites..... our Chelydrus, which was of an opaque black, 
surrounded by a pale ring, and having a very beautiful outline of a serpent on the surface. 
These species also drive away venomous animals and heal poisoned wounds.

With that  "never tickle a sleeping dragon" line found in the books, and the greatly 
enlarged role of both Draco and Cissy in the last volume, I must say, this is all rather 
intriguing for me, though likely of little actual significance to the series.








From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Thu Feb  2 00:26:53 2006
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:26:53 -0000
Subject: Logical Limitations
In-Reply-To: <drni7s+a3vr@...>
Message-ID: <drrjkd+78pq@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at ...> wrote:

>Talisman in 3862:
> It seems to me that the PoA visions come in two distinct flavors:
> Dementor and Boggart.
>

>Kneasy in 3867:
>Er... no.
>I didn't count any Boggart induced bits, just the PS/SS memories and
>the Dementor triggered flashbacks in PoA.

Talisman: 
Au contraire mon frere. 

Kneasy in 3788 :
>GH Input.
>Piecing together Harry's visions we get the following sequence:
>A warning urging Lily to grab Harry and run, "I'll hold him off"
>The door bursting open, a cackle of high-pitched laughter
>"Get out of the way, girl"
>"Not Harry!", "Take me instead!... Mercy!" etc.
>Shrill laughing
>Screaming
>Green flash
>A high, cold, cruel laugh
>(Uncertain if this occurs thrice - depends how one reads Harry's
>thoughts in PS/SS chap.4. But note that all three laughs are
>described slightly differently.)


Talisman: you will find that you have mixed Boggart and Dementor 
evidence together in the foregoing list.  

Fortunately I found an old unpublished post on the subject.  Here's 
a little riff, modified slighty to address your recent concerns.

Harry?fs version of Godric's Hollow.

In the beginning of SS/PS Harry doesn?ft have much.  He desperately 
wants to remember his parents.  But, no matter how he ?gstrained his 
memory?h(29) all he can manage is ?ga blinding flash of green light 
and a burning pain in his scar. 

In addition to this, he has some dreams about a flying motorcycle; 
however, he doesn?ft understand these as being memory related, nor 
does he in any way connected these with his parents' deaths (25).

Events ensue.  Anon, Hagrid tells Harry that the evil Lord 
Voldemort, not an automotive mishap, extinguished Harry?fs parents. 
And, yada, yada, failed curse, scar on head, etc.  (55).

Later, Harry sees his parents in the Mirror of Erised (209).  Now he 
knows how they look. (Note: apparently the Mirror shows a true form 
of your heart?fs desire, because Harry?fs parents?f mirror images 
conform to what he later sees in albums, penseives and smokey wand 
regurgitations, etc.)

Still later, Voldemort tells Harry ?gI killed your father first?e 
(294); that James died put[ting]up a courageous fight; and, that 
Harry?es mother ?gneedn?et have died, but did so ?gtrying to protect 
[Harry]?h (294).  

Now it should be noted that, initially, Voldemort told Harry that 
the Potters ?gdied begging me for mercy.?h(294). We?fll call that GH 
version I.  That doesn?ft mean that GH version II is false, but it 
leaves some wiggle room.  Moreover, even if GH version II is 
entirely accurate, it is lacking in details, and we all know how the 
Devil lurks in those.

Dumbledore tells Harry that Lily died to save Harry (299).

And, finally, Hagrid provides Harry with an album of parental 
pictures for his perusing pleasure (304). 

Therefore, at the end of SS/PS, Harry knows what his parents looked 
like; he has been told they were killed by Lord Voldemort, who tried 
to kill Harry with a curse; he has heard that James fought and died 
first; and that Lily didn't need to die, but died in the effort to 
save Harry.

The veracity of some of this information--especially the part from 
Voldemort--is questionable, and none of it is complete.

However, it's all Harry has. 

It is not at all a stretch to infer that Harry, who has spent his 
childhood trying to remember his parents, and connecting his limited 
memories with their deaths, would run this new information through 
his imagination and come up with a little ?gfilm strip?h of the 
events of that fateful evening.

Much as Rowling cobbled together her "false memory" of her sister's 
birth.

Fast-forward through CoS , because the entire tale is sanitarily 
devoid of Harry memories regarding his parents or GH. No dreams or 
mental images, at all.  

But we know it?fs all in the old Potter noggin, percolating away.

Then comes PoA.  A Dementor boards the train and Harry falls to the 
ground and hears screaming. (84) 

Now, a bona fide Dementor is an amazing sucker.  It can suck your 
soul right out of you, which includes, but is possibly not limited 
to, Hoovering out your memories and all sense of self (247).

More usually it just sucks away all of its victims?f happiness, 
leaving them capable only of dwelling on bad experiences (187).

Although these drifting black holes operate on a negative principle 
(removing happiness/souls rather than adding anything) the bad 
memories they uncover in the process are in some sense evoked, 
inasmuch as these memories are at least latent until the happiness 
buffer is removed. 

Therefore, memories surface during the sucking process that the 
victim might not otherwise be experiencing .   

I'll revise what I said earlier, because Hagrid does seem to confirm 
that the uncovered memories are legit: E.g., Hagrid: ?gKep?f goin?f 
over horrible stuff in me mind?cthe day I got expelled?cthe day me 
dad die?h (PoA 220)    And later, Mrs. Figg tells us: ?g?cI 
remembered ?cdreadful things?c?h (Oop 145)

For Demetors to have any utility as a literary device, in the 
absence of contrary evidence, I'll accept that what they uncover is 
real. (Though I note here, per your argument that Dementors 
represent depression, that people who suffer depression are not 
wholly realistic about their situations, and are quite capable of 
dwelling on the anticipation of bad things that may never occur.)

Obviously, however, at least in Harry's case, the evidence that they 
do uncover is far from complete.  Partially because Harry didn?ft 
really see what happened at GH.

Back to the PoA train.

?gWho screamed??h Harry wonders after he regains consciousness (PoA 
84).  This also suggests that the Dementor has uncovered a bit of 
?greal?hmemory.  If the scream were the stuff of Harry?fs own 
invention, he would surely be able to identify the screamer.  

Part of the "incompleteness" is that the Dementors don't give 
visuals.  Harry doesn't even get the old green light.

Nonetheless, as you will see below, Harry's "bad memories" never 
extend beyond the screaming and Voldemort's reply/laughter during 
any of the bona fide Dementor experiences. 
 
Summation of memory evidence evoked during the 3 bona fide Dementor 
attacks in PoA:

First Dementor attack: on the train: 
General unidentified screaming.

Second Dementor attack(or hundred Dementor experience, as it were), 
on the Quittitch field:

The screaming starts up again, and this time Harry recognizes that 
it is a woman?fs voice. ?gNot Harry ?cstand aside you silly girl?c
take me, kill me instead?c[p]lease?c have mercy?chave mercy?h (179).

(So at least one of them DID die begging for mercy, eh? Albeit for 
Harry. GH version III?)

He also hears the ?g[s]hrill voice laughing. 

Third Dementor experience, at the Lake: 
A hundred Dementors swarm toward him,?gand in the distance, he heard 
the familiar screaming?c?h  ?ghis mother was screaming in his ears?c
She was going to be the last thing he ever heard--?h (384).

I'll make the point that Harry has   "concluded" that it's his mum, 
based on what he's been told of the events of GH.  I'm not saying 
it's not Lily, just sifting knowledge from conclusion.  Sort of like 
Dumbledore <veg>.

Aside from generalized screaming, the second attack produces the 
only memory that has real use as evidence.  

Still, thanks to all the interview/site commentary from Rowling, 
what the memory shows is already pretty well accepted, i.e.,  that 
1) Lily didn't need to die because Voldemort was willing to let her 
stand aside; 2) that she chose to shield Harry, knowing she would be 
killed; and, 3) that she didn't die fighting. 

And what about Boggart pseudo-Dementors? Do these simulacrum have 
the powers of a real soul-sucker?  You won?ft be surprised that I 
don?ft think so.

We are told the Boggart is a ?gshape-shifter;?h  that it can ?gtake 
the shape of whatever it thinks will frighten us most?h (PoA 133).   
It may be able to simulate the powers of  the shape embodied, but we 
are not told that it assumes the actual powers. 

I reject as too improbable any notion that a Boggart werewolf or 
vampire could bite someone and beget an actual werewolf or vampire.  
I do not believe that a Boggart Dementor could actually soul-suck 
someone and leave them ?gworse than dead.?h 

Likewise, even if a real Dementor can uncover memories of forgotten 
events, I will posit that a Boggart Dementor cannot.   It stimulates 
fears--real or imagined--it sucks nothing out, reveals nothing but 
what you fear, by tapping your imagination.

There is no evidence that anyone was actually chased by a 
disembodied eyeball, or that Dean was ever attacked by a creeping 
hand (PoA 138), if Sean had ever really heard a banshee (137) he'd 
be dead, and to date, Hermione hasn?et failed everything?h (319).

On the other hand, Neville has certainly experienced Prof. Snape 
(PoA 137), rats and rattlesnakes are well within probability for 
being drawn from real experience (138), and all we know Ron has seen 
the giant spider (138)

The question of Parvati?fs mummy is open to speculation (137), 
though the mummies the Weasely's saw on their trip to Egypt weren't 
mobile.

Your suggestion that Rowling's false memory hint is applicable to 
Mrs. Weasley's 12GP trauma (dead loved-ones everywhere) only makes 
my point.  It was obviously an imagined fear, not a true memory, and 
it was Boggart induced.

In any event, just as Rowling explains about her recollection of Di?f
s birth, she also shows us about the Boggart: it draws form the 
imagination, which is capable of mixing reality and fiction in a 
seamless blend.  

In Harry's case, as a Dementor, the Boggart simulates effects Harry 
expects from a Dementor, and furnishes the scenes from the 
imagination, which is an amalgam of truth, lies, and pure invention.

All evidence points to Boggarts being associated with the 
imagination.  They draw from the victim's imagination for custon-
made terror, and likewise, they are repelled by a charm empowered by 
the victims imagination: wherein the victim ?gimagine[s] how [they] 
might force [the Dementor] to look comical?c?h(136).

Boggarts = imagination.  

Summary of imagination-tainted  Boggart evidence: 

First Boggart experience with Lupin: 
 ?gNot Harry! Not Harry! Please--I?fll do anything--?h
?gStand aside.  Stand aside, girl!?h (PoA 239)

 ?gI could hear her louder that time--and him--Voldemort?h (239)

Second Boggart Experience:
?g?cbig blurred shapes were moving around him?cthen came a new 
voice, a man?fs voice, shouting panicking--?h Lily, take Harry and 
go!  It?fs him! Go! Run! I?fll hold him off--?h The sounds of 
someone stumbling from a room--a door bursting open--a cackle of 
high-pitched laughter--?h (240).  

?gI heard my dad.?h (240). 

 ?gYou heard James??h said Lupin in a strange voice.?h ( 241).


This stuff, in my opinion, should be sifted out of your primary 
evidence, and filed under: "Dubious at Best." 

As to the question of whether Voldemort used an AK on Harry, I would 
say the answer is yes.  The answer to the mystery does not seem to 
lie in refuting the curse.  

JKR has said alternately that Harry survived a ?gKilling Curse?h 
that night, and that the curse rebounded. Fake!Moody calls the AK 
?gthe Killing Curse,?h in GoF.   Always room to wiggle, but I?fm not 
expecting a twist here.

If you really still want an expanded explanation of how Voldemort 
got all his GoF info from Wormtail, I?fll get back to that later.

Yours where logic serves intuition, 
Talisman












From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Feb  2 14:52:24 2006
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 14:52:24 -0000
Subject: a mid day ramble among
In-Reply-To: <drrifs+4t1r@...>
Message-ID: <drt6b8+5c9e@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Lyn J. Mangiameli" <kumayama at ...> wrote:
>
> I was changing the month today on my Dragonolgy calendar when my eye fell on an 
> introductory  paragraph:
>
snip dragon stone info.
 
> These species also drive away venomous animals and heal poisoned wounds.
> 
> With that  "never tickle a sleeping dragon" line found in the books, and the greatly 
> enlarged role of both Draco and Cissy in the last volume, I must say, this is all rather 
> intriguing for me, though likely of little actual significance to the series.
>

I've been trying to access quick quotes - without success, it seems to be on a 
loop that brings you back to TLC Home page - 'cos I think Jo made mention of
more dragon related stuff turning up in the books. May be wrong though. But
if she does, it might be more fun having the real thing rather than that little 
squit Draco sliming all over the place.

Which would be interesting, the dragons in HP are not friendly, as feral killer
monsters they're just the opposite. Lopping the head off one shouldn't stir
up the fluffies too much. 

But this dragon-stone thing in the head - way back I put up a post quoting
Brewers Dictionary of Phrase and Fable where similar sorts of myths apply to 
a toad-stone, only it's supposed to be red. Certainly it's a specific against
poison and venomous bites. Poor old Trevor - doomed to be a magical
Band-Aid, was the general gist. Unfortunately he ain't been around much
lately, seems to have dropped out of the story - and he missed his cue to
take a starring role during the showdown in CoS. 
There's never a toad around when you want one.
So maybe it will be dragons...
Good oh.
Crispy wizards.
Mmm! Crunchy!

Kneasy






From erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid  Thu Feb  2 17:27:21 2006
From: erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid (Eileen Rebstock)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:27:21 -0700
Subject: [the_old_crowd] FILK: Muggle Ducky
Message-ID: <5B35CABF8982E640B33467ACCBBB4E5F01089B25@...>

*applauds wildly*

I wonder what'll happen to Chorley. If he'll ever get out.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Caius Marcius
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 8:14 AM
> To: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [the_old_crowd] FILK: Muggle Ducky
> 
> Muggle Ducky
> 
> To the tune of the Sesame Street classic Rubber Ducky
> 
> Dedicated to CV
> 
> Lyrics & MIDI at:
> 
> http://www.walkthroughlife.com/midis/kidsmidis/rubberducky.htm
> 
> THE SCENE: A ward on St.  Mungo's - Healers try (unsuccessfully) to
> repair the Dark Arts damage done against Junior Minister Herbert
> Chorley.
> 
> HERBERT CHORLEY:
> Oh! Muggle Ducky
> I'm the flack
> Who Lord Voldy
> Taught to quack
> Muggle Ducky
> I'm awfully bird-brained, too! (bobobodeo)
> 
> Muggle Ducky
> I'll attack
> When I strangle, I'll still quack
> Muggle Ducky
> Far away all my reason flew
> 
> Since the day that they
> Cast that curse rather poorly
> I'm quackin' like a birdy who's
> Mean and dirty
> But sorely
> Herbert J. Chorley!
> 
> Muggle Ducky
> I must go
> To a back ward at Mungo
> Muggle Ducky, now locked up with Lockhart, too!
> 
>     -	CMC
> 
> HARRY POTTER FILKS
> http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 





From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Thu Feb  2 18:13:44 2006
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (constancevigilance)
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:13:44 -0000
Subject: FILK: Muggle Ducky
In-Reply-To: <drqj86+sjdd@...>
Message-ID: <drti4o+a427@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius" <coriolan at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Muggle Ducky
> 
> To the tune of the Sesame Street classic Rubber Ducky
> 
> Dedicated to CV
> 
This is such a fun filk to a song I've always loved! Thank you so much 
for the dedication!

CV






From troelsfo at troelsfo.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb  3 13:49:56 2006
From: troelsfo at troelsfo.yahoo.invalid (Troels Forchhammer)
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:49:56 -0000
Subject: Taking a break
Message-ID: <drvn24+p2qg@...>

Due to increased demands on my time from the family, and a general 
weariness with the on-line Potter discussions, I am taking a break from 
the latter. 

With the permission of the list members, I would like to remain 
officially a member of this list, but to not receive e-mails. That way 
I can merely edit my membership when a surplus time and enthusiasm does 
once more manifest itself. 

Thank you, 
Troels Forchhammer






From erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb  3 17:14:24 2006
From: erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid (Eileen Rebstock)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:14:24 -0700
Subject: Blasted off the Tapestry
Message-ID: <5B35CABF8982E640B33467ACCBBB4E5FD25C09@...>

There's been a lot of questions as to why certain people are still on
the tapestry, Dorea Black and Charlus Potter mostly, who took in Sirius,
while Alphard Black got blasted for giving Sirius money.

It strikes me that Mrs. Black was going a bit overboard in the tapestry
blasting department than was traditionally the case, anyway. Blasting
blood traitors off the tapestry to strike off their defiled lines is one
thing. Blasting off family members you're fighting with... In this
society, who would be left after a few years of that strategy? 

The normal pureblood witch would have waited to see if Sirius repented
and married into a proper pureblood family one day. He hadn't done
anything irrevocable, just ticked off his Mum. But Mrs. Black was in a
rage and off the tapestry he went. Then off went Uncle Alphard, for
taking another side in the family dispute.

Well, then she was left with a problem, now she'd changed the standard
for blasting. Outside of Regulus and his cousins, who was left on the
living branches of the tree that she *wasn't* at odds with? I'll suggest
she had to stop somewhere. Probably she did some further 'pruning,'
blasted off James Potter of course. Harry as a half-blood would never
qualify for the tree. I really wonder if Neville's on there, or if Frank
got blasted off. 

Sirius not pointing out the relationship to Harry seems rather FLINTish,
given his eagerness to play beloved uncle/cousin. But oh well, that
isn't the first time Sirius would be acting weirdly.

Obviously, the tapestry is rather difficult to view. There are a lot of
people on there and magic must manage it, but I wouldn't be surprised if
it shifted around a bit as you followed lines with your eyes. Which
would explain why Harry doesn't notice some familiar names on it.

NM 

PS - Although Alec and I have an amusing never-to-be-actually-written
fanfic imagined where Chesterton's Father Brown is actually a Black
blasted off the tapestry, my guess for Phineas's blasted sibling is a
sister who married a Weasley. We do know that the Blacks kept the
Weasleys off the tree rather vigorously, as they didn't apparently with
other families. One wonders exactly what the Weasleys did to ignite this
feud. Not have enough money, or something more unforgivable? Is it
really Lucius and Arthur's feud? Or did Lucius adopt his wife's family's
age-old feud with the Weasleys?




From dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb  3 19:24:59 2006
From: dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid (Eustace_Scrubb)
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:24:59 -0000
Subject: Harfang Longbottom?
In-Reply-To: <5B35CABF8982E640B33467ACCBBB4E5FF65059@...>
Message-ID: <ds0amb+6t6n@...>

Eileen Rebstock wrote:
>
> 
> Harfang Longbottom? Like Home of the (Not So) Gentle Giants Harfang?
> What exactly was this fellow up to to get slammed with a name like 
> that from Narnia-familiar JKR? Luring Muggle guests in and eating 
> them for the Autumn Feast? 

Eustace_Scrubb:
Perhaps Neville has some giantish blood in his ancestry?  Wonder if
Godric's Hollow is anywhere near the City Ruinous?

Anyway, I also note that "le Harfang des Neiges" is French for snowy
owl, at least according to a couple of online sources
(http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/harfang and 
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Harfang)

I wonder if JKR is familiar with that meaning?  I suppose she just
thought marrying a Narnian-derived given name and a Hobbit-derived
last name was fun!

Cheers,

Eustace_Scrubb






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Feb  4 11:08:50 2006
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 11:08:50 -0000
Subject: Logical Limitations
In-Reply-To: <drrjkd+78pq@...>
Message-ID: <ds2202+jfg8@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" <talisman22457 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
> <arrowsmithbt@> wrote:
> 
> >Talisman in 3862:
> > It seems to me that the PoA visions come in two distinct flavors:
> > Dementor and Boggart.
> >
> 
> >Kneasy in 3867:
> >Er... no.
> >I didn't count any Boggart induced bits, just the PS/SS memories and
> >the Dementor triggered flashbacks in PoA.
> 
> Talisman: 
> Au contraire mon frere. 
> 

Oops!
Quite right - I did.
Fortunately  it doesn't really matter unless Boggarts can induce fake, i.e.
totally new, previously non-existent 'greatest' fears, visions or memories.

Another possible point of agreement.  (Wow! Two in one post!)
It occurs to me that there's something a bit odd going on, and not just
with the Dementor/Boggarty bits, it includes that mirror too.
Everything that Harry truly fears - or wishes for - is in the past, or so we
are supposed to believe. Is it just me, or does anyone else think it strange
that Harry's 'greatest' fear is something that has already happened, that
he can't really remember anyway and cannot possibly happen again - the
death of his parents?

Other peoples Boggart manifestations are fears that might or could happen:
eyeballs, Banshees, mummies, Snape on a rampage, failing exams, a pile of
dead Weasleys.
Dementors are a paradigm for depression, Boggarts a paradigm for fear.
And unless one is mortally afraid of being depressed it's difficult to see any 
cross-over.
Demmies suck out the happiness, leaving the worst of memories behind.
Boggies generate fear and the fears are what the 'victim' really doesn't want 
to face *in the future*. 

One man's fears is another man's fatalistic acceptance. Death, divorce, disease,
bankruptcy, the loss of a loved one - fairly common fears. But does anyone
'fear' a divorce, death or bankruptcy that happened sometime in the past? 
Regret is for what's past, fears are for what is yet to come.
So why is Harry's apprehension concentrated on the past? 
I can understand the past as a place of sadness, misery and loss, but why 
would Harry *fear* the past more than what may happen to him (or others) 
in the future?

Kneasy






From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid  Sat Feb  4 13:15:26 2006
From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger)
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 13:15:26 -0000
Subject: Logical Limitations
In-Reply-To: <ds2202+jfg8@...>
Message-ID: <ds29de+10n8v@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" <talisman22457@> 
wrote:
> >
Kneasy:
> Other peoples Boggart manifestations are fears that might or could 
happen:
> eyeballs, Banshees, mummies, Snape on a rampage, failing exams, a 
pile of
> dead Weasleys.
> Dementors are a paradigm for depression, Boggarts a paradigm for 
fear.
> And unless one is mortally afraid of being depressed it's difficult 
to see any 
> cross-over.
> Demmies suck out the happiness, leaving the worst of memories 
behind.
> Boggies generate fear and the fears are what the 'victim' really 
doesn't want 
> to face *in the future*. 
(snip)
> I can understand the past as a place of sadness, misery and loss, 
but why 
> would Harry *fear* the past more than what may happen to him (or 
others) 
> in the future?

Ginger:
I understood Harry's fear to be fear not to be fear of the past or of 
what the dementors had done, but fear of seeing them again and having 
the same reaction he had on the train.  

Not only was fainting and all that humiliating, but it could prove to 
be a problem should LV find out about it and use it against him.  We 
have heard DD's warning to Fudge that the dementors would be willing 
allies for LV, so all LV would have to do (as far as Harry knows) 
would be to bring one along and sic it on Harry before he has a 
chance to cast any spells.

It also has the potential to throw off his Quidditch game, as he 
discovered, and Malfoy and friends used against him.

Ginger







From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid  Sat Feb  4 22:45:02 2006
From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely)
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 22:45:02 -0000
Subject: Logical Limitations
In-Reply-To: <ds29de+10n8v@...>
Message-ID: <ds3ape+ts9q@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" 
<quigonginger at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
> <arrowsmithbt@> wrote:
> >
snip> And unless one is mortally afraid of being depressed it's 
difficult 
> to see any  cross-over.
> > Demmies suck out the happiness, leaving the worst of memories 
> behind.
> > Boggies generate fear and the fears are what the 'victim' really 
> doesn't want 
> > to face *in the future*. 
> (snip)
> > I can understand the past as a place of sadness, misery and loss, 
> but why 
> > would Harry *fear* the past more than what may happen to him (or 
> others) 
> > in the future?
> 
> Ginger:
> I understood Harry's fear to be fear not to be fear of the past or 
of 
> what the dementors had done, but fear of seeing them again and 
having 
> the same reaction he had on the train.  
> 
> Not only was fainting and all that humiliating, but it could prove 
to 
> be a problem should LV find out about it and use it against him.  
sip> 
Ginger

Seems to me the boggart plays on fears of a person at them time it is 
coming at him/her.  In the beginning of OOTP, Harry seemed well past 
the fear of the Dementor. If he was not, he would not have been able 
to produce the patronus which protected both he and Dud, otherwise we 
would have ended up with soulless!Harry.  I was going to say ended up 
with normal Dudders but even the biggest bully has feelings too.
>So, what would Harry's boggart be now?

Fran







From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Sun Feb  5 00:06:50 2006
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 00:06:50 -0000
Subject: Logical Limitations
In-Reply-To: <ds2202+jfg8@...>
Message-ID: <ds3fiq+mhs7@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at ...> wrote:

> Fortunately  it doesn't really matter unless Boggarts can induce 
>fake, i.e. totally new, previously non-existent 'greatest' fears, 
>visions or memories.


Talisman:
The crux of my argument is that Boggarts deal in the dark side of 
imagination.  In this instance, Harry has already "imagined" events at 
GH based on the little he has been told by DD, Hagrid, and LV, plus his 
own assumptions. 

Similarly, Molly has--in the course of her worrying--at one time or 
another imagined "what ifs" in which her loved ones are dead.

Both of these instances relate to Rowling's descriptions of events she 
can recall, and which "feel" like true memories, but which she knows 
cannot be true.  Rather these "memories" are compilations of things she 
heard or thought or interpretated, etc, all mixed into an imaginary 
scene.

The Dementor uncovers true memories, the boggart exploits the 
imagination.

Harry's Boggart takes the form of a Dementor, therefore it wants to 
make him re-live bad memories.  But, it is not a real Dementor, thus it 
cannot suck out anything.  Instead, it simulates a Dementor by evoking 
Harry's horrible, albeit imaginary, psedu-memories.


I do recall Rowling having Lupin liken the fear of Dementors to the 
fear of fear itself (see Churchill's jowls jiggle).

Harry does not necessarily fear the memories--indeed in the course of 
PoA we see his ambivalence at making them stop--he fears the Dementors, 
which in turn, uncover the memories.

But I take your point.

And you are correct, all of Harry's issues are connected to the past.  

Everything started there, the mystery of his conflicts, his own burdens 
of loss and desire.  He needs to get to the bottom of theses things 
that cling to him from the dark past, before he can successfully pursue 
his "adult" future.

I believe Rowling has made comments of this sort, as well.

T










From coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid  Sun Feb  5 00:26:53 2006
From: coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid (Caius Marcius)
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 00:26:53 -0000
Subject: FILK: Real Nice Mandrakes
Message-ID: <ds3god+tdqb@...>

Real Nice Mandrakes

To the tune of A Real Nice Clambake, from Rodgers and Hammerstein's 
Carousel (the film version)

Dedicated to Ginger

MIDI at:

http://www.hamienet.com/xtrack993-3.mid   

The film version omits the first couple of stanzas, so fast forward 
the MIDI to 1:16 

THE SCENE: The Herbology Greenhouse, a few years after CoS.  
PROFESSOR SPROUT instructs another class in the proper raising of 
mandrakes. 

SPROUT & CHORUS OF STUDENTS
They will be real nice mandrakes
When they are full mature.
Make sure the earmuffs are tight enough
Or we'll be knocked out, for sure! 
Their skin is green, their bawling is shrill
Though they are still quite young
They will be real nice mandrakes 
`Cause they all have some real great lungs

SPROUT
Remember when we faced that Chamber monster
What liked to petri-file?
It slithered and snarled and slaughtered and slunk
Hissin' like a foul reptile

CHORUS OF STUDENTS 
Huntin' and a hissin'
Huntin' and a hissin'
Hissin' like a foul reptile!

SPROUT 
It turned 'em into stone and froze `em up bad,
And made `em to be like fossils

So I planted `Drakes in pots
And gave `em scarves and socks
And they gave us success colossal 

CHORUS OF STUDENTS 
Plantin' and a pottin'
Plantin' and a pottin'
Pottin' in a compost pile

SPROUT
Then at last came the cure

CHORUS OF STUDENTS 
The cure!
Made `em less rocky, jus' how we cannot tell
How did Mimsy ever get it down his gullet?

SPROUT
I couldn't say mysel'



SPROUT & CHORUS OF STUDENTS
Oh-h-h-
They will be real nice mandrakes
When they are fully grown
If you're stalagmite from a snake bite
They can turn you back from stone
Their skin is green, their bawling is shrill
Their acne's gone away
They will be real nice mandrakes
And they'll all soon be makin' hay

They'll all leave their pots
To start partyin' hard
And all will be makin' hay

They'll all leave their pots
To start partyin' hard
And all will be makin' hay!

   -	CMC

NOTE: The references to socks, scarves, acne and partying are all 
Canonic. 

HARRY POTTER FILKS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm








From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Feb  5 04:21:37 2006
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 20:21:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd]
In-Reply-To: <ds3fiq+mhs7@...>
Message-ID: <20060205042137.92399.qmail@...>

It seems that this message did not post an hour ago?

Harry Potter and the Seven Deadlies

There is an ancient poem by Prudentius about the
Battle for the Soul.  It discusses the seven
contrary virtues to help someone battle the seven
deadly sins.  The Harry Potter books are a metaphor
for this battle for the soul.

1.  First book is the Philosophers stone

First deadly sin is PRIDE
Pride is excessive belief in ones abilities.

Book Theme:  Humility versus Pride
Humility is seeing ourselves as we are instead of
comparing ourselves to others.

Harry must look into the Mirror of Erised and see
himself as he truly is.  He must remain humble and not
seek to become Immortal.  Lord Voldemort is filled
with pride in his abilities and he does seek
immortality.  He desires to be the greatest wizard of
all time. He thinks: there is no good and evil, there
is only power and those too weak to seek it  Perhaps
pride is that evil voice in the back of your head! ;0)
 Pride has overtaken Professor Quirrell.

2. Second book is the Chamber of Secrets

Second deadly sin is ENVY
Envy is the desire for others traits

Book Theme is Love versus Envy

Love is kind.  Love actively seeks the good of
others for their sake.  Envy resents the good others
receive or even might receive.

The innermost desires of a person are often said to
lie inside his heart.  If the person keeps his desires
secret, he tends to lock them in his chamber of
secrets.  A diary can contain the innermost secrets of
a person.  Ginny had secret desires for Harry which
she kept inside and wrote into Tom Riddles diary. She
locked her desires inside her chamber of secrets (ie.
She had a locked heart)

Professor Lockhart (locked heart) is envious of the
deeds of others.  He steals their achievements by
stealing their memories and writing books about their
deeds as if they were his.  Professor Lockhart is
filled with envy.

3. Third book is the Prisoner of Azkaban

Third deadly sin is SLOTH.
Sloth can be spiritual sloth which is related to
Sadness and a feeling of not caring about doing
things.

Book Theme is Zeal versus Sloth.

Professor Lupin appears to let his extreme sadness
make him slow to act.  He seems to act sometimes like
he does not care about things. Harry must overcome his
fears and learn to take action.  He cannot wait for
someone else to drive the Dementors away from Sirius
at the lake.  He must act himself and not remain a
prisoner of his own fears!

4. Fourth book is the Goblet of Fire.

Fourth deadly sin is LUST.
Lust is the inordinate craving of pleasures of the
body.

Book Theme is Self Control versus Lust.

In this book Harry has desires for Cho Chang and he is
jealous of Cedric Diggory when Cedric gets to take Cho
to the Tri-Wizard Ball.  Durmstrang is an exaggeration
of male virility with Victor Krum representing
excellence in athletic ability.  The boys of Hogwarts
all swoon when the ladies of  Beaux Batons enter the
room because they represent an exaggeration of female
beauty.  Ron lusts after Fleur, and he feels jealous
that Victor Krum shows interest in Hermione.  Hagrid
shows amorous desires for Madame Maxime.

Lord Voldemort craves the body he does not have yet. 
He lusts for the pleasures of the body.  Mad Eye Moody
is definitely moody and ill tempered like a teenager
dealing with his inner lust.  He has the mad eye that
watches everything and keeps his true self locked up
inside a trunk.  It seems like the madman has
escaped like in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. 


5. Fifth Book is the Order of the Phoenix.

Fifth deadly sin is ANGER.
An individual spurns love and opts for anger.
Impatience with the faults of others is related to
this, and anger is often our first reaction to the
problems of others.

Book Theme is Patience versus Anger.

Harry is very angry with Dumbledore at the end of the
book.  Sirius and Snape are very angry with each other
and impatient with each others faults.  Sirius becomes
impatient and wants to act.  Harry is impatient and
wants to save Sirius at the Ministry.  Harry must
endure punishment from Umbridge for his outbursts in
class.  He must learn patience. Professor Umbride is
angered by Dumbledores school and his teachers, and
she becomes impatient to make changes.  

The Order of the Phoenix appears to be another pun. 
When one loses his temper his emotions burst into
flame.  When he learns patience, he recovers from the
outburst and returns to his former self.

6.  Sixth book is the Half Blood Prince

Sixth deadly sin is GREED.
Greed is more than the desire for material wealth or
gain.  Greed wants to get its fair share and wants to
get the credit or praise.

Book Theme is Generosity versus Greed.
Generosity means letting others get the credit or
praise.  Generosity is giving without having
expectations of the other person.

Professor Snape wants the job of Defense Against the
Dark Arts Teacher.  He wants to receive praise and
credit for his deeds.  He does not wish others to get
credit or praise.  He especially dislikes Harry using
spells that he created.  He tries to confer a title
upon himself.  The young Tom Riddle greedily steals
the objects of his classmates.  Harry likes to get the
credit or praise that the Half-Blood Princes
potions book has given him.  He must learn not to take
credit for the work of others.

7.  Seventh book title is not yet known.

Last  deadly sin is GLUTTONY
Gluttony is the desire to consume more than one
requires. Temperance accepts natural limits of
pleasures.  This pertains not only to food, but to
entertainment and the company of other people.

Book Theme is Temperance versus Gluttony

Since Professor Slughorn desires the company of other
people too much and he drinks a little too much, he
could become the new DADA teacher and fulfill the role
of gluttony.


Red Eye Randy
Does anyone have any other ideas?


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Feb  5 05:15:11 2006
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 21:15:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re
In-Reply-To: <ds3fiq+mhs7@...>
Message-ID: <20060205051511.74725.qmail@...>

Given a theme of the 7 deadly sins, I took a look at
the end of the first book and the seven tasks....

Task 1:  Three Headed dog...trapdoor....

Pride.....Perhaps you have to get past ME, Myself and
I (or the id, ego, and superego) to overcome pride...

Or it could be that you are baptised with Faith,Hope,
and Love to overcome Pride.

Task 2:  Devil's Snare....does not like sunlight..

Envy....it ensnares you and only loving warmth can
break its hold on you

Task 3:  Winged Keys...Harry flies broom

Sloth...Harry must take action or "take flight" to
find the key to his release from fear

Task 4:   Chess Game  ...Black Queen...White vs Black

Lust...maybe male versus female (Ron vs. Black Queen)
or competition as a way to channel lust?

Task 5:  Sleeping Troll...

Anger...controlled anger is a sleeping troll.  If you
wake him up he likes to destroy things.

Task 6:  Potions Logic Puzzle...

Greed...The desire to take credit or receive
praise...Harry and Hermione complement each other and
neither seeks to get praise for being the better
wizard.  They overcome this desire in the diaglogue.

Task 7:  Mirror of Hearts Desire..Immortality stone

Gluttony... The desire for immortality would be a form
of gluttony.  It is asking for more than one needs.

Red Eye Randy




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid  Sun Feb  5 14:18:16 2006
From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 15:18:16 +0100
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Seven sins for Seven books
In-Reply-To: <20060205042137.92399.qmail@...>
References: <20060205042137.92399.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <200602051518.16836.silmariel@...>

Randy Estes:
> Harry Potter and the Seven Deadlies
>
> There is an ancient poem by Prudentius about the
> ?Battle for the Soul?.  It discusses the seven
> contrary virtues to help someone battle the seven
> deadly sins.  The Harry Potter books are a metaphor
> for this battle for the soul.
>
> 1.  First book is the Philosopher?s stone
>
> First deadly sin is PRIDE
> Pride is excessive belief in one?s abilities.
>

As my understanding of sins can be twisted, feel free to ignore 
contradictions, but I have comments.

>  Pride has overtaken Professor Quirrell.
>

I'd say Pride is more about Snape than about Voldemort. Add to his list of 
wonders (healing song and those details) that he had already managed 
nonverbal magic at the OWLS (green light, btw) as seen in the pensieve. 

Voldemort fits with a lot of sins... greed, gluttony, anger, lust

> 6.  Sixth book is the Half Blood Prince
>
> Sixth deadly sin is GREED.
> Greed is more than the desire for material wealth or
> gain.  Greed wants to get its fair share and wants to
> get the credit or praise.

> Professor Snape wants the job of Defense Against the
> Dark Arts Teacher [...] He does not wish others to get
> credit or praise.  

That I don't know, though I have clear he wished Lockhart didn't have so much 
credit (I can understand that). I think he wouldn't disagree with McGonagall 
being praised, for example.

> He especially dislikes Harry using
> spells that he created.  

No wonder here, if a) he hates(call it whatever you like, if I'd enter in 
subtleties about the Snape/Harry relation, we'd never end) the kid, b) it's 
dark magic, c) he had used it to rip apart another student's body. I haven't 
seen him reacting to someone using a spell that he created in a context that 
can be called positive or neutral (James bullying him I consider also 
negative), that I can recall.

> He tries to confer a title
> upon himself.  

Do not now, either, only that he carried it. I didn't choose my nick, just 
didn't resist it when it was given to me, and I could have, given its meaning 
is pretty pompous. Tolkien fans can correct me, but I think it means 'the one 
who shines with white and silver light', or with such intention was 
constructed.

> The young Tom Riddle greedily steals
> the objects of his classmates.  Harry likes to get the
> credit or praise that the ?Half-Blood Prince?s?
> potions book has given him.  He must learn not to take
> credit for the work of others.
>

Draco is greedy for social outstanding (even if it only is between the DE), 
though his 'reedeming the family' motivations have also to be considered and 
he clearly changes his perspective during book, but he starts as a 'want to 
shine and be praised' character.

> 7.  Seventh book title is not yet known.
>
> Last  deadly sin is GLUTTONY
> Gluttony is the desire to consume more than one
> requires. Temperance accepts natural limits of
> pleasures.  This pertains not only to food, but to
> entertainment and the company of other people.
>

Mmm don't know yours, but my stereotype of dragon includes raiding towns in 
search of tons of food and having a gold mountain as a bed. Can work for both 
greed and gluttony.

Silmariel



From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Feb  5 17:13:50 2006
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 09:13:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd]
In-Reply-To: <20060205042137.92399.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <20060205171350.2418.qmail@...>



Harry Potter and The Seven Corporal Works of Mercy

This is from Medieval catechisms

1.	Feed the Hungry  -  Harry, Ron, Hermione give food
to Sirius outside of Hogsmeade
2.	Give Drink to the Thirsty  Harry gives Felix
Felicitis to Hogwarts kids (Ginny, Ron, Hermione) to
protect them
3.	Give Shelter to Strangers  Slughorn is offered a
home at Hogwarts
4.	Clothe the Naked - Harry offers a sock to Dobby
5.	Visit the Sick - Harry, Ron, Hermione visit St.
Mungos
6.	Minister to Prisoners - Harry frees Sirius and
Peter
7.	Bury the Dead  - Harry brings back Cedrics body to
Hogwarts



Randy

Any other ideas?
You can look this stuff up on internet if you search
for the Seven Deadly sins.
--- Randy Estes <estesrandy at ...> wrote:

> It seems that this message did not post an hour ago?
> 
> Harry Potter and the Seven Deadlies
> 
> There is an ancient poem by Prudentius about the
> Battle for the Soul.  It discusses the seven
> contrary virtues to help someone battle the seven
> deadly sins.  The Harry Potter books are a metaphor
> for this battle for the soul.
> 
snip

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sun Feb  5 20:55:57 2006
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 20:55:57 -0000
Subject: theory of Seven /  Mirror of Erised
Message-ID: <ds5oot+8qtn@...>

Hey, Randy, cool theorizing about 7 Deadly Sins for 7 books. The 7
Heavenly Vvirtues are the 3 theological virtues, Faith, Hope, and
Charity (Love) and 4 Cardinal Virtues, temperance, prudence, justice,
fortitude. I checked Wikipedia, which tells me that: "The cardinal
virtues are distinguished from the capital virtues. The capital
virtues are often paired with the much more widely known capital (or
"deadly") sins. The capital virtues are: humility, liberality,
brotherly love, meekness, chastity, temperance, and diligence. The
capital sins, sometimes called the "seven deadly sins," are pride,
avarice (greed), envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth."

Talisman wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3876 :

<< Later, Harry sees his parents in the Mirror of Erised (209).  
Now he knows how they look. (Note: apparently the Mirror shows a true
form of your heart's desire, because Harry's parents' mirror images
conform to what he later sees in albums, penseives and smokey wand
regurgitations, etc.) >>

We know that the Mirror of Erised can read your mind (or your heart,
if your heart is not part of your mind) because it discovers what is
your heart's desire. If it can read Harry's mind/heart, it can plucK
from there forgotten baby memories of the appearance of his parents
(no one doubts that he did see his parents while a baby) to use in
making its picture, while inventing all the other relatives.
Irrelevantly, logically Sirius should been in the picture: he was
around baby Harry enough.







From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid  Sun Feb  5 02:25:13 2006
From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145)
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 02:25:13 -0000
Subject: Ultimate Horcrux
Message-ID: <ds3nm9+bp4l@...>



Not much time (since Dad has been on the verge of "the next great 
adventure") to ponder my most recent thought provoking recovery re-
reading old posts (when I don't have time)
 so I'll just put it out 
there raw and underdeveloped. 

Dumbledore has been said to have vanquished the Dark Lord Grindlewald 
via canon, and verified to be indeed dead by JKR in the most recent 
of interviews. If Dumbledore did kill Grindlewald, did this split his 
soul? 

Dumbledore is also aware of Horcruxes, did he use the death of 
Grindlewald to make a Horcrux by way of a Phoenix?
A Phoenix named Fawkes? Could this be why Voldemort fears Dumbledore, 
Dumbledore can't die via the Horcrux-Fawkes? 

My thoughts go on and on
my time however doesn't. 

Sincerely,

Snow








From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Feb  5 03:32:30 2006
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 03:32:30 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and the Seven Deadlies
Message-ID: <ds3rke+fvnh@...>

I came to a conclusion about the books this weekend.  I can now 
understand why JKR is confused about the attacks on her books by the 
Christian conservatives.  They just don't get it...

You may not agree with the following assessment.  I welcome your 
ideas and comments.  JKR has said many times that there will be only 
seven books.  I kept thinking about the number seven and finally came 
up with this series of ideas.

Harry Potter and the Seven Deadlies

There is an ancient poem by Prudentius about the "Battle for the 
Soul".  It discusses the seven contrary virtues to help someone 
battle the seven deadly sins.  The Harry Potter books are a metaphor 
for this battle for the soul.

1.  First book is the Philosopher's stone

First deadly sin is PRIDE
Pride is excessive belief in one's abilities.

Book Theme:  Humility versus Pride
Humility is seeing ourselves as we are instead of comparing ourselves 
to others.

Harry must look into the Mirror of Erised and see himself as he truly 
is.  He must remain humble and not seek to become Immortal.  Lord 
Voldemort is filled with pride in his abilities and he does seek 
immortality.  He desires to be the greatest wizard of all time. He 
thinks: "there is no good and evil, there is only power and those too 
weak to seek it
"  Perhaps pride is that evil voice in the back of 
your head! ;0)  Pride has overtaken Professor Quirrell.

2. Second book is the Chamber of Secrets

Second deadly sin is ENVY
Envy is the desire for other's traits

Book Theme is Love versus Envy

"Love is kind".  Love actively seeks the good of others for their 
sake.  Envy resents the good others receive or even might receive.

The innermost desires of a person are often said to lie inside his 
heart.  If the person keeps his desires secret, he tends to lock them 
in his chamber of secrets.  A diary can contain the innermost secrets 
of a person.  Ginny had secret desires for Harry which she kept 
inside and wrote into Tom Riddle's diary. She locked her desires 
inside her chamber of secrets (ie. She had a locked heart)

Professor Lockhart (locked heart) is envious of the deeds of others.  
He steals their achievements by stealing their memories and writing 
books about their deeds as if they were his.  Professor Lockhart is 
filled with envy.

3. Third book is the Prisoner of Azkaban

Third deadly sin is SLOTH.
Sloth can be spiritual sloth which is related to Sadness and a 
feeling of not caring about doing things.

Book Theme is Zeal versus Sloth.

Professor Lupin appears to let his extreme sadness make him slow to 
act.  He seems to act sometimes like he does not care about things. 
Harry must overcome his fears and learn to take action.  He cannot 
wait for someone else to drive the Dementors away from Sirius at the 
lake.  He must act himself and not remain a prisoner of his own fears!

4. Fourth book is the Goblet of Fire.

Fourth deadly sin is LUST.
Lust is the inordinate craving of pleasures of the body.

Book Theme is Self Control versus Lust.

In this book Harry has desires for Cho Chang and he is jealous of 
Cedric Diggory when Cedric gets to take Cho to the Tri-Wizard Ball.  
Durmstrang is an exaggeration of male virility with Victor Krum 
representing excellence in athletic ability.  The boys of Hogwarts 
all swoon when the ladies of  Beaux Batons enter the room because 
they represent an exaggeration of female beauty.  Ron lusts after 
Fleur, and he feels jealous that Victor Krum shows interest in 
Hermione.  Hagrid shows amorous desires for Madame Maxime.

Lord Voldemort craves the body he does not have yet.  He lusts for 
the pleasures of the body.  Mad Eye Moody is definitely moody and ill 
tempered like a teenager dealing with his inner lust.  He has the mad 
eye that watches everything and keeps his true self locked up inside 
a trunk.  It seems like the "madman" has escaped like in Dr. Jekyll 
and Mr. Hyde. 

5. Fifth Book is the Order of the Phoenix.

Fifth deadly sin is ANGER.
An individual spurns love and opts for anger. Impatience with the 
faults of others is related to this, and anger is often our first 
reaction to the problems of others.

Book Theme is Patience versus Anger.

Harry is very angry with Dumbledore at the end of the book.  Sirius 
and Snape are very angry with each other and impatient with each 
others faults.  Sirius becomes impatient and wants to act.  Harry is 
impatient and wants to save Sirius at the Ministry.  Harry must 
endure punishment from Umbridge for his outbursts in class.  He must 
learn patience. Professor Umbride is angered by Dumbledore's school 
and his teachers, and she becomes impatient to make changes.  

The Order of the Phoenix appears to be another pun.  When one loses 
his temper his emotions burst into flame.  When he learns patience, 
he recovers from the outburst and returns to his former self.

6.  Sixth book is the Half Blood Prince

Sixth deadly sin is GREED.
Greed is more than the desire for material wealth or gain.  Greed 
wants to get its fair share and wants to get the credit or praise.

Book Theme is Generosity versus Greed.
Generosity means letting others get the credit or praise.  Generosity 
is giving without having expectations of the other person.

Professor Snape wants the job of Defense Against the Dark Arts 
Teacher.  He wants to receive praise and credit for his deeds.  He 
does not wish others to get credit or praise.  He especially dislikes 
Harry using spells that he created.  He tries to confer a title upon 
himself.  The young Tom Riddle greedily steals the objects of his 
classmates.  Harry likes to get the credit or praise that the "Half-
Blood Prince's" potions book has given him.  He must learn not to 
take credit for the work of others.

7.  Seventh book title is not yet known.

Last  deadly sin is GLUTTONY
Gluttony is the desire to consume more than one requires. Temperance 
accepts natural limits of pleasures.  This pertains not only to food, 
but to entertainment and the company of other people.

Book Theme is Temperance versus Gluttony

Since Professor Slughorn desires the company of other people too much 
and he drinks a little too much, he could become the new DADA teacher 
and fulfill the role of gluttony.

Red Eye Randy

Does anyone have any other ideas?








From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Feb  5 04:48:04 2006
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 20:48:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Harry Potter and the Seven Deadlies
In-Reply-To: <ds3fiq+mhs7@...>
Message-ID: <20060205044804.59848.qmail@...>

By the way, I forgot to mention that the "Goblet of
Fire" is a metaphor for lust which can be channeled to
give us the drive to compete.

Randy



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb  7 03:19:33 2006
From: coriolan at coriolan_cmc.yahoo.invalid (Caius Marcius)
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 03:19:33 -0000
Subject: Ultimate Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <ds3nm9+bp4l@...>
Message-ID: <ds93k5+nhiv@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" <kking0731 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Not much time (since Dad has been on the verge of "the next great 
> adventure") to ponder my most recent thought provoking recovery re-
> reading old posts (when I don't have time)
 so I'll just put it out 
> there raw and underdeveloped. 
> 
> Dumbledore has been said to have vanquished the Dark Lord 
Grindlewald 
> via canon, and verified to be indeed dead by JKR in the most recent 
> of interviews. If Dumbledore did kill Grindlewald, did this split 
his 
> soul? 
> 


The Hebrew commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is improperly 
translated - it should read "Thou shalt not murder" - or more 
idiomatically, "Don't murder!"  Hebrew scripture distinguishes 
murder, which is unacceptable, from killing, which is the acceptable 
taking of a life under certain sanctioned conditions:  the execution 
of a condemned criminal, the sacrifice of a ritually purified animal, 
or the taking of an enemy's life on the battlefield.  "Killing" is 
legally allowed as a way to strengthen and protect the 
community; "Murder" is a method through which an individual advances 
a radically selfish agenda, taking a life to further that 
individual's purpose, and thus lacks social sanction.

In HBP we read:

"How do you split your soul?"

"Well," said Slughorn uncomfortably, "you must understand that the 
soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act 
of violation, it is against nature."

"But how do you do it?"

"By an act of evil ? the supreme act of evil. By commiting murder. 
Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a 
Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: He would encase the 
torn portion ?"

Slughorn defines the supreme act of evil as "murder," but muddies 
things up for the would-be interpreter by going on to speak 
of "killing" in the next sentence. But I'll still interpret this as 
referring to those acts of "killing" which meet the legal criteria 
for "murder."

Surely, to evoke a hypothetical situation, an Auror who killed a 
Death Eater who was about to bring bodily harm to a number of 
defenseless children would not suffer the same spiritual damage as a 
Tom Riddle who decides to kill a wealthy old woman to obtain precious 
heirlooms that were in her possession.

   - CMC







From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb  7 19:50:39 2006
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:50:39 -0000
Subject: Taking a break
In-Reply-To: <drvn24+p2qg@...>
Message-ID: <dsatmf+o0ti@...>

Troels Forchhammer said:
> With the permission of the list members, I would like to remain 
> officially a member of this list, but to not receive e-mails. 
> That way I can merely edit my membership when a surplus time and
> enthusiasm does 
> once more manifest itself. 

Do we need permission for that?  I was assuming it was totally up to 
each member as to whether he or she wanted to read posts as digests, 
individual emails, on webview, or not at all.

-- Judy










From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb  7 19:55:19 2006
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:55:19 -0000
Subject: Taking a break
In-Reply-To: <drvn24+p2qg@...>
Message-ID: <dsatv7+10ltl@...>

Troels Forchhammer said:
> With the permission of the list members, I would like to remain 
> officially a member of this list, but to not receive e-mails. 
> That way I can merely edit my membership when a surplus time and
> enthusiasm does 
> once more manifest itself. 

Do we need permission for that?  I was assuming it was totally up to 
each member as to whether he or she wanted to read posts as digests, 
individual emails, on webview, or not at all.

-- Judy










From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb  7 20:03:20 2006
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 20:03:20 -0000
Subject: Racist Gryffindor?
In-Reply-To: <dro4e3+pgkk@...>
Message-ID: <dsaue8+bnng@...>

Pippin wrote:
> 'Said Gryffindor, "We'll teach all those with brave deeds to their
> name"' --Hat Song, OOP ch 11.
> I  used to wonder how many eleven year olds had brave deeds to 
> their name. But perhaps I was taking it a little too figuratively. 
> Names, after all, are inherited. Perhaps Gryffindor considered 
> courage in the same way as Slytherin considered magical power -- 
> passed down in families.

Oh, I think eleven-year olds could do brave deeds.  They could stand 
up to a bully that was either picking on them or on another child -- 
I'd say Harry has a history of doing this.  They could speak up for 
what they believe in. They could try to help a wounded animal, even 
if it was so afraid that it tried to bite them.  (Don't try this at 
home, kids!) 

In Book One, we see the Trio doing a bunch of brave things, from 
standing up to Draco to battling a troll.  Obviously, trolls are in 
short supply in the world of most eleven-year-olds, but bullies sadly 
aren't. 

-- Judy, who is sorry for her previous double-post, and is wondering 
when her earlier post about Horcruxes will ever show up.  Bad 
Yahoomort!!







From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb  7 19:46:32 2006
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:46:32 -0000
Subject: Ultimate Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <ds93k5+nhiv@...>
Message-ID: <dsateo+55ue@...>

Hello, all.  For months, I was too busy to post here, and then felt 
like I'd never have time to read all the new posts.  So, I've decided 
to just jump in and and start replying to recent posts.

I've missed you guys!!!

Snow said:
> Not much time (since Dad has been on the verge of "the next great 
> adventure") to ponder my most recent thought provoking recovery re-
> reading old posts ....
> Dumbledore is also aware of Horcruxes, did he use the death of 
> Grindlewald to make a Horcrux by way of a Phoenix?....

Snow, I am very sorry to hear about your father. It was very tough 
when I lost my mother, but I have hope that there is an afterlife and 
that I will see her again someday. 

As for Dumbledore creating a Horcrux, I think that is totally out of 
character for him.  Dumbledore felt that Horcruxes are so evil that 
students should not be told about them. (Harry is a special case, 
obviously, since he has no choice but to confront Horcruxes, and has 
destroyed one already.)  In the Pensieve, we see Slughorn telling Tom 
Riddle, "People wouldn't like to think that we've been chatting about 
Horcruxes.  It's a banned subject at Hogwarts, you know.... 
Dumbledore's particularly fierce about it...."

Slughorn also says that "Death would be preferable" to the limited 
existence provided by a Horcrux; "very few" would want to exist in 
that form.  Only someone with Voldemort's intense fear of death would 
want to make a Horcrux, I think. We know that Dumbledore had no fear 
of death, "the next great adventure."  I can't believe that 
Dumbledore would make a Horcrux. Also, I think Fawkes' mourning 
at Dumbledore's death is sincere; Fawkes is presented as pure, even 
holy, and so dishonesty is out of character for him. 

My belief is that Dumbledore really did die, and he did so willingly. 
JKR is very big on the idea of a willing sacrifice.

As for whether Dumbledore *could* have made a Horcrux after killing 
Grindewald, I'm with Caius here.  I think only a clearly immoral 
killing splits the soul, and I suspect that the death of Grindewald 
was not at all in that category.  

OK, the rest of this is rather off-topic:

Caius Marcius said:
> The Hebrew commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is improperly 
> translated - it should read "Thou shalt not murder" - or more 
> idiomatically, "Don't murder!"  Hebrew scripture distinguishes 
> murder, which is unacceptable, from killing, which is the 
> acceptable taking of a life under certain sanctioned conditions...

The Hebrew commandment here reads (after vowels are added), "lo 
tirtzach."  "Lo" is easy to translate -- it means "no" 
or "don't." "Tirtzach" is more difficult; many people translate it 
here as "murder," but in other contexts, it seems to mean "kill" or 
even "shed blood."  

In general, knowing the exact meaning of the original Hebrew 
scriptures is very difficult.  So much time has elapsed that in some 
cases, there is difficultly figuring out whether the version that has 
come down to us was the original.  An even bigger problem is that the 
original Hebrew was written without any vowels.  Semitic languages 
such as Hebrew and Arabic are based on roots of three consonants, to 
which vowels are added to produce words with different, but related, 
meanings. So, the root M-L-Ch, which shows up a lot in Hebrew 
prayers, can mean king, kingdom, majesty, has ruled, will rule, etc.  
Context must be used to infer which vowels, and therefore which 
meaning, were intended. So, it's possible that the root used in the 
commandment "lo tirtzach" actually means something different when it 
appears again in the Scriptures, even if it is spelled the same.  
Bottom line:  I don't think we can tell if "lo tirtzach" means "Don't 
Kill" or "Don't Murder."

-- Judy






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Wed Feb  8 00:55:34 2006
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (Neri)
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:55:34 -0000
Subject: Ultimate Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <dsateo+55ue@...>
Message-ID: <dsbfi6+aaci@...>


> Caius Marcius said:
> > The Hebrew commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is improperly 
> > translated - it should read "Thou shalt not murder" - or more 
> > idiomatically, "Don't murder!"  Hebrew scripture distinguishes 
> > murder, which is unacceptable, from killing, which is the 
> > acceptable taking of a life under certain sanctioned conditions...

> Judy:
> The Hebrew commandment here reads (after vowels are added), "lo 
> tirtzach."  "Lo" is easy to translate -- it means "no" 
> or "don't." "Tirtzach" is more difficult; many people translate it 
> here as "murder," but in other contexts, it seems to mean "kill" or 
> even "shed blood."  
> 
> In general, knowing the exact meaning of the original Hebrew 
> scriptures is very difficult.  So much time has elapsed that in some 
> cases, there is difficultly figuring out whether the version that has 
> come down to us was the original.  An even bigger problem is that the 
> original Hebrew was written without any vowels.  Semitic languages 
> such as Hebrew and Arabic are based on roots of three consonants, to 
> which vowels are added to produce words with different, but related, 
> meanings. So, the root M-L-Ch, which shows up a lot in Hebrew 
> prayers, can mean king, kingdom, majesty, has ruled, will rule, etc.  
> Context must be used to infer which vowels, and therefore which 
> meaning, were intended. So, it's possible that the root used in the 
> commandment "lo tirtzach" actually means something different when it 
> appears again in the Scriptures, even if it is spelled the same.  
> Bottom line:  I don't think we can tell if "lo tirtzach" means "Don't 
> Kill" or "Don't Murder."
> 

Neri:
To my best knowledge as a Hebrew speaker, the root R-TZ-CH (that is
used in the commandment `Loh tirtzach") *always* means "murderer" or
"to murder" and *never* killing that isn't murder. At least I'm
certain about that in regard to modern Hebrew, slightly less so in
regard to biblical Hebrew since I'm hardly an expert. However, check
for example Numbers 35 which defines precisely, according to the
ancient Israelite law, the difference between murder and manslaughter.
At least in the New King James Translation I checked here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=35&version=50

"murderer" is consistently translated from "RoTZeaCH", while
"manslayer" is translated from "makeh nefesh" (literally: one who
strikes a soul) or alternatively from "makeh nefesh bishgaga" (one who
strikes a soul by mistake). So while I definitely agree that it's
frequently difficult to interpret Hebrew scripture, and that Semitic
roots often have several meanings, in this specific case CMC is quite
right: "Loh tirtzach" means precisely "do not murder".

Neri 








From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Wed Feb  8 01:58:15 2006
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (Neri)
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 01:58:15 -0000
Subject: Ultimate Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <dsbfi6+aaci@...>
Message-ID: <dsbj7n+fais@...>


> 
> Neri:
> <snip>However, check
> for example Numbers 35 which defines precisely, according to the
> ancient Israelite law, the difference between murder and manslaughter.
> At least in the New King James Translation I checked here:
> 
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=35&version=50
> 
> "murderer" is consistently translated from "RoTZeaCH", while
> "manslayer" is translated from "makeh nefesh" (literally: one who
> strikes a soul) or alternatively from "makeh nefesh bishgaga" (one who
> strikes a soul by mistake). 

Neri adds:
Also, note in this very same chapter, whenever discussing the
punishment of the murderer the King James Translation writes "The
avenger of blood himself shall put the murderer to death", which is
translated from the original Hebrew words "yamith eth ha-RoTZeaCH"
(literally: "will kill the murderer" and *not* "will murder the
murderer"). So the ancient Israelite law makes a very clear
distinction between murder, manslaughter and execution. Each has a
different root and only murder is ever referred to with the root R-TZ-CH.

Neri   







From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid  Wed Feb  8 02:14:44 2006
From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (Kathy King)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:14:44 -0500
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Ultimate Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <dsateo+55ue@...>
References: <ds93k5+nhiv@...> <dsateo+55ue@...>
Message-ID: <a1ee8d580602071814i6c6c45cdgf22a35e51ad87942@...>

  CMC:



The Hebrew commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is improperly
translated - it should read "Thou shalt not murder" - or more
idiomatically, "Don't murder!"  Hebrew scripture distinguishes
murder, which is unacceptable, from killing, which is the acceptable
taking of a life under certain sanctioned conditions:  the execution
of a condemned criminal, the sacrifice of a ritually purified animal,
or the taking of an enemy's life on the battlefield.  "Killing" is
legally allowed as a way to strengthen and protect the
community; "Murder" is a method through which an individual advances
a radically selfish agenda, taking a life to further that
individual's purpose, and thus lacks social sanction.

In HBP we read:

"How do you split your soul?"

"Well," said Slughorn uncomfortably, "you must understand that the
soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act
of violation, it is against nature."

"But how do you do it?"

"By an act of evil ? the supreme act of evil. By commiting murder.
Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a
Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: He would encase the
torn portion ?"

Slughorn defines the supreme act of evil as "murder," but muddies
things up for the would-be interpreter by going on to speak
of "killing" in the next sentence. But I'll still interpret this as
referring to those acts of "killing" which meet the legal criteria
for "murder."

Surely, to evoke a hypothetical situation, an Auror who killed a
Death Eater who was about to bring bodily harm to a number of
defenseless children would not suffer the same spiritual damage as a
Tom Riddle who decides to kill a wealthy old woman to obtain precious
heirlooms that were in her possession.


Snow:



Yes, of course you're correct and you explained it very well. My mind set
(when thinking of this) was more toward the order that Dumbledore had
dabbled in a bit of immortality himself with Flammel in making the elixir.  He
also had some potions-ala-dragon-blood discoveries. I am a bit curious as to
how saintly Dumbledore actually is considering his
previous?umm?accomplishments.



Then there is always Dumbledore's heartfelt statement to Tom; in the DOM
that there are things worse than death, which I instantly felt was from
personal experience. This, of course, could be about someone close to him
although I lean towards personal experience.



Something else that I wrote about, on the old list some time ago, that
remains a puzzlement to me is, in short, the way that Harry felt when he saw
and heard Fawkes and the Phoenix song and how this feeling progressed to
include that same feeling when Harry saw Dumbledore at his underage-magic
full-wizangamot hearing. The relationship between Dumbledore and Fawkes is
indeed questioning (considering the escape from his office in OOP) along
with the two feathers that miraculously found their way into the appropriate
wands.



You are More than likely correct that the Barmy Old Codger had remained
whole-hearted in his defeat of Grindlewald but I still feel a bit uneasy
about Dumbledore's past (and past endeavors) when we actually know less
about him than Lupin.



Snow


P.S. I noticed as I was about to post this that there were further response
and wanted to add quickly to Judy that I thank you for your concern for me
over my Dad's condition, I can assure you that we both feel it is the next
great adventure but getting there can be less than great and time is limited
in more than one way. My escapism to all of this however, appears to be
Potter, which is something to think about considering that the whole epic
deals with death.


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




From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Wed Feb  8 04:51:35 2006
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 04:51:35 -0000
Subject: OT:  The Fifth Commandment
In-Reply-To: <dsbfi6+aaci@...>
Message-ID: <dsbtcn+aamh@...>

Neri said:
> To my best knowledge as a Hebrew speaker, the root R-TZ-CH (that is
> used in the commandment `Loh tirtzach") *always* means "murderer" or
> "to murder" and *never* killing that isn't murder. At least I'm
> certain about that in regard to modern Hebrew, slightly less so in
> regard to biblical Hebrew since I'm hardly an expert...
> in this specific case CMC is quite
> right: "Loh tirtzach" means precisely "do not murder".

Ah!  I forgot that we had a Hebrew speaker here!  Neri, I certainly 
accept your word for it that in modern Hebrew, the root R-TZ-CH 
always refers to murder. 

I'm not ready to concede defeat when it comes to Biblical Hebrew, 
though.  The same chapter of Numbers uses "yirtzach" as the word 
meaning "to execute" or "put to death" a murderer. (Numbers 
35:30: "Lefi eidim yirtzach et ha-rotzei'ach.")  This passage is 
usually translated as saying that a murderer should be put to death.  
But if R-TZ-CH always means murder, then Numbers 35:30 would say that 
a murderer should be *murdered*, and that certainly doesn't sound 
right. 

Also, Numbers 35:27 uses R-TZ-CH to refer to someone who gets revenge 
by killing a murderer, and says that this avenger is not guilty "of 
blood."  So, it seems that this act of revenge isn't considered 
murder, yet the word used to refer to the killing is R-TZ-CH, same as 
in the Fifth Commandment. (See 
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1139373303-1477.html )

However, I will definitely concede that most translators agree with  
you and CMC, and consider the Fifth Commandment as refering 
specifically to murder.

-- Judy











From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Wed Feb  8 20:00:46 2006
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (Neri)
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 20:00:46 -0000
Subject: OT:  The Fifth Commandment
In-Reply-To: <dsbtcn+aamh@...>
Message-ID: <dsdile+jgj3@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" <judy at ...> wrote:
>
> Neri said:
> > To my best knowledge as a Hebrew speaker, the root R-TZ-CH (that 
is
> > used in the commandment `Loh tirtzach") *always* means "murderer" 
or
> > "to murder" and *never* killing that isn't murder. At least I'm
> > certain about that in regard to modern Hebrew, slightly less so in
> > regard to biblical Hebrew since I'm hardly an expert...
> > in this specific case CMC is quite
> > right: "Loh tirtzach" means precisely "do not murder".
> 
> Ah!  I forgot that we had a Hebrew speaker here!  Neri, I certainly 
> accept your word for it that in modern Hebrew, the root R-TZ-CH 
> always refers to murder. 
> 
> I'm not ready to concede defeat when it comes to Biblical Hebrew, 
> though.  The same chapter of Numbers uses "yirtzach" as the word 
> meaning "to execute" or "put to death" a murderer. (Numbers 
> 35:30: "Lefi eidim yirtzach et ha-rotzei'ach.")  This passage is 
> usually translated as saying that a murderer should be put to 
death.  
> But if R-TZ-CH always means murder, then Numbers 35:30 would say 
that 
> a murderer should be *murdered*, and that certainly doesn't sound 
> right. 
> 
> Also, Numbers 35:27 uses R-TZ-CH to refer to someone who gets 
revenge 
> by killing a murderer, and says that this avenger is not guilty "of 
> blood."  So, it seems that this act of revenge isn't considered 
> murder, yet the word used to refer to the killing is R-TZ-CH, same 
as 
> in the Fifth Commandment. (See 
> http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1139373303-
1477.html )
> 
> However, I will definitely concede that most translators agree 
with  
> you and CMC, and consider the Fifth Commandment as refering 
> specifically to murder.
> 
> -- Judy
>
Neri:
Hmm, these are indeed two counter-examples I didn't notice. All I can 
say is that throughout most of this chapter execution is definitely 
referred to with the root M-V-TH ("yamith" or "yumath", correctly 
translated "put to the death") while murder is referred to with the 
root R-ZH-CH. I don't presume to interpret the two exceptions you 
mentioned, but they both seem to be rather subtle legal points, so 
maybe they indeed refer to cases of one murderer murdering the other? 
For example, "ein lo dam" (literally: he has no blood) might mean 
that someone who kills a runaway convicted murderer is still a 
murderer himself, yet the relations of the dead must not avenge the 
blood. That would be in line with the whole point of this chapter, 
which is doing away with blood feuds by introducing the revolutionary 
concept (at that time) of an official justice system.

I'd also point out that if the Fifth Commandment was also supposed to 
mean "do not execute" then it would be in obvious contradiction with 
the above chapter and many other laws in the Tora that definitely 
permit (or rather demand) execution for the gravest crimes. Of course 
this isn't saying much, since for almost any given argument in the 
Bible it's possible to find another that contradict it <g>.

Neri    








From dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid  Wed Feb  8 20:44:37 2006
From: dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid (Eustace_Scrubb)
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 20:44:37 -0000
Subject: [the_old_crowd]
In-Reply-To: <20060205042137.92399.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <dsdl7l+m2nb@...>

Randy wrote lots of interesting stuff about:

> Harry Potter and the Seven Deadlies
> 
> There is an ancient poem by Prudentius about the
> "Battle for the Soul".  It discusses the seven
> contrary virtues to help someone battle the seven
> deadly sins.  The Harry Potter books are a metaphor
> for this battle for the soul.

Eustace_Scrubb replies:

I wonder, though...as I understand it, the 7 sins are arranged in
increasing order of seriousness, starting with gluttony and working up
to pride.  If we try to equate one of the sins with each of the HP
series, I'd be inclined to try to line them up accordingly--which
would tie Pride with the forthcoming 7th book rather than PS/SS.

Just a thought that I can't develop further right now...maybe later!

Cheers,

Eustace_Scrubb







From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb 10 18:56:00 2006
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:56:00 -0000
Subject: My opening arguments- lots of canon (long)
Message-ID: <dsink0+ma9n@...>

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I present my opening arguments 
regarding the 7 deadly sins as the themes of the Harry Potter book 
series
.


1.  PRIDE /VANITY

First sentence of Book One:
p.1
"Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were `PROUD" to 
say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much."

p.13  (pride discussed)
"
every child in our world will know his name!"
"Exactly," said Dumbledore, looking very seriously over the top of 
his half-moon glasses.  "It would be enough to turn any boy's head."

Dumbledore does not want Harry to have too much pride in his 
abilities at too young an age.

p. 30
"Yet sometimes he thought (or maybe hoped) that strangers in the 
street seemed to know him. "

Seeing ourselves as we are and not comparing ourselves to others is 
Humility.  Harry needs humility to see himself properly in the Mirror 
of Erised and retrieve the stone.

p.308
""People jostled them as they moved forward toward the gateway back 
to the Muggle world.  Some of them called:
"Bye, Harry!'
`See you, Potter!'
`Still famous,' said Ron, grinning at him
`Not where I'm going, I promise you,' said Harry.
He, Ron, and Hermione passed through the gateway together.  `There he 
is, Mom, there he is, look!'
It was Ginny Weasley, Ron's younger sister, but she wasn't pointing 
at Ron.
"Harry Potter!" she squealed. "Look, Mom! I can see-"
"Be quiet, Ginny, and it's rude to point."

This notoriety would like to excessive Pride (Vanity) and that is why 
Harry must go back to the Dursley's.  Ginny seems in awe of Harry and 
perhaps she wants to be like him.  Could she be envious of him?

2.  ENVY

Book Two:
p.10  (envy discussed)
"Wish they could see famous Harry Potter now, he thought savagely
"

After Lockhart gets his picture taken with Harry and gives him free 
books, Draco shows his envy.  Envy resents the good others receive or 
even might receive.

p. 61
"Bet you loved that, didn't you, Potter?" said a voice Harry had no 
trouble recognizing.  He straightened up and found himself face-to-
face with Draco Malfoy, who was wearing his usual sneer.
"Famous Harry Potter," said Malfoy.  "Can't even go into a bookshop 
without making the front page."


To wish to be like someone else. Harry and Ron turn into Crabbe and 
Goyle.  Tom 
Riddle wants to be like than Slytherin. Argus Filch is envious of the 
Wizards at Hogwarts because he is just a Squib. (p. 142) 

3.  SLOTH

Book Three:
p.15  (sloth discussed)
"Deciding that he'd worry about the Hogsmeade form when he woke up. 
Harry got back into bed
"

In the above sentence, Harry demonstrates a little sloth. But finally 
takes action when pushed by Aunt Marge.

p.28
"He ?didn't work," said Uncle Vernon, with half a glance at 
Harry. `Unemployed.'
`As I expected!' said Aunt Marge, taking a huge swig of brandy and 
wiping her chin on her sleeve. ` A no-account, good-for-nothing, lazy 
scrounger who-`"

This argument (and the Aunt Marge inflation incident) leads Harry to 
take action and leave the Dursleys.

4.  LUST

Book Four:  (lust metaphors)
Chapters One and Two:
Harry awakes from a bad dream (which involves snakes and a discussion 
of a woman who had been kidnapped and killed) with his scar hurting.  
He is afraid to tell anyone about the dream.  He does feel that he 
can tell Sirius Black about his scar hurting but does not get up the 
courage to talk about his dream.

Okay, this is a stretch, but it could be a 14 year old boy waking up 
from his first wet dream and being afraid to talk about it to 
anyone.  Voldemort lusts after a body.  A large snake is curled up in 
front of a warm fire.  Bertha Jorkins kidnapped and killed.  Later in 
the book we meet beautiful women from Beauxbatons and athletic men 
from Durmstrang.  The teenagers from Hogwarts are in lust!



5.  ANGER

Book Five:
Chapter One:
p. 13 (anger discussed)
It gave Harry enormous satisfaction to know how furious he was making 
Dudley; he felt as though he was siphoning off his own frustration 
into his cousin, the only outlet he had."

An argument between Dudley and Harry ensues and almost leads to a 
fight when the Dementors show up.

Later in the chapter on p. 19 Mrs Figg says: "I'm going to kill 
Mundugus Fletcher!"

This book is filled with anger.  Professor Umbridge (umbrage means 
anger) gets angry at the students, the teachers, and Dumbledore.  
Harry gets angry at Dumbledore.  Sirius and Snape are angry at each 
other.  Anger comes from impatience.  Sirius is impatient, and Harry 
becomes impatient to rescue Sirius at the MOM.  The Order of the 
Phoenix is a symbol of the flaming of emotion that is anger which 
returns to calm and rebirth of the old self.

The book even ends with a threat of a fight!

p. 869
"Yeah, if we get any hint that Potter's been mistreated in any way, 
you'll have us to answer to," said Moody.
Uncle Vernon swelled ominously.  His sense of outrage seemed to 
outweigh even his fear of this bunch of oddballs.
"Are you threatening me, sir?" he said , so loudly that passersby 
actually turned to stare.




6.  GREED (in terms of wanting to get the credit and praise and more!)

Book Six:
Snape and Bellatrix argue about who should have the highest status 
with the Dark Lord.
p. 29 
"He shares everything with me!" said Bellatrix, firing up at 
once. `He calls me his most loyal, his most faithful-"

p. 34 
Narcissa tries to convince Snape to help her and Draco:
"You could do it. You could do it instead of Draco, Severus.  You 
would succeed, of course you would, and he would reward you beyond 
all of us-"

Harry likes the fame that the HBP potions book gets him.  Young Tom 
Riddle greedily wants all the special objects of the other kids at 
the orphanage.   

Draco is worried that Snape wants to get credit for killing 
Dumbledore instead of him.

Later on, the Ministry of Magic wishes to get credit for doing a good 
job against Voldemort by using Harry's name as a consultant.

p. 649
"So," said Scrimgeour, his voice cold now, "the request I made of you 
at Christmas-"
"What request? Oh yeah
the one where I tell the world what a great 
job you're doing in exchange for-"
"-for raising everyone's morale!" snapped Scrimgeour.

Scrimgeour still wants to get the credit and praise!

7.  GLUTTONY

This book has not been written yet, but we know it deals with 
Voldemort's desire for immortality which is truly being a glutton for 
life! 


Red Eye Randy closes his opening statements and awaits the defense 
attorneys replies.







From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb 10 19:47:50 2006
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:47:50 -0000
Subject: Seven bottles versus Seven players
Message-ID: <dsiql6+ktd7@...>

Quidditch has seven players on one team:  

One Keeper   

Someone in charge of other people. ( I am my brother's keeper)

"Keeper" means a person in possession or control of a dog or other 
animal. A person becomes the keeper of a stray domesticated animal, 
other than a dog or livestock, if the person feeds that animal for at 
least 10 consecutive days

The hardware which mates with a lock mechanism.


One Seeker 

Anyone searching for spiritual truth in any form.


Two Beaters  

A beater is a worker who rouses wild game from under cover for a 
hunter.

A beater is an everyday use car such as a Ford Anglia that has seen 
better days. ;0)


Three Chasers  

Bow chaser is a naval gun in the bow for firing while chasing another 
vessel.
Stern chaser is a naval gun able to fire astern at a ship in chase.



Seven Tasks of book One
Seven bottles in the Potions Task

One lets you move ahead ?   (SEEKER in Quidditch)
One brings you back    -   (KEEPER in Quidditch)
Two hold only nettle wine ?  (irritate, sting, provoke) ( BEATER in 
Quidditch)
Three are killers waiting hidden  (CHASERS in Quidditch take shots)


Neither dwarf nor giant holds death in their insides
The second left and the second right are twins once you taste them 
though different at first sight

I once read a post that compared the 7 DADA teachers with the seven 
bottles of wine in task 6 of the first book.

Seven bottles in the Potions Task

3 are killers
- Quirrell, Moody, Snape?/Lupin if he is ESE?
2 are only nettle wine (nettle means irritate, provoke) 
- Lockhart, 
Umbridge
One lets you move ahead ? maybe Lupin?/ Snape if he is DDM?
One brings you back ? the Unknown DADA teacher? (Slughorn?)

What do you guys think about this stuff?

Randy








From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Feb 11 17:09:45 2006
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy)
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 17:09:45 -0000
Subject: More Ideas about the Goblet of Fire
Message-ID: <dsl5op+2vi0@...>

Here is some better support for the theme of Self-control versus Lust 
in the Goblet of Fire.

Since Tom Riddle never cared about anyone else in his whole life, JKR 
decided to have him lust after his own body and not someone elses!  

p.644
"Voldemort looked away from Harry and began examining his own 
body....He held up his hands and flexed the fingers, his expression 
rapt and exultant.  He took not the slightest notice of Wormtail, who 
lay twitching and bleeding on the ground..."


Regarding people never having lust and therefore never having any 
children....

Obviously, if everyone became celebate the number of people would go 
to zero.  I don't even think the Catholic church is dumb enough to 
try to defend against this line of reasoning. However, lust is the 
excessive craving of the pleasures of the body.  It really comes down 
to having control and balance in your life.  Don't overdo it and 
don't lose all control in your life.

Goblet of Fire could be shown to highlight other vices instead of 
lust such as greed....
 
I agree that all of the seven deadlies occur in all of the books, but 
one particular deadly is the main theme of each book.  Here is some 
better evidence than my first attempt.

p.49-50 Dudley eats one of the Ton-Tongue toffees that the Twins drop 
on purpose.  This causes his tongue to enlarge and hang out of his 
mouth.  To have one's tongue hang out is a common expression of lust.

p. 84 
"...and a little farther on they saw Cho Chang, a very pretty girl 
who played seeker on the Ravenclaw team.  She waved and smiled at 
Harry, who slopped quite a lot of water down his front as he waved 
back."

p. 103 
"Veela were women... the most beautiful women Harry had ever seen... 
and Harry stopped worrying about them not being human- in fact he 
stopped worrying about anything at all."
"The veela had started to dance, and Harry's mind had gone completely 
blank.  All that mattered in the world was that he kept watching the 
veela..."

pp. 125-126
Stan Shunpike and other boys start to brag while standing around a 
few Veela to show off for the girls.  Ron starts to brag and Hermione 
takes action..."Honestly!" said Hermione, and she and Harry grabbed 
Ron firmly by the arms, wheeled him around and marched him away."

pp. 231-232
Harry has to fight the "IMPERIO" curse from Moody.  In other words, 
he has to gain self control.  Harry must fight back against the loss 
of control over one's actions that occurs when the "Mad-Eye" of LUST 
takes control over him!

One thing that the "goblet of fire" inside us does is to drive us to 
compete.  The Quidditch World Cup and the Tri-Wizard Tournament are 
examples of this competition.  Harry must fight the inner dragon; he 
must save the thing that he loves from the underwater world; and he 
must control his desire to grab the cup at the expense of all his 
friends!  He does so brilliantly when he asks Cedric to touch it with 
him.  Competition is a healthy way to channel our drive (goblet of 
fire) unless the lust for victory overtakes us!  Harry realizes the 
cost when Cedric dies (the man he was jealous of because of Cho 
Chang), and he even gives his winnings to the Twins.

Randy







From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 14 01:47:24 2006
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 01:47:24 -0000
Subject: A Few More Twigs
Message-ID: <dsrcrc+sv2r@...>

I trust you've all seen the additional Black Family Tree information 
available at the Leaky: 

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#gallery:pic:8644

T








From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 14 01:53:31 2006
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 01:53:31 -0000
Subject: A Few More Twigs
In-Reply-To: <dsrcrc+sv2r@...>
Message-ID: <dsrd6r+3mp4@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" <talisman22457 at ...> 
wrote:
> I trust you've all seen the additional Black Family Tree information 
> available at the Leaky: 
> 
> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#gallery:pic:8644
> 
> T


Interesting how Sirius and Regulus are *doubly* Black.  

I still say, if Charlus Potter isn't Harry's Grandfather, Rowling will 
need more than a false mustache...







From heidi8 at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 14 02:01:51 2006
From: heidi8 at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:01:51 -0800
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: A Few More Twigs
In-Reply-To: <dsrd6r+3mp4@...>
References: <dsrd6r+3mp4@...>
Message-ID: <1139882513.1788F198@...>


On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 8:59 pm, Talisman wrote:
>
> I still say, if Charlus Potter isn't Harry's Grandfather, Rowling will
> need more than a false mustache...
>
I hope he's not - if so, then Harry's grandmother's age will be very 
problematic - while I'm willing to accept that a woman having a baby at 
40ish is on the old side, I can't imagine that jkr would describe that 
as "late in life" or that James' parents were elderly when they died 
when they really weren't.

Heidi

http://www.fictionalley.org



From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 14 05:33:04 2006
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (Neri)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 05:33:04 -0000
Subject: A Few More Twigs
In-Reply-To: <1139882513.1788F198@...>
Message-ID: <dsrq2g+aohb@...>

> Heidi:
> >
> I hope he's not - if so, then Harry's grandmother's age will be very 
> problematic - while I'm willing to accept that a woman having a baby at 
> 40ish is on the old side, I can't imagine that jkr would describe that 
> as "late in life" or that James' parents were elderly when they died 
> when they really weren't.
> 

Neri:

The whole time issue in the tree is slightly fishy.

Draco's birth date is 1980. This confirms the official NHN deathday
cake dating of the Potterverse, which is nice. However, Narcissa's
birth date seems to be 1955, only one year younger than Lucius and 5
years older than the Marauders (1960 if the Lexicon is correct). This
would make Bellatrix (the eldest of the three sisters according to
HBP) at least 7 years older than the Marauders ? she could hardly be
in the same gang with Snape. The only way to resolve this would be to
make the Marauders, Snape and Lily two or three years older than we
thought they are, not impossible but it would contrdict some things
JKR said in the past. 

Neri








From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 14 12:33:36 2006
From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:33:36 -0000
Subject: A Few More Twigs
In-Reply-To: <1139882513.1788F198@...>
Message-ID: <dssin0+er60@...>


>Talisman wrote: 
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 8:59 pm, Talisman wrote:
> >
> > I still say, if Charlus Potter isn't Harry's Grandfather, Rowling 
will
> > need more than a false mustache...


Kathy W:
Lupin does say that LV went after the "last of the Potters" which 
makes it sound as if he had a grudge with the whole family, and 
sounds like more than just James and Harry. (That bit of canon is in 
PoA)

> >Heidi added:
> I hope he's not - if so, then Harry's grandmother's age will be 
very 
> problematic - while I'm willing to accept that a woman having a 
baby at 
> 40ish is on the old side, I can't imagine that jkr would describe 
that 
> as "late in life" or that James' parents were elderly when they 
died 
> when they really weren't.


Kathy W. again:
Well, having been there and done that...I'd say 40 isn't young, but 
sure ain't old...unless of course you ask my kids.

 I don't think Charlus is James's father, nor that H. Longbottom is 
Neville's grandfather.

On the other hand, there is more and more examples of JKR making 
mistakes with characters' ages. Narcissa's age makes no sense at all 
and would play havoc with ACID POPS.

(We do have ACID POPS over here, don't we?)







From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 14 15:01:54 2006
From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:01:54 -0000
Subject: Regulus alive?  The second Black son and inheritance.
Message-ID: <dssrd2+3961@...>

Apologies if this has been addressed. I did a search and nothing came 
up.

A friend of mine who has just half way through the series made an 
obvious, but over look observation on my part. 

She said that if Regulus Black is indeed really alive - the mysterious 
RAB - how do we explain the fact that Kreature became Harry??s by 
magical inheritance?  

12 Grim could be explained by the fact that Sirius actually left the 
house to Harry. We know that from Dumbledore, but the question of the 
inheritance of Kreature was left up in the air and indeed was used by 
Dumbledore to prove to Harry, and himself, that the magical world 
accepted Harry as the inheritor of the Black estate. How could it have 
done that is Regulus is still alive?

Now I??m a big believe in puppetmaster/DD and am intrigued by what 
DD said to Draco about hiding him and his mother so everyone will 
think they are dead.  The reigning train of though is that DD has done 
brilliant piece of hiding with Regulus, but surly DD can??t alter magical 
law that much.  Hiding a wizard so well that even magical elf 
inheritance laws are fooled.  Aren??t elves among the most powerful of 
magical creatures?  Wouldn??t Kreature be bound to Regulus and not 
Harry?

Cheers, Mandy






From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 14 19:00:16 2006
From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:00:16 -0000
Subject: A Few More Twigs
In-Reply-To: <dsrq2g+aohb@...>
Message-ID: <dst9c0+m1fk@...>

> Neri:
> The whole time issue in the tree is slightly fishy.
> Draco's birth date is 1980. This confirms the official NHN deathday
> cake dating of the Potterverse, which is nice. However, Narcissa's
> birth date seems to be 1955, only one year younger than Lucius and 5
> years older than the Marauders (1960 if the Lexicon is correct). This
> would make Bellatrix (the eldest of the three sisters according to
> HBP) at least 7 years older than the Marauders ?she could hardly be
> in the same gang with Snape. The only way to resolve this would be 
to
> make the Marauders, Snape and Lily two or three years older than we
> thought they are, not impossible but it would contrdict some things
> JKR said in the past. 
> Neri

I too was surprised by Narcissa??s birth date, believing her to be around 
the same age as the Marauders.  

It does indeed make Bellatrix at least 2 ?V 6 years older than Lucius and 
anywhere from 7 ?V 11 years older then the marauders and Snape.  I 
would have to say she was not part of Sirius??s gang of Slytherins, she 
would have been well removed from Hogwarts by that time.

What I find interesting is it now looks more likely that Bellatrix and 
Rudolphus were the ones who brought Lucius into the fold.  She is 
looking more and more like an aging lieutenant desperately trying to 
keep hold of her position as these younger men climb over her.








From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 14 19:31:54 2006
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:31:54 -0000
Subject: Bellatrix's age  (was: A Few More Twigs)
In-Reply-To: <dsrq2g+aohb@...>
Message-ID: <dstb7a+6lkh@...>

Neri said:
> The whole time issue in the tree is slightly fishy.
> 
> Draco's birth date is 1980. This confirms the official NHN deathday
> cake dating of the Potterverse, which is nice. However, Narcissa's
> birth date seems to be 1955, only one year younger than Lucius and 5
> years older than the Marauders (1960 if the Lexicon is correct). 
> This would make Bellatrix (the eldest of the three sisters 
> according > to HBP) at least 7 years older than the Marauders ? she 
> could hardly  be in the same gang with Snape.
> The only way to resolve this would be 
> to make the Marauders, Snape and Lily two or three years older than 
> we thought they are, not impossible but it would contrdict some 
> things JKR said in the past. 

Amanda the Exslytherin replied:
> It does indeed make Bellatrix at least 2 ?V 6 years older than 
> Lucius and anywhere from 7 ?V 11 years older then the marauders and 
> Snape.  I would have to say she was not part of Sirius??s gang of 
> Slytherins, she would have been well removed from Hogwarts by that 
> time.

Bellatrix's age was highly problematic even before the family tree 
came out.

We know that Bellatrix is the oldest of the three Black sisters.  
Tonks seems to be at least 20 at the beginning of OoTP, since Auror 
training seems to take a couple of years.  So, Tonk's mother, 
Andromeda, would presumably be at least 39 at the beginning of OoTP. 
(Assuming she married and got pregnant at 18 and gave birth at 19.)  
This would make Bellatrix at least 40 at the beginning of OoTP.  But, 
JKR said, at the time GoF came out, that Snape was 35 or 36.  Since 
Snape's birthday is in the winter, if he was 35 or 36 at the end of 
GoF, he'd still be 35 or 36 at the beginning of OoTP, giving him at 
least a four year age difference between Snape and Bellatrix.  This 
make sit hard to see how they could have been part of the same "gang" 
at Hogwarts, yet Sirius says (In "Padfoot Returns," GoF) that they 
were.  

Either Snape/Lily/the Maurauders are older than we think (perhaps JKR 
meant that Snape was 35 or 36 in the *first* book?), or it's more of 
JKR's innumeracy. 

-- Judy









From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 14 19:49:07 2006
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:49:07 -0000
Subject: Regulus alive?  The second Black son and inheritance.
In-Reply-To: <dssrd2+3961@...>
Message-ID: <dstc7j+a4qr@...>

Mandy wrote:
>>if Regulus Black is indeed really alive - the mysterious 
> RAB - how do we explain the fact that Kreature became Harry??s by 
> magical inheritance?  
> 
> 12 Grim could be explained by the fact that Sirius actually left t
> he house to Harry. We know that from Dumbledore, but the question 
> of the inheritance of Kreature was left up in the air and indeed 
> was used by Dumbledore to prove to Harry, and himself, that the 
> magical world accepted Harry as the inheritor of the Black estate. 
> How could it have done that is Regulus is still alive?
 
Kreacher comes with 12 Grimmauld Place.  So, as long as Sirius' will 
was valid and Harry inherited 12 Grimmauld Place, Harry would inherit 
Kreacher as well.  In fact, this is why Dumbledore had Harry give 
Kreacher an order -- to see if Harry had inherited 12 Grimmauld 
Place, Kreacher and all.

We know that other Black family members are alive -- Bellatrix and 
her sisters and their children, at the least.  So, the fact that 
Harry inherits 12 Grimmauld Place and Kreacher really tells us 
nothing about whether Regulus is alive.  That said, I tend to think 
Regulus is really dead.   He are told that his body was found, and 
I'll consider it a cheat if that wasn't him.  (I know that Barty 
Crouch Jr. wasn't really dead, but I'd hope that JKR wouldn't use 
the 'switched bodies' trick more than once.) 

-- Judy







From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 14 20:23:01 2006
From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:23:01 -0000
Subject: Bellatrix's age  (was: A Few More Twigs)
In-Reply-To: <dstb7a+6lkh@...>
Message-ID: <dste75+35s6@...>

> Bellatrix's age was highly problematic even before the family tree 
> came out.
> We know that Bellatrix is the oldest of the three Black sisters.  
> Tonks seems to be at least 20 at the beginning of OoTP, since Auror 
> training seems to take a couple of years.  So, Tonk's mother, 
> Andromeda, would presumably be at least 39 at the beginning of 
OoTP. 
> (Assuming she married and got pregnant at 18 and gave birth at 19.)  
> This would make Bellatrix at least 40 at the beginning of OoTP.  But, 
> JKR said, at the time GoF came out, that Snape was 35 or 36.  
Since 
> Snape's birthday is in the winter, if he was 35 or 36 at the end of 
> GoF, he'd still be 35 or 36 at the beginning of OoTP, giving him at 
> least a four year age difference between Snape and Bellatrix.  This 
> make sit hard to see how they could have been part of the 
same "gang" 
> at Hogwarts, yet Sirius says (In "Padfoot Returns," GoF) that they 
> were.  
> Either Snape/Lily/the Maurauders are older than we think (perhaps 
JKR 
> meant that Snape was 35 or 36 in the *first* book?), or it's more of 
> JKR's innumeracy. 
> -- Judy

Now me:
Not that I trust anything that comes out of Sirius??s mouth is reliable ;-) 
but if he is serious about Bella and Snape running together, the 
??gang?? that he referred to could not have been a school gang but 
something outside of Hogwarts.  That way it could include older teens 
and 20 something??s.

But then when exactly did that ??gang?? become the legitimate army 
called the Death Eaters?  We know that the DE existed way back when 
Voldemort approached DD for the DADA job for DD mentioned them by 
name - something that pisses Riddle off, so one much suppose it was 
still underground at that point.  So, if at the time of Bellatrix the Death 
Eaters excised as a recognized Dark Army was the ??gang?? a sort of 
an unofficial Hitler Youth that fed into it? 

Off topic - but as far as the ages go it makes no sense what-so-ever 
that Rickman who turns 60 this year is playing a ??36?? year old, both 
Thewlis and Oldman are in their mid-40s. Not that they do a bad job, 
they don??t, but Warner Bros., have just cast an 39/40 year old actress 
to play Bellatrix. Wha..!!   The only actor who actually plays his age is 
Jason Issacs. They really should have waited until the canon was 
finished before making those films. *Rolls eyes* 

Mandy









From erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 14 20:25:24 2006
From: erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid (Eileen Rebstock)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:25:24 -0700
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Bellatrix's age  (was: A Few More Twigs)
Message-ID: <5B35CABF8982E640B33467ACCBBB4E5F01089CF4@...>

Mandy:
> Now me:
> Not that I trust anything that comes out of Sirius??s mouth is reliable ;-
> )
> but if he is serious about Bella and Snape running together, the
> ??gang?? that he referred to could not have been a school gang but
> something outside of Hogwarts.  That way it could include older teens
> and 20 something??s.

He said it was at Hogwarts, though....

You know, I've given up. I REFUSE to think about JKR'S ages EVER AGAIN! They make no bloody sense and I'm only torturing myself trying to find some rhyme or reason.

Eileen




From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid  Wed Feb 15 11:00:53 2006
From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:00:53 +0100
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Bellatrix's age, Tree, Vampires  (was: A Few More Twigs)
In-Reply-To: <5B35CABF8982E640B33467ACCBBB4E5F01089CF4@...>
References: <5B35CABF8982E640B33467ACCBBB4E5F01089CF4@...>
Message-ID: <200602151200.53951.silmariel@...>


Eileen:
> He said it was at Hogwarts, though....
>
> You know, I've given up. I REFUSE to think about JKR'S ages EVER AGAIN!
> They make no bloody sense and I'm only torturing myself trying to find some
> rhyme or reason.
>

You're welcome. After a few headaches I grouped characters in bunchs. Those of 
Harry's age, those + - 10 years older(Bill, Barty, Stan,Tonks), his parents 
generation, those slightly older as Malfoy, after that McGonagall and Co, and 
then the Ancients. That's all folks.

I don't know exactly what to do with the new branches of the family tree. Way 
back in GoF I tried to match Nevile and Harry because a not-fan told me those 
two boys were 'obviously' connected by Neville's parents. Of course, I 
wondered about them being family in some grade, but it seemed an 
out-of-this-books idea. After that, the prophecy neatly tied them.

Now JKR seems to point that Draco included, they're all in the same family 
tree. Indeed, she's managing the 'we're family!' standard in a sneaky way, 
but as it fits with Imposter!Cissy, I love it. 

Setting that theory aside, I'd like to know where the listies think it points. 
We've got a buch on entangled families, screen-time wise, I have the feeling 
that the family tree has been enough represented in scene and she's making a 
kind of a small theathre play with that family, a subset of the war that 
includes every possible side.

As an aside, I left pending an interesting not-headache question (*cough* GH 
is a headache question). Would Voldemort be interested in being a vampire?

No, because a vampire isn't indestructible enough, they just don't age, but 
that's a 'in the line of fire' kind of inmortality that wouldn't suffice in 
his eyes, imo. He's too scared of death. I think he could be interested in it 
as a reward for old enough DEs, as he wouldn't feel menaced by them being 
vampires, it's not the same as sharing Horthingies.

That his body can be destroyed? Yes, but I think that's an advantage, instead 
of a flaw. I have neutralized a few inmortal&indestructible beings, once they 
are in a tight cage, or buried deep enough, they are there for a few millenia 
(usually they just go mad), a trick that doesn't work if they can die and 
reform their bodies later.

Silmariel



From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Wed Feb 15 18:55:13 2006
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:55:13 -0000
Subject: Bellatrix's age, Tree, Vampires  (was: A Few More Twigs)
In-Reply-To: <200602151200.53951.silmariel@...>
Message-ID: <dsvteh+73fk@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, silmariel <silmariel at ...> wrote:
>
 I have neutralized a few inmortal&indestructible beings, once they 
> are in a tight cage, or buried deep enough, they are there for a few 
millenia 
> (usually they just go mad), a trick that doesn't work if they can die 
and 
> reform their bodies later.
> 
> Silmariel
>

Silmariel, you are priceless! Have just read this after extremely 
stressful day at work, and now glugging alcohol. I suppose you are 
talking rp games, but hope you bury a few live 'uns every now and 
again! Hopefully executives of big corporations..

xx
Carolyn







From silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid  Thu Feb 16 00:13:20 2006
From: silmariel at a_silmariel.yahoo.invalid (silmariel)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:13:20 +0100
Subject: [the_old_crowd] OT: Corporations&Rol (was Re: Bellatrix's age, Tree, Vampires was: A Few More Twigs)
In-Reply-To: <dsvteh+73fk@...>
References: <dsvteh+73fk@...>
Message-ID: <200602160113.20542.silmariel@...>

Carolyn:
> Silmariel, you are priceless! Have just read this after extremely
> stressful day at work, and now glugging alcohol. I suppose you are
> talking rp games, but hope you bury a few live 'uns every now and
> again! Hopefully executives of big corporations..
>

^_^

I've got Bill targeted, you know - I wrote a joke some ten years ago that 
curiously has survived. I signed as Silmariel, and copyleft it, some sites 
list it as anomymous. I don't even know if I want the credit for it, it was 
just a fifteen minutes on going joke - Linux Commandments. ("Los Mandamientos 
de Linux", googling for mandamientos+linux appears as first results) - I'll 
translate on demand. 

Yes yes, I was talking rp (and I wouldn't admit it in other case <g>). After a 
while, one forgets to add the reference, been playing since 14. It can lead 
to amusing experiences. As the day I was walking, chatting with a friend and 
I said something like 'Are human sacrifices required or not? Because it's a 
mess, you know, you always end avoiding a legion of avengers, or the city 
guard. I can always change the deity'. Oh, the face of the two ladies that 
overheard me, what a picture.

Then we had a day in live roleplay. Three monitors and four players (not of 
age). We were representing a couple of right-hands of the city prince in a 
mission to obtain some magical stones from a smuggler, we were in the port of 
the city (that was true, and I may add that the city has a strong army 
presence), and the players were supossed to be spying from a corner, that is, 
out of sight. By the third time we had represented the 'give the little 
packet in exchange of money and make it fishy' scene, we realised what it 
would look like, if seen, so we grabbed our dignity and moved on.

Or a group of players that set a bomb and then *forget* it's there and walk 
into it. End of history.

And you'd think if you make appear a group of 50 -super armed dresed in black 
mounted in war horses- knights the players would have the common sense *to 
hide*, but no.

Silmariel, having a good day.




From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid  Thu Feb 16 18:19:08 2006
From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:19:08 -0000
Subject: More on Sirius's Gang of Slytherins
Message-ID: <dt2fms+m190@...>

FYI: I just read this very well written and researched essay on the 
infamous 'Gang of Slytherins' mentioned by Sirius in OotP.  The author 
takes into account the newest Black family tree information as well as 
speculating on the ages of Andromeda and Bellatrix.  

Well worth reading. You can find it here:

http://junediamanti.livejournal.com/192983.html

Enjoy - Mandy






From erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid  Thu Feb 16 18:36:09 2006
From: erebstock at lucky_kari.yahoo.invalid (Eileen Rebstock)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:36:09 -0700
Subject: [the_old_crowd] More on Sirius's Gang of Slytherins
Message-ID: <3FF9E274C2DF9748B96A2C35130CAF3F06D7B1@...>

Oh, that's very good. I still find the whole timeline a rather unsteady
house of cards, but for one thing, June's essay would make a good
foundation for anyone wanting to write a fanfic and you know, actually,
have *ages* for the characters. My pre-OotP MWPP-era fic is all dead and
buried so it doesn't affect me, but I've been wincing in sympathetic
pain for the fanfic writers for a while now.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Amanda
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:19 AM
> To: the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [the_old_crowd] More on Sirius's Gang of Slytherins
> 
> FYI: I just read this very well written and researched essay on the
> infamous 'Gang of Slytherins' mentioned by Sirius in OotP.  The author
> takes into account the newest Black family tree information as well as
> speculating on the ages of Andromeda and Bellatrix.
> 
> Well worth reading. You can find it here:
> 
> http://junediamanti.livejournal.com/192983.html
> 
> Enjoy - Mandy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 




From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Thu Feb 16 22:34:03 2006
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (Neri)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:34:03 -0000
Subject: More on Sirius's Gang of Slytherins
In-Reply-To: <dt2fms+m190@...>
Message-ID: <dt2ukr+kee8@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" <exslytherin at ...> wrote:
>
> FYI: I just read this very well written and researched essay on the 
> infamous 'Gang of Slytherins' mentioned by Sirius in OotP.  The author 
> takes into account the newest Black family tree information as well as 
> speculating on the ages of Andromeda and Bellatrix.  
> 
> Well worth reading. You can find it here:
> 
> http://junediamanti.livejournal.com/192983.html
> 
> Enjoy - Mandy
>

Neri:
Yep, what June wrote was mostly my thoughts about the way to rescue
this situation. She made a good case about Snape being born in 1959
and not 1960. Personally I won't be surprised if it turns out to be
1958 or even 1957.

I'd prefer Avery, Rosier and Wilkes older than Snape, perhaps 3 years
older in order to explain why they didn't show up to help Snape during
the Worst Memory incident, and also to have some continuity with Bella
who is (presumably) six years older, but I agree there are no real
indications, and a fanfic would probably be more interesting if they
are in the same year. 

What I still find hard to accept is that The Gang was only some kind
of a Voldemort jugend cell. Well, it probably was that, but it can't
have been completely underground, or Sirius wouldn't have known about
it. These kids must have hanged together somehow, and it's difficult
for me to see how a seventh year and a first year can hang together in
a way that would make another first year see them as belonging to the
same gang. 

OK, lets see if this scenario makes sense:

1970 ? Sirius, James, Remus, Peter, Lily and Severus are in their
first year. The students are terrorized by a gang of Slytherins that
includes seventh year Rodolphus and Bellatrix, sixth year Lucius
Malfoy, forth year Avery and third year Rosier and Wilkes. All the
first years and especially the Gryffindors suffer, but little Severus,
by supplying the gang with some Dark services, becomes their favorite
and thus hated by the other students in his year. Maybe they dubbed
him Snivellus because of his connections with older *students*, not
with teachers. 

1973 ? Bella, Rodolphus and Avery (and Lucius) are out of school by
now, but 14 years old Sirius still sees them each year during
holidays, meeting at the Black house with Rosier and Wilkes (who are
by now seventh year and really scary) and perhaps even with young
Severus. Therefore Sirius continues to think of them as a gang even
though half of them have already left school.

1974 ? Bella marries Rodolphus and they are away for some DE mission,
so Sirius never sees Bella anymore until Azkaban. Wilkes and Rosier
have left school too by now, and Severus in his fifth year finds
himself all of a sudden alone with no older protectors. Naturally he
neglects to be on his guard all the time, and is taken by surprise by
James and his little gang.

The only problem I see with this little scenario is that Sirius didn't
mention Lucius in the gang, something I always took as hinting that
Bella was younger than Lucius, but it might simply be JKR overlooking
his name. It won't be the first time, and GoF is full with worse
mistakes. Anyway, this Scenario would work just as well without Lucius. 

Another thing I suspect June got wrong is Snape's information leading
to the killing of Wilkes and Rosier. I had already pointed our before
HBP that it's seems strange how the DEs in Azkaban were blaming
Wormtail and Karkaroff for turning them in, and yet none of them was
blaming Snape. Snape apparently didn't try or could not supply enough
proof against Bella, Rodolphus, Avery and Lucius, which proved fatal
to the Longbottoms.  

Regarding Tonks probable year of birth, June (1974) is wrong and the
Lexicon (1973) is right. What June forgot is that in the beginning of
OotP Tonks says to Harry that she was qualified as auror "a year ago",
so she's likely 22 and not 21 yrs old at that time. Still, I don't
think it is unimaginable that Andromeda gave birth to Tonks before her
18th birthday. We have canon for Fred and George leaving school before
finishing their seventh year, and in HBP Draco contemplates not
completing even his sixth year. We are also told in HBP that during
VW1 people were "eloping left, right, and center", and Sirius himself
ran away from home when he was 16.

Neri







From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb 17 06:21:26 2006
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 06:21:26 -0000
Subject: More on Sirius's Gang of Slytherins
In-Reply-To: <dt2ukr+kee8@...>
Message-ID: <dt3q16+t93n@...>

Neri said, in regards to June's Live Journal essay:
> I'd prefer Avery, Rosier and Wilkes older than Snape, perhaps 3 
> years older in order to explain why they didn't show up to help 
> Snape during the Worst Memory incident
...
> What I still find hard to accept is that The Gang was only some kind
> of a Voldemort jugend cell. Well, it probably was that, but it can't
> have been completely underground, or Sirius wouldn't have known 
> about it. These kids must have hanged together somehow, and it's 
> difficult for me to see how a seventh year and a first year can 
> hang together in a way that would make another first year see them 
> as belonging to the same gang. 


June's essay is very thorough and thought-provoking.  However, I just 
can't buy the idea of Snape & Bellatrix being friends (or in the 
same "gang") if they were six years apart.  I just think JKR wasn't 
paying attention to the dates.

As for what is meant by "gang," let me point out that in PoA, the 
teachers sitting around in the Three Broomsticks also describe the 
Marauders as a gang.  So, I don't think the term "gang" necessarily 
means all that much.  

In GoF, Sirius says that nearly all of Snape's gang *became* Death 
Eaters, not that they were Death Eaters while at Hogwarts. Also, 
remember that Voldemort often tried to conceal Death Eaters' 
identities even from each other; he wouldn't want a bunch of them 
runninga round openly. Therefore, I don't see Snape's "gang of 
Slytherins" at Hogwarts as having any explicit connection to 
Voldemort, although some of them may have been *secretly* signing up 
as Death Eaters while still at school.  

Neri continued:
> 1970 ? Sirius, James, Remus, Peter, Lily and Severus are in their
> first year. The students are terrorized by a gang of Slytherins that
> includes seventh year Rodolphus and Bellatrix, sixth year Lucius
> Malfoy, forth year Avery and third year Rosier and Wilkes. All the
> first years and especially the Gryffindors suffer, but little 
> Severus, by supplying the gang with some Dark services, becomes 
> their favorite and thus hated by the other students in his year. 

Well, I'm currently involved in a debate on June's Live Journal site 
on whether Snape was mistreating other students (in particular, the 
Marauders.)  My claim is that canon says Snape was *not* mistreating 
the Marauders, at least not by the middle or so of sixth year.  My 
support for this is:

-->  In the Pensieve scene in OoTP, we see Lily angrily ask 
James, "What has he [Snape] done to you?"  If Snape were known to 
terrorize the other students, this question would make no sense.
-->  James' reply is that Snape hasn't done anything, "It's more the 
fact that he exists."  Since James likes Lily and doesn't want her 
angry at him, you'd think he would tell her if Snape had deserved to 
be humiliated.
-->  Harry comes to the conclusion that James & Sirius had no good 
reason for attacking Snape. When Harry accuses Sirius of having 
attacked Snape (after the O.W.L.s) out of mere boredom, Sirius 
doesn't deny that.  "I'm not proud of it," is his sole response. 
Remus then says that James & Sirius got carried away as students, and 
Sirius says that they were sometimes "arrogant little berks."  Still 
no mention of Snape doing anything to deserve being humilated.
--> In PoA, Remus says Sirius nearly got Snape killed (in reference 
to the Prank.)  Sirius replies that Snape deserved it because he was 
always sneaking around, trying to get the Marauders in trouble.  That 
seems to be the worst Snape was doing, as far as Sirius knew. 

Of course, this doesn't mean that Snape was an angel, but I conclude 
that canon says the Marauders were bullying Snape, and not vice 
versa. 

Snapefan!Judy









From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb 17 10:14:22 2006
From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:14:22 -0000
Subject: More on Sirius's Gang of Slytherins
In-Reply-To: <dt2ukr+kee8@...>
Message-ID: <dt47lu+2upb@...>

Neri:
> The only problem I see with this little scenario is that Sirius 
didn't
> mention Lucius in the gang, something I always took as hinting that
> Bella was younger than Lucius, but it might simply be JKR 
overlooking
> his name. It won't be the first time, and GoF is full with worse
> mistakes. Anyway, this Scenario would work just as well without 
Lucius. 
> 

Dungrollin:
Actually, based on what Sirius and the rest of the wizarding world 
knows/knew at the time, Lucius Malfoy did not turn out to be a Death 
Eater. DD and lots of others undoubtedly suspected him of it, 
but Lucius wasn't caught and captured and sent to Azkaban as a DE, 
he wormed his way out by claiming he'd been under the Imperius 
Curse. So Sirius may have included him in the gang, but only been 
counting off those members who turned out to be Death Eaters for 
certain. At this point, Sirius still doesn't know that Snape 
actually was a DE, does he?

Dung







From olivier.fouquet at olivierfouquet2000.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb 17 10:21:59 2006
From: olivier.fouquet at olivierfouquet2000.yahoo.invalid (olivierfouquet2000)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:21:59 -0000
Subject: More on Sirius's Gang of Slytherins
In-Reply-To: <dt2fms+m190@...>
Message-ID: <dt4847+mmft@...>

I will point again that if Slughorn was hosting three to four parties a year at Hogwarts at that 
time, if Snape was invited, and if older students like the Lestranges showed up each time or 
even regularly (all of this strongly suggested by canon), then Sirius would have be as justified 
to say that Snape was hanging out with a gang of Slytherins as Malfoy would be justified to 
say that Harry was hanging out with a gang of Weasleys (in fact even more so, Harrry sees the 
Weasleys about thrice a year). And that would be pretty well justified in my opinion. Especially 
since it is also strongly suggested that Sirius was invited to Slughorn's parties too, so he 
would have had first-hand evidence that Snape was hanging out with his not-so-dear cousin 
Bellatrix and her future husband.

JKR's timelines are notoriously fuzzy, but on that particular point, I see no terrible problem.
Olivier  






From kirst_inn at kirstinipie.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb 17 14:27:12 2006
From: kirst_inn at kirstinipie.yahoo.invalid (Kirstin Innes)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:27:12 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: More on Sirius's Gang of Slytherins
In-Reply-To: <1140181402.284.55653.m19@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060217142712.39730.qmail@...>


Olivier wrote:
>>>I will point again that if Slughorn was hosting
three to four parties a year at Hogwarts at that time,
if Snape was invited, and if older students like the
Lestranges showed up each time or even regularly (all
of this strongly suggested by canon), then Sirius
would have be as justified to say that Snape was
hanging out with a gang of Slytherins as Malfoy would
be justified to say that Harry was hanging out with a
gang of Weasleys (in fact even more so, Harrry sees
the 
Weasleys about thrice a year). And that would be
pretty well justified 
in my opinion. Especially since it is also strongly
suggested that Sirius was invited to Slughorn's
parties too, so he would have had first-hand evidence
that Snape was hanging out with his not-so-dear cousin
Bellatrix and her future husband.

JKR's timelines are notoriously fuzzy, but on that
particular point, I 
see no terrible problem.>>>  

I sort of do.

I'm probably going to get this wrong, as I'm at work
without access to the books, but I was listening to
the cd last week and could have sworn that a Lestrange
is one of the gang of Slytherins in the Slug Club in
"A Very Sluggish Memory", and that an Avery is one of
the Death Eaters hanging about the Hog's Head waiting
for Voldie to finish his job interview with
Dumbledore. 
[quick check]
Ooh, I'm right. Lexicon timeline:
_____________________________________________
September 
 Tom Marvolo Riddle starts his sixth year at Hogwarts 
He is now wearing the ring he stole from his uncle
Morfin during the summer. He meets with his Head of
House, Professor Slughorn, accompanied by his group of
friends which includes Avery and Lestrange. He asks
Slughorn about Horcruxes.  
______________________________________________

There's no Lexicon entry for the second event. 
So - DE-ness seeping down the generations? I admit
this is very possible in a WW prone to young
parenting, but the Lexicon wording seems to imply that
these are *the* Avery and Lestrange.

Could be one Lestrange brother 24+ years older than
other, of course. Or a tricky little passage in GOF
that JKR had forgtten about...

Kirstin, in a rush, but still picking wildly.



		
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com



From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb 17 20:50:17 2006
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (Neri)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:50:17 -0000
Subject: More on Sirius's Gang of Slytherins
In-Reply-To: <dt4847+mmft@...>
Message-ID: <dt5cu9+h7ns@...>


> Judy  wrote:
>
> June's essay is very thorough and thought-provoking.  However, I 
just 
> can't buy the idea of Snape & Bellatrix being friends (or in the 
> same "gang") if they were six years apart.  I just think JKR wasn't 
> paying attention to the dates.
> 

Neri:
I have a personal reason to prefer this solution, since my ACID POPS* 
would work considerably better if Snape and Narcissa were in the same 
year. But we're trying to make it all work regardless. The problem 
with the "there's a flint" solution is that everybody tries to get 
rid of the detail that he/she dislikes most <g>.

> Judy:  
> As for what is meant by "gang," let me point out that in PoA, the 
> teachers sitting around in the Three Broomsticks also describe the 
> Marauders as a gang.  So, I don't think the term "gang" necessarily 
> means all that much.  
> 

Neri:
That indeed would be the best solution, also for ACID POPS, but I 
still think it's possible, in some circumstances, to have a multi-
year gang.

> Judy:
> In GoF, Sirius says that nearly all of Snape's gang *became* Death 
> Eaters, not that they were Death Eaters while at Hogwarts. Also, 
> remember that Voldemort often tried to conceal Death Eaters' 
> identities even from each other; he wouldn't want a bunch of them 
> runninga round openly. Therefore, I don't see Snape's "gang of 
> Slytherins" at Hogwarts as having any explicit connection to 
> Voldemort, although some of them may have been *secretly* signing 
up 
> as Death Eaters while still at school.  
> 

Neri:
Yes, my point regarding June's suggestion was that there must have 
been something to label these students as "a gang" at school, before 
it was known they'll become DEs. I don't think June was suggesting 
that they were DEs already at school, but they could surely show 
their ideological support of Voldemort. When Sirius says in GoF 
that "almost all of them turned Death Eaters" it's already common 
knowledge that the Lestranges, Rosier and Wilkes were DEs, so the 
question is only how does Sirius knows about Avery, and I don't see 
this as a problem. Sirius was several years in the Order and later in 
Azkaban. He had enough opportunities to learn that Avery was a DE 
too. 

 
> > Judy:
> Well, I'm currently involved in a debate on June's Live Journal 
site 
> on whether Snape was mistreating other students (in particular, the 
> Marauders.)  My claim is that canon says Snape was *not* 
mistreating 
> the Marauders, at least not by the middle or so of sixth year.  My 
> support for this is:
> 
> -->  In the Pensieve scene in OoTP, we see Lily angrily ask 
> James, "What has he [Snape] done to you?"  If Snape were known to 
> terrorize the other students, this question would make no sense.
> -->  James' reply is that Snape hasn't done anything, "It's more 
the 
> fact that he exists."  Since James likes Lily and doesn't want her 
> angry at him, you'd think he would tell her if Snape had deserved 
to 
> be humiliated.
> -->  Harry comes to the conclusion that James & Sirius had no good 
> reason for attacking Snape. When Harry accuses Sirius of having 
> attacked Snape (after the O.W.L.s) out of mere boredom, Sirius 
> doesn't deny that.  "I'm not proud of it," is his sole response. 
> Remus then says that James & Sirius got carried away as students, 
and 
> Sirius says that they were sometimes "arrogant little berks."  
Still 
> no mention of Snape doing anything to deserve being humilated.
> --> In PoA, Remus says Sirius nearly got Snape killed (in reference 
> to the Prank.)  Sirius replies that Snape deserved it because he 
was 
> always sneaking around, trying to get the Marauders in trouble.  
That 
> seems to be the worst Snape was doing, as far as Sirius knew. 
> 
> Of course, this doesn't mean that Snape was an angel, but I 
conclude 
> that canon says the Marauders were bullying Snape, and not vice 
> versa. 

Neri:
Well, it would still fit my scenario if Snape himself were 
just "sneaking around" while the older gang members were doing the 
actual bullying. I was building my scenario to fit with two 
requirements:

(1) First-year Sirius should somehow perceive seventh-year Bella and 
first-year Severus as belonging to the same "gang of Slytherins". 

(2) In following years, Sirius must continue thinking of them as 
one "gang of Slytherins" even though Bella and probably some of the 
others had already left school. 

A first year student would usually take notice of the seventh years 
only if he absolutely must, and I can think of only one good reason 
why he would also associate them with another first year. This would 
be if the seventh years would terrorize the first years, and one of 
the first years would become their informer who is protected by them. 
Which happens to fit well with Sirius and James accusing Snape of 
Snivelling.

> Olivier:
> I will point again that if Slughorn was hosting three to four 
parties a year at Hogwarts at that 
> time, if Snape was invited, and if older students like the 
Lestranges showed up each time or 
> even regularly (all of this strongly suggested by canon), then 
Sirius would have be as justified 
> to say that Snape was hanging out with a gang of Slytherins as 
Malfoy would be justified to 
> say that Harry was hanging out with a gang of Weasleys (in fact 
even more so, Harrry sees the 
> Weasleys about thrice a year). And that would be pretty well 
justified in my opinion. Especially 
> since it is also strongly suggested that Sirius was invited to 
Slughorn's parties too, so he 
> would have had first-hand evidence that Snape was hanging out with 
his not-so-dear cousin 
> Bellatrix and her future husband.


Neri:
Yes, I was considering this solution too. However, Sirius in GoF 
seems to imply that "the gang" consisted of Slytherins only, most of 
them the future DEs that he recounted. My impression from HBP is that 
the slug club included considerably more students in a period of 
about 7 years, and that some of them would be from other houses as 
well. We know that one of them was a muggleborn Dirk Cresswell (who 
apparently wasn't suspected of being a DE if he became the head of 
the Goblin Liaison Office) and Lily was also invited. It seems more 
reasonable that "the gang of Slytherins" was indeed a kind of 
Voldemortjugend cell and that Sirius saw them together at his 
cousins' house. Not only was Bella one of the leaders, but we also 
know now that her mother was a Rosier, possibly the aunt of the 
Rosier in the gang. 

> Dungrollin:
> Actually, based on what Sirius and the rest of the wizarding world 
> knows/knew at the time, Lucius Malfoy did not turn out to be a 
Death 
> Eater. DD and lots of others undoubtedly suspected him of it, 
> but Lucius wasn't caught and captured and sent to Azkaban as a DE, 
> he wormed his way out by claiming he'd been under the Imperius 
> Curse. So Sirius may have included him in the gang, but only been 
> counting off those members who turned out to be Death Eaters for 
> certain. At this point, Sirius still doesn't know that Snape 
> actually was a DE, does he?
>

Neri:
Yes, I guess that could be an excuse, although Sirius did mention 
Avery in the category of "wormed his way out of Azkaban by claiming 
he'd been under the Imperius", so I'd expect him to know about Lucius 
too. Arthur certainly knew, and he didn't have any qualms telling Ron 
about it, before Ron even went to school, so you'd think Sirius would 
know too. 


Neri



------------------------------------------------
* For those of you who don't visit TOL anymore:

ACID POPS lite: Alas, Cissy Is Despondent. Perhaps Old Playmate 
Severus? 

ACID POPS extra strength: Alas, Cissy Is Despondent. Perhaps 
Obsessively Passionate Severus?

Both variations positing that Snape made the UV at Spinner's End out 
of certain tender feelings that Narcissa was stirring.  







From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb 17 21:07:33 2006
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:07:33 -0000
Subject: More on Sirius's Gang of Slytherins
In-Reply-To: <dt5cu9+h7ns@...>
Message-ID: <dt5dul+nfuh@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" <nkafkafi at ...> wrote:

> Neri:
> I have a personal reason to prefer this solution, since my ACID 
> POPS* would work considerably better if Snape and Narcissa were in 
> the same year. But we're trying to make it all work regardless. The 
> problem with the "there's a flint" solution is that everybody tries 
> to get rid of the detail that he/she dislikes most <g>.

I don't see how Narcissa being a few years older crashes and burns 
ACID POPS.  If anything, we get this scenario: Narcissa was the 
beautiful and self-assured older girl, more advanced in her classes, 
who Snape had no good way of getting close to.  Oh, that's a scenario 
for unrequited whatever, particularly given his champion abilities at 
nursing ideas and resentments.

> Neri:
>
> A first year student would usually take notice of the seventh years 
> only if he absolutely must, and I can think of only one good reason 
> why he would also associate them with another first year. This 
> would be if the seventh years would terrorize the first years, and 
> one of the first years would become their informer who is protected 
> by them.  Which happens to fit well with Sirius and James accusing 
> Snape of Snivelling.

And if there ends up being any schooldays overlap between Sirius and 
Bella, I can't imagine her *not* exercising her superior abilities on 
her cousin, particularly as he's the Black sheep (hehehe) of the 
family.  The argument that "oh he's family she wouldn't beat up on 
him" must come from anyone who doesn't have siblings or cousins. =)

-Nora is a weak hand at chronology, herself






From estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Feb 18 15:50:28 2006
From: estesrandy at estesrandy.yahoo.invalid (Randy Estes)
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 07:50:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: A Few More Twigs
In-Reply-To: <1139882513.1788F198@...>
Message-ID: <20060218155028.41985.qmail@...>



--- Heidi Tandy <heidi8 at ...> wrote:

> 
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 8:59 pm, Talisman wrote:
> >
> > I still say, if Charlus Potter isn't Harry's
> Grandfather, Rowling will
> > need more than a false mustache...
> >
> I hope he's not - if so, then Harry's grandmother's
> age will be very 
> problematic - while I'm willing to accept that a
> woman having a baby at 
> 40ish is on the old side, I can't imagine that jkr
> would describe that 
> as "late in life" or that James' parents were
> elderly when they died 
> when they really weren't.
> 
> Heidi


I must admit that I have not been keeping up with all
of this family tree stuff.  Did someone suggest that
Snape and Sirius were half brothers (ie. half a Black
makes you a half-blood prince?)

Because that makes sense to me.  Sirius, the dog star,
is the brightest star in the sky and it has a dwarf
twin star that is very difficult to see.  Sirius, the
wizard is a very bright and popular student.  Snape is
dwarfed in comparison and is hardly noticed by anyone!

Red Eye Randy
who thinks that JKR is the kind of person who relishes
a good pun when she sees one!
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid  Sun Feb 19 11:16:09 2006
From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:16:09 -0000
Subject: Viewing the evidence
In-Reply-To: <dr66t7+kqdh@...>
Message-ID: <dt9k1p+toda@...>

Kneasy:
Not too keen on the theological metaphysics, myself. Particularly
as Jo is setting her own rules and definitions. Makes it tricky.
In my own mind I consider Vapor!Mort as anima - a disembodied
life force. It has potential, will, drive, etc, but no substance and 
so is powerless to act independently. Not sure my construct can be
torn along the dotted line into neat, self-contained segments, so
I'm probably wrong.

Dung:
Some canon to add to an extremely late reply, which I was absolutely 
certain existed but was unable to find for ages (sorry for the 
delay).
 
HBP UK p470:
"The seventh part of his soul, however maimed, resides inside his 
regenerated body. That was the part of him that lived a spectral 
existence for so many years during his exile; without that, he has 
no self at all."







From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid  Sun Feb 19 11:30:02 2006
From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:30:02 -0000
Subject: Small choice in rotten apples
Message-ID: <dt9krq+7dos@...>

I spent ages last night looking for a half-written post that it now 
appears I never wrote, or never saved. So I'm going to have to re-
create it in order to tack a new idea on the end. Please be patient. 
I now have the horrors that someone's had this idea before me...

Here goes.

We all know that "it is our choices ... that show what we truly are, 
far more than our abilities," and that "it matters not what someone 
is born, but what they grow to be." These are taken by (I think) all 
careful readers of the books to be fundamental truths of the 
Potterverse. The choices quote particularly, the character who 
delivers the line, its position in the books, the context in which 
it is said, all add up to make it one of those bits that just ... 
stays with you. At the back of your mind. It's almost underlined, 
highlighted, italicised and put in caps as This Is What The Author 
Believes. 

But JKR doesn't do things by halves, oh no. She uses magic to 
reinforce the choices theme - paradoxically, by forcing the 
characters' hands. We have binding magical contracts, which (no 
matter how unwittingly entered into) compel characters to fulfil 
their terms. We have obscure magical bonds which form between two 
wizards when one saves the life of the other, which the wizard whose 
life has been saved has no control over. We have Unbreakable Vows ? 
which are perhaps the ultimate in "I want this character to have no 
choice but to xyz" plot devices.

Taking it to its logical extreme, one could argue that the entire 
Potterverse exists only to allow her characters to demonstrate their 
natures by making choices. 

At the end of OotP, Harry is presented with the prophecy.

UK p744: 
"So," said Harry, dredging up the words from what felt like a deep 
well of despair inside him, "so does that mean that ... that one of 
us has got to kill the other one ... in the end?"
"Yes," said Dumbledore.
UK p754:
"...it was still very hard to believe as he sat here that his life 
must include, or end in, murder..."

Kill or be killed; it's a rotten choice, whichever way you look at 
it.

But JKR then goes on in HBP to undermine the prophecy's importance. 
UK p476:
"You are setting too much store by the prophecy!"
"But," spluttered Harry, "but you said the prophecy means ?"
"If Voldemort had never heard of the prophecy, would it have been 
fulfilled? Would it have meant anything? Of course not! Do you think 
every prophecy in the Hall of Prophecy has been fulfilled?"

No, we learn, the prophecy is Voldemort's problem, not Harry's, it 
makes no difference to Harry's life, he'd have wanted to be the one 
to finish off Voldy for good anyway. He doesn't need the prophecy to 
tell him that. 

So where does this leave him with his kill or be killed choice? The 
prophecy is the reason that Voldemort will never leave him in peace, 
but it doesn't apply to Harry. Harry is choosing to follow his 
Horlicks quest because it's the Right Thing To Do. Thing is, Harry's 
hardly likely to be any better at outright murder than Draco is, is 
he? He certainly couldn't kill an unarmed Sirius Black even when he 
thought he was responsible for betraying Lily and James to 
Voldemort. "Heat of the moment!" I hear you cry, "? he'll off him in 
battle, no time to worry about the moral issues ? it'll be self 
defence!"

Except that I think that would be too easy. I think JKR's got 
something far nastier in store. She did memorably comment that if 
she could be a character for a day she wouldn't want to be Harry, 
because she knew what he had coming.

Let's face it, she's not squeamish about putting her characters in 
difficult situations, is she? Nor is she above constraining their 
choices by magical means so that they can exhibit their 
characterisation by choosing between what is right and what is easy 
(she just cleverly hides which is the right and which is the easy 
choice so we can't yet judge for ourselves). 
This leads me to think that there will be some magically compelling 
reason why Harry has to kill or be killed, and that there's a deeper 
reason for the necessity of the choice.

And I've had an idea as to what it might be.

It goes back to Annemehr's theory about why Horlicks is so bad. She 
had the idea that the ripping of the soul caused by killing can be 
healed (repentance, forgiveness etc), and the reason that splitting 
the soul up is against nature is that it is deliberately putting 
oneself beyond redemption, deliberately not allowing the soul to be 
healed. It's so elegant it *has* to be right - and if it's not, it 
should be.

I won't repeat all the evidence for Horcrux!Harry, except to say 
that I don't know what else could have happened at Godric's Hollow 
to tie up so many loose ends. Basically, this theory relies on 
Horcrux!Harry, as well as Anne's theory, ok?

So this is it:
I reckon the bit of Voldy's soul that ended up in Harry, has been 
knitting with Harry's soul in the kind of healing process that 
Anne's theory would predict. Harry's soul has incorporated the Voldy 
fragment. Harry doesn't have to *die* to get rid of the last 
Horcrux, he has to *kill*. 

And I'll bet Snape refuses to teach him how. 

I have another, wilder speculation (which might explain a whole lot 
more) to put on top of this, but I'm not quite sure whether it's 
workable yet.

Dung
Begging all to note that kill or be killed was, coincidentally, the 
very choice presented to Snape in HBP.








From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Mon Feb 20 00:04:14 2006
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:04:14 -0000
Subject: double-Black / Sirius & Slug / Half-brothers / Prophecy
Message-ID: <dtb11u+d1ap@...>

Talisman wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3911 :

<< > http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#gallery:pic:8644
Interesting how Sirius and Regulus are *doubly* Black. >>

I've always said that Mrs Black's phrase 'the house of my fathers' was
neither erroneous nor evidence that the house hadn't been in the Black
family long. Except I thought Mrs Black and Mr Black were probably
first cousins, and on this chart they're, what, second cousins?

Olivier wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3929 :

<<  Especially since it is also strongly suggested that Sirius was
invited to Slughorn's parties too >>

I suppose both Sirius and James were invited to the Slug Club --
bright, wealthy, popular students they were -- but I have trouble
imagining Sirius wanting to return after his first visit. He may 
have liked being fawned over by Slughorn more than Harry did, but 
he wouldn't have liked associating with Dark or nerdy invitees.

Randy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3933 :

<<  Did someone suggest that Snape and Sirius were half brothers (ie.
half a Black makes you a half-blood prince?) >>

I suggested that pureblood Eileen Prince married Muggle Tobias 
Snape because she was pregnant by married Mr Black (and the Muggle 
was the first man her Love Potion worked on -- I imagine wizards 
have antidotes). But I don't think JKR would put that in her story.

Dungrollin wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3935 :

<< "If Voldemort had never heard of the prophecy, would it have been
fulfilled? Would it have meant anything? Of course not! Do you think
every prophecy in the Hall of Prophecy has been fulfilled?" >>

If they don't expect them to be fulfilled, why do they file them in
the Ministry of Magic? I don't understand why the wizarding folk make
a BFD about prophecies if they know that prophecies are a pile of trash.






From spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid  Mon Feb 20 23:29:33 2006
From: spotthedungbeetle at dungrollin.yahoo.invalid (dungrollin)
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:29:33 -0000
Subject: double-Black / Sirius & Slug / Half-brothers / Prophecy
In-Reply-To: <dtb11u+d1ap@...>
Message-ID: <dtdjct+ksnr@...>

> Dungrollin wrote in
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/3935 :
> 
> << "If Voldemort had never heard of the prophecy, would it have 
been
> fulfilled? Would it have meant anything? Of course not! Do you 
think
> every prophecy in the Hall of Prophecy has been fulfilled?" >>
> 
> If they don't expect them to be fulfilled, why do they file them in
> the Ministry of Magic? I don't understand why the wizarding folk 
make
> a BFD about prophecies if they know that prophecies are a pile of 
trash.
>

Dung:
I'm not sure that they *do* know. Voldemort certainly doesn't, he's 
as credulous as a newborn. Dumbledore's attitude to the prophecy 
doesn't strike me as one that's likely to be common in the WW. Even 
Percy Weasley suggested that Harry take Divination, for example, and 
the fear of Thestrals and Grims suggests to me that there's quite a 
good bit of superstition in the WW.

Those prophecies that don't come true (I suspect) are those which 
are never heard by the people they affect. 

Which really would make it *all* Snape's fault. 

Except that... except that if he hadn't told Voldemort the prophecy 
and caused him to go after Harry and mark him, then maybe nobody 
would *ever* have been able to defeat him.

What was that "and none shall come after" bit in OotP again...?







From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 21 13:17:59 2006
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:17:59 -0000
Subject: double-Black / Sirius & Slug / Half-brothers / Prophecy
In-Reply-To: <dtdjct+ksnr@...>
Message-ID: <dtf3u7+huts@...>

Rita:
> > If they don't expect them to be fulfilled, why do they file them in
the Ministry of Magic? I don't understand why the wizarding folk 
make a BFD about prophecies if they know that prophecies are a pile of 
trash.
> >
> 
> Dung:
> I'm not sure that they *do* know. Voldemort certainly doesn't, he's 
> as credulous as a newborn. Dumbledore's attitude to the prophecy 
> doesn't strike me as one that's likely to be common in the WW. Even 
> Percy Weasley suggested that Harry take Divination, for example, and 
> the fear of Thestrals and Grims suggests to me that there's quite a 
> good bit of superstition in the WW.
> 
> Those prophecies that don't come true (I suspect) are those which 
> are never heard by the people they affect. 

Pippin: 

The willingness to accept Harry as the Chosen One on the basis of a
prophecy only rumoured to exist shows how credulous
the WW is about these things. I suspect Dumbledore's skepticism is
unusual.


A true believer would never concede that a prophecy had failed, only
that it must have been misinterpreted. The prophecies we have
are obligingly vague. For example, nothing in Trelawney's
prophecies specifies that the Dark Lord in question is Voldemort.

Pippin







From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 21 15:05:29 2006
From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:05:29 -0000
Subject: More on Sirius's Gang of Slytherins
In-Reply-To: <20060217142712.39730.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <dtfa7p+200s@...>

> Kirstin Innes wrote:

> There's no Lexicon entry for the second event. 
> So - DE-ness seeping down the generations? I admit
> this is very possible in a WW prone to young
> parenting, but the Lexicon wording seems to imply that
> these are *the* Avery and Lestrange.
> 
> Could be one Lestrange brother 24+ years older than
> other, of course. Or a tricky little passage in GOF
> that JKR had forgtten about...
> 

Now me:  Kirsten, I recommend you read the essay I started this 
thread with. It might help to clear up some of your points.

The Lestrange and Avery who were in the Slug Club with Riddle and who 
also accompanied Tom into Hogsmead while the newly created Lord 
Voldemort asked DD for the DADA job are clearly the Death Eater 
fathers' of Rudolphus Lestrange and the Avery we meet as Death Eaters 
in the Canon. The Slug Club meeting in question was around 1945 and 
Riddle meet DD about 10 years later around 1955.  Making it very 
likely that their sons, the Lestrange Brothers and Avery `Jr.' would 
have been born in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

The Death Eaters are a generational association for some members 
which indicates that Lestrange and Avery were likely the nominal 
heads of the 'Gang' at Hogwarts and who 'brought' in the others.  

Cheers, Mandy







From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 21 15:13:04 2006
From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:13:04 -0000
Subject: Latest on the Black Family Tree - Bellatrix Born in 1951
Message-ID: <dtfam0+jinb@...>

OK so it's almost canon that Bellatrix Black was born in 1951.  A 
couple of people who were lucky enough to be at the viewing for the 
auction of the Black Family Tree, have made notes on what they saw. 
The Lexicon is reporting.

So, this means Bella is 8 years older than Snape, and unless JKR is 
about to shift the date of the Marauders and Snape birth, there is no 
way Bellatrix could have been at school with them. 

Someone is mistaken: Sirius in his `Gang of Slytherins' statement or 
JKR in her dates? And in actual fact they are the same person, but who 
is going to be taking the blame, I wonder?  

Mandy








From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 21 15:40:59 2006
From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:40:59 -0000
Subject: Latest on the Black Family Tree - Bellatrix Born in 1951
In-Reply-To: <dtfam0+jinb@...>
Message-ID: <dtfcab+9bad@...>

Mandy 
> Someone is mistaken: Sirius in his `Gang of Slytherins' statement 
or 
> JKR in her dates? And in actual fact they are the same person, but 
who 
> is going to be taking the blame, I wonder?  


Kathy W:
I think the most likely explanation is that JKR made a comment or 
plot change at some point that contradicted something else and set us 
up for all this math. Try as I might, I can't leave it at that.

It's very likely she intended the 3 Black sisters to include one who 
was disowned and was the mother of a auror who befriends Harry. And 
she intended the other two sisters and their cohorts to be involved 
with the boy who would become Postions Master. Unfortuneately, she 
gave an age or date for a character in an interview and it all fell 
apart. How important is age to her, if she OKed Rickman for Snape? 
(I'm glad she did, mind you.)

In case we've created our own red herrings, is there a chance that 
young Snape was connected with either Rosier or Avery prior to coming 
to Hogwarts and Sirius's comment reflects that Snape came to school 
knowing more hexes...and came to school already a part of a gang of 
Slytherins that included....

Sirius's wording is very strange in that section from the get-go.

It looks very likely that Rosier was cousin to the two sets of Black 
siblings. Could he also have had a connection with the Prince family? 
Severus didn't learn Dark Magic from his Snape cousins. Although he 
may have learned other unsavory lessons from them.






From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 21 18:28:32 2006
From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:28:32 -0000
Subject: Latest on the Black Family Tree - Bellatrix Born in 1951
In-Reply-To: <dtfcab+9bad@...>
Message-ID: <dtfm4g+io3r@...>

> Kathy W wrote:
(large snip) 
>How important is age to her, if she OKed Rickman for Snape? 
> (I'm glad she did, mind you.)

LOL!  Yes it is rather telling. Rickman turns 60 today and the 'young' 
actress playing Bellatrix is about 40. I suspect we need to not dwell 
on it all to much. 

Mandy






From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Wed Feb 22 19:20:14 2006
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:20:14 -0000
Subject: New RAB theory...
Message-ID: <dtidhe+s2m0@...>

Now the full Black family tree is revealed:

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/blackfamilytree.html

what do you reckon on RAB being the Regulus Black (1906-1959) rather 
than Sirius' brother (1961-1979)?

This would make a lot more sense, as this RAB is quite likely to have 
been at school with Tom Riddle, and been one of the original DEs. 
Someone this old is much more likely to have found out or know 
something about the cave, and know enough dark magic to have a chance 
of getting through Riddle's enchantments, rather than expecting a 
frightened young boy to have done the deed.

There could have been any number of reasons why this older RAB turned 
against Riddle, and noting how many people in this tree have similar 
names, not at all unlikely that he and his step-grandson would have 
the same initals.

Sorted?

Carolyn






From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Wed Feb 22 20:30:42 2006
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:30:42 -0000
Subject: New RAB theory...
In-Reply-To: <dtidhe+s2m0@...>
Message-ID: <dtihli+jca6@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" 
<carolynwhite2 at ...> wrote:
>
> Now the full Black family tree is revealed:
> 
> http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/blackfamilytree.html
> 
> what do you reckon on RAB being the Regulus Black (1906-1959) rather 
> than Sirius' brother (1961-1979)?
> 
> This would make a lot more sense, as this RAB is quite likely to have 
> been at school with Tom Riddle, and been one of the original DEs. 

Rapid self-correction before one of you jump on me, Voldemort was born 
in 1926, so this older Regulus would not have been at school with him.

However, he could easily have become a DE supporter subsequently, and 
then thought better of it once he saw where Voldemort was going. No 
idea how he could have discovered the cave, but still think he would be 
in a better position to work it out than a scared teenager. Also, would 
be able to command Kreacher, so that part of the second-helper theory 
holds up.

Carolyn







From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Thu Feb 23 14:03:59 2006
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:03:59 -0000
Subject: New RAB theory...
In-Reply-To: <dtihli+jca6@...>
Message-ID: <dtkfcf+no3g@...>

Carolyn:
> However, he could easily have become a DE supporter subsequently, and 
> then thought better of it once he saw where Voldemort was going. No 
> idea how he could have discovered the cave, but still think he would be 
> in a better position to work it out than a scared teenager. Also, would 
> be able to command Kreacher, so that part of the second-helper theory 
> holds up.


Pippin:
Regulus died in 1959. It's either too early or too late, I think. Too early
for someone attracted to Voldemort's public platform, because LV hadn't yet
established it, and too late for one of his early cronies--they would have 
discovered his true nature (and given themselves away if they couldn't
stomach it) long since. 

I think it's a red herring. JKR loves to tempt her readers into making
the same mistakes her characters do, in this case underestimating youth.
If Harry is going to discover and destroy all the remaining horcruxes,
it lends credibility to the story that another young person was able to
accomplish at least part of the task.

Pippin







From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Thu Feb 23 14:47:14 2006
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:47:14 -0000
Subject: New RAB theory...
In-Reply-To: <dtkfcf+no3g@...>
Message-ID: <dtkhti+qice@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Carolyn:
> > However, he could easily have become a DE supporter 
subsequently, and  then thought better of it once he saw where 
Voldemort was going. No idea how he could have discovered the cave, 
but still think he would be in a better position to work it out than 
a scared teenager. Also, would  be able to command Kreacher, so that 
part of the second-helper theory  holds up.
> 
> 
> Pippin:
> Regulus died in 1959. It's either too early or too late, I think. 
Too early for someone attracted to Voldemort's public platform, 
because LV hadn't yet established it, and too late for one of his 
early cronies--they would have  discovered his true nature (and 
given themselves away if they couldn't stomach it) long since. 

Carolyn:
Hm. Regulus the elder died suspiciously young for a wizard. Would 
tie in with him dying as a result of the locket switcheroo. 

It's also interesting that the Black family seem to have produced 
quite a few 'blood traitors'. This Regulus may not even be a DE or a 
member of Voldemort's inner circle, but within the Slytherin social 
group which included many who were. For his own reasons, he may have 
wanted to stop Riddle becoming more powerful.

Don't think the cronies argument holds up at all. We still don't 
quite know where Lucius' loyalties really lie, for instance. It 
appears quite possible for even a supposed supporter to cover their 
tracks. Voldemort may 'always know' about his slippery friends, but 
he seems a bit useless at exerting control when it comes down to it. 
Look at the long trail of cock-ups - Quirrel, Avery, Wormtail, 
Bella.. Snape (?!).


> 
> I think it's a red herring. JKR loves to tempt her readers into 
making the same mistakes her characters do, in this case 
underestimating youth. If Harry is going to discover and destroy all 
the remaining horcruxes, it lends credibility to the story that 
another young person was able to accomplish at least part of the 
task.
> 
> Pippin
>

Carolyn:
I thought the argument was that RAB the younger didn't do it by 
himself, but only with the help of house-elf magic from Kreacher? 
(Although I've yet to hear any convincing argument as to why 
Kreacher would want to help him).

And the credibility point doesn't need to be reiterated, as Harry 
has already destroyed one Horcrumble, albeit with the help of 
Fawkes. Plus all the rest of the trio exploits if anyone needs any 
reminder of that theme. 

More intriguing, surely would be further revelations of the mixed 
alleigances in the Black family? 

Carolyn






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Thu Feb 23 16:53:23 2006
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:53:23 -0000
Subject: New RAB theory...
In-Reply-To: <dtkhti+qice@...>
Message-ID: <dtkpa3+js7g@...>

 
> Carolyn:
> I thought the argument was that RAB the younger didn't do it by 
> himself, but only with the help of house-elf magic from Kreacher? 
> (Although I've yet to hear any convincing argument as to why 
> Kreacher would want to help him).
> 
> And the credibility point doesn't need to be reiterated, as Harry 
> has already destroyed one Horcrumble, albeit with the help of 
> Fawkes. Plus all the rest of the trio exploits if anyone needs any 
> reminder of that theme. 
> 

Pippin:

My theory is that RAB the younger swapped a fake horthingy for the real one
while it was in Bella's care, before it was hidden in the cave. But if people 
don't need a reminder of that theme, why do they keep coming up with
theories that someone other than young Regulus would have had a better
chance of snitching the horthingy?

Pippin






From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid  Thu Feb 23 18:15:03 2006
From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:15:03 -0000
Subject: New RAB theory...
In-Reply-To: <dtkpa3+js7g@...>
Message-ID: <dtku37+am1b@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
>  
> > Carolyn:
> > I thought the argument was that RAB the younger didn't do it by 
> > himself, but only with the help of house-elf magic from Kreacher? 
> > (Although I've yet to hear any convincing argument as to why 
> > Kreacher would want to help him).

Anne:
I don't understand -- who cares what Kreacher wants, when he can
simply be ordered to do things?

Carolyn:
> > And the credibility point doesn't need to be reiterated, as Harry 
> > has already destroyed one Horcrumble, albeit with the help of 
> > Fawkes. Plus all the rest of the trio exploits if anyone needs any 
> > reminder of that theme. 
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> 
<snip> But if people 
> don't need a reminder of that theme, why do they keep coming up with
> theories that someone other than young Regulus would have had a better
> chance of snitching the horthingy?
> 
> Pippin
>

Anne:
I don't understand any of the objections to RAB being Sirius's brother
-- especially as the note implies that the discovery of the existence
of the Locket Hx was an accident.  

On the other hand, there's nothing to rule out Regulus the elder,
either.  His opportunities are not as clearly delineated, though.  He
was 36 in 1942, which was the date on the Diary, so he did not know
Tom Riddle in school (though, as a younger son of Phineas Nigellus's
eldest son, he may have known Slughorn, and met Tom at a party).  Tom
Riddle worked for a while and begon collecting trophies -- but when
did he begin gathering DEs or their precursors?

Can't rule either of them out, can we?

Anne







From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Thu Feb 23 20:38:21 2006
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:38:21 -0000
Subject: New RAB theory...
In-Reply-To: <dtku37+am1b@...>
Message-ID: <dtl6ft+s2uh@...>

The idea that the elder Regulus Black is *the* R.A.B. is very 
creative. However, I don't think it's correct.

First, this elder Regulus has never been mentioned in canon.  In 
contrast, Harry knows that Sirius had a brother with the initials 
R.B., that this brother was a Death Eater, that he turned against 
Voldemort, and that he was killed as a result.  It makes sense that 
Harry will eventually deduce that R.A.B. is Sirius' brother.  Harry 
has no information about the elder Regulus, so it's unclear how Harry 
would ever figure out that R.A.B. was him.  Having R.A.B. turn out to 
be someone the readers and Harry had never heard of would be a cheat, 
in my opinion.

Also, there's the interesting theory that Regulus (the younger) may 
have had a mirror for communications, as Sirius did, and that Harry 
will use this to learn the fate of the locket.  I don't see any 
connection to Regulus the Elder that would help Harry find the locket.

What I find most convincing against Regulus the Elder being R.A.B. 
however, is the inferi in the cave.  Voldemort didn't have all those 
inferi at his disposal back in 1959.  Of course, he could have added 
the inferi to the cave later, but in that case, why didn't he check 
up on the locket while he was at it?  The presence of the inferi 
leads me to conclude that the cave was set up fairly late, well into 
Voldemort's first reign of terror. 

My feeling is that Regulus the Elder is actually Regulus the Red 
Herring.  He could even be a red herring designed specifically for 
the "benefit" of devoted adult fans such as ourselves.  The fan 
community figured out that R.A.B. was "Regulus A. Black" within hours 
of the publication of Book 6.  JKR may have wanted to throw us off 
the trail, and recently written the elder Regulus into the family 
tree specifically to throw us off. 
  
For those who hope to see some interesting allegiances further back 
in the Black family tree, though, they may be there.  Remember the 
theory that Sirius' father had helped Regulus against the DEs, and 
was killed as a result?  It could be right.  Sirius' father died the 
same year as Regulus. 

Anne said, about the claim that Kreacher wouldn't want to help 
destroy a horcrux:
> who cares what Kreacher wants, when he can
> simply be ordered to do things?

I concur.  Kreacher is bound to the Black household.  If he is 
ordered to do something by a "proper" member of the Black household, 
then he would do it. 

Also, although Kreacher clearly believes in the pure-blood chauvinism 
of the Blacks, that doesn't mean he favors Voldemort.  It seems that 
everyone in Sirius' immediate family ended up either having doubts 
about Voldemort, or actively opposing him. So, one can be a pure-
blood chauvinist and yet not actively support Voldemort.  Also, 
perhaps Kreacher has learned that Voldemort has a muggle father -- 
we've seen how he feels towards Muggle-born Hermione.

So, then, why did Kreacher try to help the Death Eaters at the end of 
OoTP?  Because Narcissa told him to. 

-- Judy








From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Thu Feb 23 22:38:00 2006
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:38:00 -0000
Subject: New RAB theory...
In-Reply-To: <dtl6ft+s2uh@...>
Message-ID: <dtldg8+uo96@...>

Pippin:

But if people don't need a reminder of that theme [childrens' 
abilities], why do they keep coming up with theories that someone 
other than young Regulus would have had a better
chance of snitching the horthingy?

Carolyn:
Um, why not? You can doubt that this particular teenager was 
capable/had the opportunity to switch the locket, whilst at the same 
time acknowledging that JKR has kids carrying out the main action in 
the books. If one really wanted to be tiresome (shurely not..), you 
could even argue that so far we have not seen any child in a previous 
generation being successful in fighting evil; it seems to be Harry's 
year that she's singled out for the doubtful honour.

Judy:
For those who hope to see some interesting allegiances further back
in the Black family tree, though, they may be there.  Remember the
theory that Sirius' father had helped Regulus against the DEs, and
was killed as a result?  It could be right.  Sirius' father died the
same year as Regulus.

Carolyn:
I find this good catch of Judy's more convincing than Pippin's 
thematic children-as-heroes argument. Could definitely live with 
Regulus-the-younger being helped by his father, especially as this 
would do away with the Kreacher difficulty.

On which point:

Carolyn, previously:
> > (Although I've yet to hear any convincing argument as to why
> > Kreacher would want to help him).

Anne:
I don't understand -- who cares what Kreacher wants, when he can
simply be ordered to do things?

Judy:
I concur.  Kreacher is bound to the Black household.  If he is
ordered to do something by a "proper" member of the Black household,
then he would do it.

Carolyn:
I think we saw from Dobby's curious interpretation of house elf 
rules, and indeed Kreacher's own peculiar behaviour that they seem to 
have a good deal of latitude in obeying orders. I would have thought 
a reluctant Kreacher was an extremely dodgy companion to take on such 
a dangerous mission, and I don't believe Regulus would be strong 
enough to command him. It's a bit like riding a horse, all about 
willpower. IF Kreacher accompanied young Reg, it may have been 
because Mrs Black told him to, and tying that into Judy's point above 
about the death dates, maybe the reason she told him to was because 
Voldie had just killed her husband?

Anne:
On the other hand, there's nothing to rule out Regulus the elder,
either.  His opportunities are not as clearly delineated, though.  He
was 36 in 1942, which was the date on the Diary, so he did not know
Tom Riddle in school (though, as a younger son of Phineas Nigellus's
eldest son, he may have known Slughorn, and met Tom at a party).  Tom
Riddle worked for a while and begon collecting trophies -- but when
did he begin gathering DEs or their precursors?

Can't rule either of them out, can we?

Judy:
What I find most convincing against Regulus the Elder being R.A.B.
however, is the inferi in the cave.  Voldemort didn't have all those
inferi at his disposal back in 1959.  Of course, he could have added
the inferi to the cave later, but in that case, why didn't he check
up on the locket while he was at it?  The presence of the inferi
leads me to conclude that the cave was set up fairly late, well into
Voldemort's first reign of terror.

Carolyn:
...er, now wait a minute! Neither of you are arguing from known facts 
here. Regulus the elder had infinite opportunities to know all about 
Tom Riddle through the myriad Slytherin and inter-bred connections. 
He is also the right age to have been taught by DD, and to have ended 
up on the other side of the fence. 

Either way, DD told us in HBP that Voldemort had an adult gang of 
supporters as early as 1954, as they were waiting for him back at the 
Hogs Head when he came to ask for the Dark Arts job after a 10 year 
absence at the age of 28.

Also don't see why he could not have assembled quite a lot of inferi 
by 1959. All they are are corpses bewitched to do a wizard's bidding. 
He could have commanded any number of them from graveyards all over 
the place, he didn't have to have actually murdered them all himself.

Though I agree, the dating of the cave protections is an interesting 
point. If he put it all together much later, as you argue, then that 
makes it much more likely the locket could have been swapped before 
it ever got there - but can't believe that Voldie would never have 
noticed that fact. And where did he stash the locket for 20 years or 
more since he murdered Hepzibah for it (and the cup)?

Carolyn






From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb 24 00:38:21 2006
From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:38:21 -0000
Subject: New RAB theory...
In-Reply-To: <dtldg8+uo96@...>
Message-ID: <dtlkht+ae41@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2"
<carolynwhite2 at ...> wrote:
 
> Carolyn:
> I think we saw from Dobby's curious interpretation of house elf 
> rules, and indeed Kreacher's own peculiar behaviour that they seem to 
> have a good deal of latitude in obeying orders. I would have thought 
> a reluctant Kreacher was an extremely dodgy companion to take on such 
> a dangerous mission, and I don't believe Regulus would be strong 
> enough to command him. It's a bit like riding a horse, all about 
> willpower. IF Kreacher accompanied young Reg, it may have been 
> because Mrs Black told him to, and tying that into Judy's point above 
> about the death dates, maybe the reason she told him to was because 
> Voldie had just killed her husband?

Anne:
My interpretation is that house elves are more bound to obey than that
-- I don't think Regulus would have had any trouble with Kreacher.

Kreacher obeyed Harry, who is the last person he would want to take
orders from, and who has no experience with giving orders to elves. 
If Regulus gave Kreacher orders to be carried out in his presence, I
don't think Kreacher would have the opportunity to fudge on the orders
to suit himself.  House-elves' order fudging would seem to be
something they manage to do by stealth, not in their masters' faces. 
Although Kreacher "interpreted" an order to get out of Grimmauld
Place, he was still unable to tell Narcissa anything that Sirius had
specifically forbid him to.

I also don't see why Kreacher would want to disobey Regulus (the
younger) in the cave.  He has no house-elf loyalty to Voldemort, but
to the "approved of" Blacks, of which Regulus was one.  I don't
imagine Regulus explaining the "mission" to Kreacher, either, so the
elf wouldn't be likely to have any objections -- at least, not until
he started drinking the potion.  I'm not even sure he had to drink the
potion at all, elf-magic being both very powerful and very different
from wizards'.


> Anne:
> On the other hand, there's nothing to rule out Regulus the elder,
> either.  His opportunities are not as clearly delineated, though.  He
> was 36 in 1942, which was the date on the Diary, so he did not know
> Tom Riddle in school (though, as a younger son of Phineas Nigellus's
> eldest son, he may have known Slughorn, and met Tom at a party).  Tom
> Riddle worked for a while and begon collecting trophies -- but when
> did he begin gathering DEs or their precursors?
> 
> Can't rule either of them out, can we?
<snip>
 
> Carolyn:
> ...er, now wait a minute! Neither of you are arguing from known facts 
> here. Regulus the elder had infinite opportunities to know all about 
> Tom Riddle through the myriad Slytherin and inter-bred connections. 
> He is also the right age to have been taught by DD, and to have ended 
> up on the other side of the fence. 
> 
> Either way, DD told us in HBP that Voldemort had an adult gang of 
> supporters as early as 1954, as they were waiting for him back at the 
> Hogs Head when he came to ask for the Dark Arts job after a 10 year 
> absence at the age of 28.

Anne:
Nah, I wasn't arguing there -- just trying to evaluate some of
great-uncle Reg's possibilities on their face.  It's true Jo could
write any number of scenarios to put him together with Tom Riddle --
but it's those opportunities which are not known facts.  Anyway, I
wasn't saying *much* there, I admit, just that Old!Reg has the
possibility to have got involved with Riddle, and Young!Reg certainly
had.  And that Jo could put anything in book 7, so who knows?

Other than that, we can root for our favorites and wait and see.

~Anne









From dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb 24 02:05:14 2006
From: dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid (Eustace_Scrubb)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:05:14 -0000
Subject: Family tree interpretations
Message-ID: <dtlpkq+5ibu@...>

I was hoping that finally having a version of the Black Family tree my
eyes could actually read, all would become clear.
(http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/blackfamilytree.html)

Alas...I am guessing that whoever reported the dates on the center
section may have misread a few of them.

To wit, Pollux Black (born 1912) is listed as having fathered Walburga
(b. 1925) when he was 13.  Likewise, his son Cygnus (b. 1938)
apparently fathered Bellatrix in 1951, when _he_ was 13.

I realize that we have evidence of early marriages and child-bearing
in the WW, but I think this is pushing it!  Either JKR is even worse
in maths than we already suspected or some of these birthdates have
been misread from the original.  Of course, if you push back Pollux'
birth year too much, then _his_ father starts to stray into the
teen-dad area.

I guess I'd conclude that the dates on this adaptation of the family
tree still need to be taken with large grains of salt and that it may
not be safe to build extensive theory on them until further
clarification (should we be lucky enough to get such).

Cheers,

Eustace_Scrubb 






From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb 24 02:28:12 2006
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (Constance Vigilance)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:28:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Family tree interpretations
In-Reply-To: <dtlpkq+5ibu@...>
Message-ID: <20060224022812.18674.qmail@...>

Cygnus Black = Black Swan. Am I the only one who noticed that?
  
  Heehee.
  
  CV

Eustace_Scrubb <dk59us at ...> wrote:          I was hoping that finally having a version of the Black Family tree my
  eyes could actually read, all would become clear.
  (http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/blackfamilytree.html)
  
<snip>
  
  To wit, Pollux Black (born 1912) is listed as having fathered Walburga
  (b. 1925) when he was 13.  Likewise, his son Cygnus (b. 1938)
  apparently fathered Bellatrix in 1951, when _he_ was 13.
  
<snip>

		
---------------------------------
 
 What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos 

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




From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb 24 02:43:10 2006
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:43:10 -0000
Subject: New RAB theory...
In-Reply-To: <dtldg8+uo96@...>
Message-ID: <dtlrru+dqqe@...>

I said:
>> What I find most convincing against Regulus the Elder being R.A.B.
>> however, is the inferi in the cave.  Voldemort didn't have all 
>> those inferi at his disposal back in 1959.... The presence of the 
>> inferi leads me to conclude that the cave was set up fairly late, 
>> well into Voldemort's first reign of terror.

And Carolyn replied:
> Also don't see why he could not have assembled quite a lot of 
> inferi by 1959. All they are are corpses bewitched to do a 
> wizard's He could have commanded any number of them from 
> graveyards all over the place, he didn't have to have actually 
> murdered them all himself.
> 
> Though I agree, the dating of the cave protections is an 
> interesting point. If he put it all together much later, as you 
> argue, then that makes it much more likely the locket could have 
> been swapped before it ever got there - but can't believe that 
> Voldie would never have noticed that fact. And where did he stash 
> the locket for 20 years or more since he murdered Hepzibah for it
> (and the cup)?

True, I should have pointed out that I was assuming the inferi were 
people killed by Voldemort or his followers, and we don't really know 
that.  Being able to use just any ol' dead body as an inferus strikes 
me as too easy, but I can't be sure it doesn't work this way. The 
mentions of Voldemort using Inferi refer to his previous reign of 
terror rather than earlier, but if he had earlier used inferi only in 
secret places such as the cave, the wizarding world might not have 
realized that he had inferi. 

Another reason to think that the cave was set up fairly late, though, 
was that Voldemort seemed to make horcruxes very gradually, only when 
he thought a murder was sufficiently important.  We have on 
Dumbledore's authority that Voldemort only made five horcruxes prior 
to losing his body at Godric's Hollow.  The diary seems to be the 
first Horcrux Voldemort made.  I don't know for sure whether the ring 
was the second Horcrux, but he did acquire the ring before the 
locket, so the locket may have been the third horcrux, or even a 
later one.  1959, the date of death of the elder Regulus, strikes me 
as early for Voldemort to have made three horcruxes, since he had 
only made five by 1981. 

Also, the protections on the locket seem extremely thorough, which 
also makes me think ithe locket horcrux was made relatively late, 
when Voldemort's skills were very advanced. (And if any of the 
remaining horcruxes have protections that are better than the 
locket's, I don't see how the Trio are going to get through them.) 

Of course, as Eusrace noticed, maybe the dates in the family tree are 
wrong anyway.  Argh!

As for where Voldemort stashed the locket -- well, he wore the ring, 
and later hid the ring horcrux in the ruins of the old Gaunt place, 
and he left the diary horcrux with Lucius.  He seems wlling to use a 
variety of hiding places.  

-- Judy






From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb 24 05:09:46 2006
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 05:09:46 -0000
Subject: Sorry for the mispelling....
Message-ID: <dtm4eq+4opo@...>

> Of course, as Eusrace noticed, maybe the dates in the family tree are
> wrong anyway.  Argh!

I meant, of course to type Eustace.  Argh indeed!

-- Judy, who can at least properly type her own name.  Usually. 







From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb 24 14:47:18 2006
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:47:18 -0000
Subject: New RAB theory...
In-Reply-To: <dtldg8+uo96@...>
Message-ID: <dtn69m+ig44@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" <carolynwhite2 at ...> wrote:
>
> Pippin:
> 
> But if people don't need a reminder of that theme [childrens' 
> abilities], why do they keep coming up with theories that someone 
> other than young Regulus would have had a better
> chance of snitching the horthingy?
> 
> Carolyn:
> Um, why not? You can doubt that this particular teenager was 
> capable/had the opportunity to switch the locket, whilst at the same 
> time acknowledging that JKR has kids carrying out the main action in 
> the books. If one really wanted to be tiresome (shurely not..), you 
> could even argue that so far we have not seen any child in a previous 
> generation being successful in fighting evil; it seems to be Harry's 
> year that she's singled out for the doubtful honour.
> 

Pippin:
I don't think  "Kids! You too can fight evil" is a major theme. I think JKR
shows us that fighting evil is enormously complex and difficult, and
few of any age are entirely successful at it.  Harry is unusual
in seeing himself as personally responsible for fighting evil -- most 
of the other children and indeed many of the adults expect 
someone else to protect them from it. I think JKR shows us that 
this is a generally reasonable expectation for a child,
but shirking when it comes to grownups.  

 Reg was eighteen when he died -- he would have considered
himself an adult, ready to take adult responsibilities.

 I think a more important theme is "Don't underestimate the lowly." 

Sirius described his younger brother as "idiot", "soft" and "stupid idiot"
in OOP, but Slughorn spotted him as a promising young wizard, and 
remembered him seventeen years after his death. He must have
made an impression -- and not by supplying years of crystallized 
pineapple or Quidditch tickets.  We know nothing of the other
Regulus beyond his dates --so while one may spin any number of
theories about him, to suppose that the younger Reg couldn't
have done fought evil because he was only a teenager and the
older wizard must necessarily have been the accomplished one 
seems to fly in the face of what JKR wants us to see, IMO.

Pippin






From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb 24 14:53:19 2006
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:53:19 -0000
Subject: New RAB theory...
In-Reply-To: <dtkfcf+no3g@...>
Message-ID: <dtn6kv+bed7@...>

> Carolyn:
> > However, he could easily have become a DE supporter 
subsequently, and 
> > then thought better of it once he saw where Voldemort was going. 
No 
> > idea how he could have discovered the cave, but still think he 
would be 
> > in a better position to work it out than a scared teenager. 
 
Pippin:
> Regulus died in 1959. It's either too early or too late, I think. 

> I think it's a red herring. JKR loves to tempt her readers into 
making
> the same mistakes her characters do, in this case underestimating 
youth.
> If Harry is going to discover and destroy all the remaining 
horcruxes,
> it lends credibility to the story that another young person was 
able to
> accomplish at least part of the task.

There's also a bit of a sort of reverse Chekhov's gun thingy going 
on here, isn't there?  From the point of view of someone who reads 
only the books and pays no attention to the froth of auctions, 
interviews and the like, this chracter is sprung out of nowhere, 
after the reader has been given an RAB clue and an existing RB 
character.  Amy Benson would be OK, but not great-uncle Regulus, IMO.

The mystery that JKR is interested in keeping difficult for us is 
*how* the locket was substituted, not who did it.  The ol' locked 
room mystery.

David







From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb 24 15:23:06 2006
From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:23:06 -0000
Subject: Family tree interpretations
In-Reply-To: <dtlpkq+5ibu@...>
Message-ID: <dtn8cq+kvoo@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Eustace_Scrubb" <dk59us at ...> wrote:
>
> I was hoping that finally having a version of the Black Family tree my
> eyes could actually read, all would become clear.
> (http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/blackfamilytree.html)
> 
> Alas...I am guessing that whoever reported the dates on the center
> section may have misread a few of them.
> 
> To wit, Pollux Black (born 1912) is listed as having fathered Walburga
> (b. 1925) when he was 13.  Likewise, his son Cygnus (b. 1938)
> apparently fathered Bellatrix in 1951, when _he_ was 13.
> 
> I realize that we have evidence of early marriages and child-bearing
> in the WW, but I think this is pushing it!  Either JKR is even worse
> in maths than we already suspected or some of these birthdates have
> been misread from the original.  Of course, if you push back Pollux'
> birth year too much, then _his_ father starts to stray into the
> teen-dad area.
> 
> I guess I'd conclude that the dates on this adaptation of the family
> tree still need to be taken with large grains of salt and that it may
> not be safe to build extensive theory on them until further
> clarification (should we be lucky enough to get such).
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Eustace_Scrubb
>


Anne:
I'm landing solidly in the "I give up" camp.

As listed, Pollux's dad was only 23 when Pollux was born, so you're
right, there's not much room to make him older.

I know Aberforth (the guy who took notes on the original) from another
forum, and, for what it's worth, he doesn't *think* he could possibly
have got that many dates wrong.  He was the first one to the event and
had ample time alone with the document in question for taking notes.

Anyway, if you scroll down from the tree in the Lexicon link, you'll
find the section of OoP where Sirius discusses the tapestry.  He
mentions Araminta Meliflua, a cousin of his mother's who tried to
force through a bill to make Muggle-hunting legal.  Well, where is she
supposed to fit on the tree?  As Sirius's parents were second cousins
to each other, a Black cousin of Walburga's ought to also be a cousin
of Orion's.  A cousin of Walburga's alone would have to be through her
mother Irma Crabbe's side in which case she ought not to appear on the
tree at all.

Since it turns out Daniel Radcliffe is the new owner of the family
tree, I suppose there's a decent chance he'll upload/email a scan of
it somewhere.

In any case, I think it may be safe to rely on this for names and
relationships, but not for dates.

Anne







From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb 24 20:32:45 2006
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:32:45 -0000
Subject: Aberforth is alive and well (if slightly poorer)
Message-ID: <dtnqhd+edaf@...>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4748292.stm

:D







From exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb 24 20:57:47 2006
From: exslytherin at exslytherin.yahoo.invalid (Amanda)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:57:47 -0000
Subject: Aberforth is alive and well (if slightly poorer)
In-Reply-To: <dtnqhd+edaf@...>
Message-ID: <dtns0b+moia@...>

davewitley wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4748292.stm
> :D

ROFL!!!!!

Thank you for that. It made my day.

Mandy







From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Fri Feb 24 21:48:52 2006
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (Constance Vigilance)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:48:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Aberforth is alive and well (if slightly poorer)
In-Reply-To: <dtnqhd+edaf@...>
Message-ID: <20060224214852.49500.qmail@...>

I think I speak for everybody when I say
  
  EEEWWWWW!

davewitley <dfrankiswork at ...> wrote:          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4748292.stm
  
  :D
  
  
  
  
                    

          SPONSORED LINKS    
                                                        Albus dumbledore                                          Jk rowling                                          Goblet of fire                                                                             
        
---------------------------------
    YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  
  
      
    Visit your group "the_old_crowd" on the web.
     
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 the_old_crowd-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
     
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.  
  
      
---------------------------------
  
  
          

		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail  makes sharing a breeze. 

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




From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid  Sat Feb 25 10:27:29 2006
From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 10:27:29 -0000
Subject: Product of insomnia or Mimbulus Mimbletonia
Message-ID: <dtpbeh+107a2@...>



Mimbulus Mimbletonia: what's in a name?

Mimosa = aka the sensitive plant 
Nimbus = aura

Mimbus = sensitive to auras

Things we know:

Neville was given the plant by Uncle Algie, it is rare.
Harry, Luna, Ginny and Neville were all blasted with stink sap from 
the plant and Ron and Hermione were not. 
Harry, Luna, Ginny and Neville all `hear voices' by the veiled 
gateway whilst Ron and Hermione don`t.
The veiled gateway `kills' people, manner unspecified.
In the Potterverse it is possible to separate the soul from the body.
Ollivander did a bunk shortly after Neville visited his shop to buy 
a new wand.
Ollivander had an old wand in display in his window.
Voldy likes to use the founder's items to make HRX.

Pure speculation:

Ollivander's display wand was Rowena Ravenclaw's and therefore is a 
HRX contender.
Ollivander's departure was a direct result of Neville's visit.
Neville said or did something to precipitate this, perhaps show an 
inconvenient interest in the display wand for example.
Harry, Luna, Ginny and Neville all heard voices at the veiled 
gateway as a result of being stink sapped.
These are the voices of the dead, souls separated from the body 
passing through the veil.
If Neville is sensitive to separated souls in the veiled gateway he 
might also be sensitive to a bit of soul lurking in a HRX.
The locket mentioned in the clearout of Grimmauld Place is that of 
Salazar Slytherin and also a HRX contender but the stink sapping 
occurred after interaction with the locket and therefore could have 
passed undetected.

Result:

Hooray! no need to randomly vandalise every ancient relic in the 
magical world, simply wave suspect item at a `diviner' and quicker 
that you can say CAT scan instant HRX detection.

Added value:

Voldy needn't know this, of course it all depends on where 
Ollivander has gone
..

Regards
Jo







From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid  Sun Feb 26 11:15:51 2006
From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:15:51 -0000
Subject: Product of insomnia or Mimbulus Mimbletonia
In-Reply-To: <dtpbeh+107a2@...>
Message-ID: <dts2l7+dcdj@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" <josturgess at ...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Mimbulus Mimbletonia: what's in a name?
> 
> Mimosa = aka the sensitive plant 
> Nimbus = aura
> 
> Mimbus = sensitive to auras
>
> 

> 
> Regards
> Jo
>

A further advantage would be the possibility of false negatives.

Perhaps the effects of stink sap wear off over time and then the 
diviner could overlook a HRX at a crucial moment (tee hee).

Regards
Jo







From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid  Sun Feb 26 23:33:24 2006
From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 23:33:24 -0000
Subject: Jumbled thoughts
Message-ID: <dttds5+csrp@...>



Could it be that Voldemort told Lily to step aside because murdering 
her would have torn his soul and his aim was to use Harry's death to 
make the next and final Horcrux? Voldemort only wanted to make seven 
Horcruxes in all (Of course one of the soul fragments remains with 
Voldy) and Dumbledore's assumption was that Harry was the last death 
he needed. HBP U.S. 506 

Voldemort had also said that he killed James that same night but the 
difference was that James had a wand and was attempting to do battle. 
It appears that innocent lives/unarmed victims (such as Lily, Harry, 
Frank, the Riddles
) would be murder that rips the soul whereas 
dueling like the `courageous fight' from James would be considered 
self-defense if James were to die at the hands of Voldemort. 
Interesting that Voldemort gave Harry his wand back in the graveyard
 
guess he knew he couldn't just murder the unarmed boy or he would be 
going over his seven Horcrux limit.

As Dumbledore surmised, Voldemort chose certain persons to make a 
Horcrux from their deaths. Voldemort did not want to murder Lily 
because he knew that his soul would be split with her death thus 
suggesting that she move aside because she was of little importance 
to him. Lily being unarmed would have ripped his soul (with her 
murder) and Voldemort wanted Harry to be his last victim with which 
he would make his final Horcrux. 

Now if, Voldemort already created the last soul fragmentation with 
Lily's death and knew he could not commit another murder or he would 
be splitting his soul beyond the magical number he originally 
intended, did he attempt the AK on Harry anyway in disregard to his 
previous plan? Murderers kill in great numbers so there really 
shouldn't be a problem with going over his original numbered 
killings. Although the difference between a murderer and Voldemort is 
that the murders committed by Voldemort have already been made into 
Horcruxes, which means that at the time of Lily's death Voldemort had 
5/7ths of his soul residing outside of his body whereas a murderer 
could kill many times and not have the same effect as Voldemort 
because the murderers soul bits (no matter how mutilated) remain 
inside him (his soul isn't whole but there could still be a chance to 
save it because all of the soul remains in one place). [There is an 
entire Snape theory on this one]

Maybe Voldemort did not take everything into consideration when he 
approached Harry with what was left of his core-soul split in two. 
Voldemort approaches baby Harry with two pieces of split/soul 
residing in him and makes an attempt on Harry's life, could 
Voldemort's core-soul afford to be split again? Or did his action 
join the murderer to his victim by way of the unused soul fragment 
that was caused by Lily's death. Would this actually be seen as a 
Horcrux or just an unintentional connection?  Voldemort's core-soul 
departed in vapor so what happened to the split that was made with 
Lily's death?

Why did Voldemort want significant deaths in which to create his 
Horcruxes? Is there a reason beyond that of status? Does the person's 
soul, whose death was used to split Voldemort's soul, attribute 
anything somehow? The Diary had a memory of Tom so maybe the locket 
and the ring carried something from the victim's soul that was 
murdered to make their killing into a Horcrux. 

One more trip to the graveyard scene
if Voldemort purposely gave 
Harry back his wand with the premise of dueling (so as not to commit 
murder) to protect the little bit of soul he had left and he 
commanded Pettigrew to kill the spare (who by the way had a wand but 
was not using it at the time as a threat), then who may have killed 
Bertha? Frank Bryce's death, according to Dumbledore, was used to 
make the final Horcrux with Nagini before the re-birthing party so 
why didn't Voldemort use unarmed Bertha to make his final Horcrux? 
Unless, Voldemort was not in Baby/Mort stage at that point and could 
not hold a wand. 

This brings up another question
if Lily's death split Voldemort's 
soul, which I'm assuming it had, then wouldn't Frank's death been one 
split more than the magical number? 

Enough rambling for today
its making my head spin worse than when I 
started

Snow 

Can't help myself
just one more thought. Read Celestina's song from a 
Very Frosty Christmas with Horcruxes on your mind
its interesting!










From katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid  Mon Feb 27 22:33:17 2006
From: katmac at lagattalucianese.yahoo.invalid (Katherine Macfarlane)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:33:17 -0000
Subject: Personal Profile: La Gatta Lucianese
Message-ID: <dtvund+k31c@...>

THE OLD CROWD--INTRO

***Name:
Katherine Macfarlane

***Nicknames/IDs:
Kat, La Gatta Lucianese, Gatta

***Age:
62

***Family:
None to speak to. Relatives are family you get stuck with; friends are
family you give yourself.
Mother to four above-average cats, one of whom is a half-blood bobcat.

***Home
Santa Cruz, California, one of the few places I've found where witches
and wizards can feel at home.

***Birthday, Place of Birth:
October 19, 1943, St. Louis, Missouri (it was an Accident of War).

***Education/Job/Role in Life etc:
B.A. and M.A. in English; Ph.D. in Greek and Latin Studies; M.S. in
Computer Science with cognate in technical writing.
Taught Classics at Ohio State until 1984; have worked for the last 20
years as a technical writer; am now trying to break into the
textbook-writing industry. Regularly reinvent myself every 20 years or
so; can hardly wait to see what's in store for me when I turn 80.

***Other things we might want to know about you:
Pagan (but not a witch, oddly enough, in spite of the picture on my
Web site). If pushed, will admit to being Athenaean.
Omnivore and darned good cook.
Politics slightly to the left of Governor Moonbeam. Specialties:
Picking fights with real estate developers and chain stores,
especially Wal-Mart and Crown Books.
INTJ and proud of it.
Libra (very well balanced, but have trouble making up my mind).
Started reading spontaneously at about age 3, and am still at it.
Promising talent for dancing cut short by the fact that I can't walk
and chew gum.

***First contact with Harry Potter:
Honestly can't remember; seems like I've always lived in the
Potterverse. I was probably mooching around in Bookshop Santa Cruz
shortly after PS/SS came out and bought it because it looked
interesting and I adore chidren's books. Once in, I was hooked.

***Favourite Potter things (books, characters, ships, fics, objets
d'Art, general enthusing):
The books, of course. In hardback, except for FB and QA.
The first two films on VHS. (Will get the rest on DVD when I get my
DVD player working.)
Professor Snape, with whom I identify strongly, having a like aversion
to teaching dunderheads and goofers. We share a personality type,
which makes for an interesting social life.
Hermione (I *was* Hermione as a girl).
Minerva McGonagall.
Hippogriffs and testrals.
Snape/Hermione forever!
Write my own fan fiction.
Saving up to buy a real wand from Alivan's.

***Extent of Potter obsession:
Intermittently intense.

***Other interests/activities:
Playing the recorder, cooking and writing cookbooks, bird watching,
messing about on the Web, writing, reading, appreciating cats.

***Current/recent reading:
Current favorites:
Crescent (Diana Abu Jaber): Modern Arabian Nights with fairy tales and
food.
Chocolat (Joanne Harris): Now *there's* a witch with a mission.
How the Heather Looks (Joan Bodger): A magical travelogue of classic
children's literature.
A whole grocery bag full of Nevada Barr mysteries (her first one,
Track of the Cat, has a lovely nod to Harry Potter).

Recent favorites:
Devil in the White City (Erik Larson).
The Accidental Tourist (Anne Tyler).
Blood Washes Blood (Frank Viviano).
Japanese Inn (Oliver Statler).
The Secret Life of Bees (Sue Monk Kidd).
That Old Ace in the Hole (E. Annie Proulx).
La Cucina (Lily Prior).

Ongoing favorites:
Anything by E.F. Benson.
Anything by Tracy Chevalier.
Anything by Jane Austen.
Anything by Elizabeth Peters.
Anything by Lindsey Davis.
Anything by Terry Pratchett.

***Current/recent listening:
Classical (lately exploring modern British composers: Elgar, Vaughn
Williams, Butterworth, Delius, Perry).
Ethnic, especially Celtic.

***Current/recent viewing:
TV: Not much. I don't have cable, so am limited to the local station
(high-school football) and a Hispanic soap-opera station in
Watsonville (periodically have friends over to watch it; we turn off
the sound and make up our own dialog. That sort of thing plus a couple
of jugs of good California wine can lead to critical levels of
innocent merriment.)

Videos: Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Shakespeare, Jane Austen,
anything by Merchant and Ivory... An acquaintance recently asked me if
I had any *interesting* videos; I offered her Prospero's Books and The
Secret of Ron Inish, and she looked at me very oddly.

***Favorite Websites:
Harry Potter art: 
http://acciobrain.ligermagic.com/
http://www.nocturnalsoldier.org/Tealin/artindex.html
http://www.edgeworlds.com/sb/hp_severus.html
http://www.goldseven.de/
My Web site:
http://www.katmac.cncdsl.com/

--La Gatta Lucianese






From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 28 13:53:18 2006
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:53:18 -0000
Subject: After all this time...
Message-ID: <du1kke+mn2q@...>

Well, this is the happy day for all those who voted for the SK question.

I'll be nice and just say that there is one bright spot. (Actually, I 
think JKR was trying to make sure we got *something.*)

If, as many suspect, Snape was at GH, then he would have had to have 
known--from the point of his initiation into the secret--that Wormtail 
was the traitorous SK, not Sirius.

If, as I expect, we find that Snape has been working *with* DD 
throughout the series, then this will confirm, as I have oft opined, 
that DD had this information all along, as well.  (Of course, I say he 
knew before GH, but this is still good evidence.)

Many are the implications that ripple out from there. Even if Rowling 
doesn't explain all of DD's machinations in Book 7, more readers should 
be able to see his complicity in events of which they have otherwise 
supposed him innocent.

Talisman
For the Fellowship of the D.U.S.T.











From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 28 18:33:08 2006
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:33:08 -0000
Subject: Who knew that Peter was the Secret Keeper? (Was:  After all this time...)
In-Reply-To: <du1kke+mn2q@...>
Message-ID: <du2514+3kdq@...>

Talisman wrote:
> Well, this is the happy day for all those who voted for the SK 
> question.
> I'll be nice and just say that there is one bright spot. 
> (Actually, I 
> think JKR was trying to make sure we got *something.*)
> If, as many suspect, Snape was at GH, then he would have had to  
> have known--from the point of his initiation into the secret--that 
> Wormtail was the traitorous SK, not Sirius.
> If, as I expect, we find that Snape has been working *with* DD 
> throughout the series, then this will confirm, as I have oft 
> opined, that DD had this information all along, as well....

Thanks, Talisman, I went and looked.

In case anyone is confused, JKR has posted the answer to the question 
of "What happens to a secret if the Secret Keeper dies?"  JKR was 
surprised that this question won the poll for which question she 
should answer, and so was I.  It seemed to me, before she answered 
the question, that there were only two choices:  Either the Fidelius 
Charm would be broken (and the secret would no longer be a secret) or 
the the Fidelius Charm would remain intact, in which case no one else 
would be let in on the secret, because there would be no one 
available to tell it to them. (To avoid spoilers, I won't say which 
option JKR said was correct.) 

I'm surprised people voted for this question, because the answer 
seems to hardly matter to the plot.  Dumbledore held the secret that 
12 Grimmauld Place is the Order HQ, but so what?  If the Order stays 
or if it moves makes little difference.  It moved out temporarily 
after Sirius died, anyway. 

Anyway, this has started me thinking about the Fidelius Charm.  We 
know that the Potters, Sirius, and Peter all knew where the Potters 
were, and all knew that Peter was the Secret Keeper (except for 
Harry, who was too young.) It's been implied in the books that no one 
else knew who the Secret Keeper was.  However, other people did know 
where the Potters were.  Hagrid at least must have known, because he 
was able to go to the ruins and rescue Harry.  

I *don't* like the idea that Dumbledore knew Peter was the Secret 
Keeper (and the Traitor), and yet pretended that Sirius was.  This 
would imply a level of dishonesty on Dumbledore's part that I think 
is highly out of character.  I also don't believe that Hagrid would 
know that Peter was the traitor, and yet pretend it was Sirius during 
the conversation with Fudge, Minerva, & Rosmerta at the Three 
Broomsticks.  (I'm not sure Hagrid could have put on such at act, 
even if he wanted too.) 

So, how could Dumbledore send Hagrid to rescue Harry, if neither of 
them knew that Peter was the Secret Keeper?  Well, we know that if 
the Secret Keeper send you a note with the secret written on it, then 
you know the secret.  (This is how Dumbledore informs Harry of the 
Order's HQ.)  So, perhaps Peter sent notes to Dumbledore & Hagrid, 
but they thought the notes were from Sirius.  

-- Judy, who, for the record, doesn't think Snape was present when 
the Potters were killed  








From constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 28 18:48:04 2006
From: constancevigilance at constancevigilance.yahoo.invalid (Constance Vigilance)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:48:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Who knew that Peter was the Secret Keeper? (Was:  After all this time...)
In-Reply-To: <du2514+3kdq@...>
Message-ID: <20060228184805.39766.qmail@...>

Judy <judy at ...> wrote:
  
In case anyone is confused, JKR has posted the answer to the question 
of "What happens to a secret if the Secret Keeper dies?"  
   
  <snip>
   
  CV: The main problem with a secret dying with the secret keeper as I see it, is that (assuming Dumbledore is dead) the location of 12 Grimmauld Place can be known by no others than those that already know of it. The Order of the Phoenix can not recruit new members who would be expected to visit the HQ because no one can tell the new person of the existance of 12GP. Eventually, those with knowledge of the secret will all fade away and then the secret dies with them permanently. Maybe that is what JKR is saying happened to certain secrets of history, such as the making of Greek Fire or the purpose of Stonehenge.

  Hmm. If a bit of general knowledge (such as the presence of James and Lily, which Dumbledore and Sirius seem to have known) become locked under Fidelius, what happens to those who already possess the knowledge? Do they forget?
  
Furthermore, if Peter was the keeper of the secret of Where are the Potters, then does that mean that no one can find the location of Lily and James' bodies unless Peter tells them? 
   
  CV
   

		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail  makes sharing a breeze. 

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




From judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 28 20:53:29 2006
From: judy at judyserenity.yahoo.invalid (Judy)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:53:29 -0000
Subject: Who knew that Peter was the Secret Keeper? (Was:  After all this time...)
In-Reply-To: <20060228184805.39766.qmail@...>
Message-ID: <du2d89+q8c0@...>

Constance Vigilance wrote:
>>>The main problem with a secret dying with the secret keeper as I 
see it, is that (assuming Dumbledore is dead) the location of 12 
Grimmauld Place can be known by no others than those that already 
know of it. The Order of the Phoenix can not recruit new members who 
would be expected to visit the HQ because no one can tell the new 
person of the existance of 12GP.<<<

I don't see that as such as big problem.  The Order can get a new HQ 
(protected by a new Secret Keeper) if really needed.  It seems they 
did this for a time after Sirius died, anyway.  

Also, with Dumbledore gone, who would have the authority (or the 
confidence) to admit new members to the Order?  (To admit new people 
other those such as the Trio, who were essentially part of the Order 
unofficially, that is.)  Of course, if the war dragged on, the Order 
would *have* to eventually admit new people, but the structure of the 
series implies the war will last only one more year, and I'm not sure 
the Order will need new members in that time.   

>>>Hmm. If a bit of general knowledge (such as the presence of James 
and Lily, which Dumbledore and Sirius seem to have known) become 
locked under Fidelius, what happens to those who already possess the 
knowledge? Do they forget?<<<

I suspect so, although it's never explicitly stated.  We don't really 
know how Fidelius kept Snape from saying where the Order HQ was, even 
though he knew it, or how Voldie could have his faced pressed up 
against the Potters' window without seeing them.  Perhaps the 
Fidelius Charm induces a selective amnesia in thos ewho already knew 
the secret, or stumbled uopn it?  That seems quite possible, given 
the magic of the Potterverse.

>>>Furthermore, if Peter was the keeper of the secret of Where are 
the Potters, then does that mean that no one can find the location of 
Lily and James' bodies unless Peter tells them?<<<

Perhaps the bodies are not considered James & Lily, and the Secret 
doesn't apply to them?  Or perhaps, someone who knew where they were 
(say, Hagrid) moved them to their burial site, and the Secret doesn't 
apply to the new location?  Alternatively, if their graves *are* part 
of the Secret, perhaps Harry can find them, having been part of the 
original charm, but Hermione & Ron won't be able to see the graves.

-- Judy







From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid  Tue Feb 28 21:47:06 2006
From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:47:06 -0000
Subject: Who knew that Peter was the Secret Keeper? (Was:  After all this time...)
In-Reply-To: <du2d89+q8c0@...>
Message-ID: <du2gcq+6e17@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Judy" <judy at ...> wrote:
CV: 
> >>>Furthermore, if Peter was the keeper of the secret of Where are 
> the Potters, then does that mean that no one can find the location of 
> Lily and James' bodies unless Peter tells them?<<<
> 
> Perhaps the bodies are not considered James & Lily, and the Secret 
> doesn't apply to them?  Or perhaps, someone who knew where they were 
> (say, Hagrid) moved them to their burial site, and the Secret doesn't 
> apply to the new location?  Alternatively, if their graves *are* part 
> of the Secret, perhaps Harry can find them, having been part of the 
> original charm, but Hermione & Ron won't be able to see the graves.
> 
> -- Judy
>

A lot would depend on how the secret was worded, I suppose.

Even though James and Lily did not choose DD as their SK, DD may have
still given them some advice about exactly what that secret should be.  

Suppose the secret was "James, Lily, and Harry Potter are hidden in
[such and such a house] in Godric's Hollow."  Once the house was
destroyed, there would be no more secret -- anyone could now find them.

"James, Lily, and Harry Potter are living in Godric's Hollow" would
allow anyone to find dead bodies (though only one who knew the secret
would have been able to find The Boy Who Lived).

"J, L, and HP are safely hidden in GH" ought to allow anyone to find
them in the event they were no longer safe.

Lots of possibilities there...

Anne