Re: Plot Holes in Book6

"Troels Forchhammer" <Troels@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns96AACD6967E74T.Forch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In message <news:n6ednU_1FuYG12nfRVn-vQ@xxxxxxxxxxx> "Tim Peters"
> <tim.one@xxxxxxxxxxx> enriched us with:

[Troels Forchhammer]
> Tim, I have to ask now the reason for your, in a usenet context at
> least, unorthodox attribution technique?

Doesn't really matter -- 20 years of refining Usenet habits. It's aimed
mostly at readability; e.g., it's just good human factors to place
information near the first place it's needed. Having the names of the
participants only at the top of a long message overloads short-term memory,
although fancy news reading software, and/or scholarly dedication to
decoding the text, can overcome that. I'll leave in all the attributions
you and Outlook Express added to this reply, just to illustrate what a silly
mess it becomes <wink>. Note that I'm not asking anyone else to adopt this
style; it's just what I like.

> It works quite fine, I agree, but if I wan't snip somebody's first
> comment, I'll have to put in a new attribution instead of leaving in
> those at the top (oh, and you forgot to attribute your own previous
> post -- two levels in your own post, three in mine).

Yet, blessed as you are with extraordinary brainpower, you were able to
figure that out ;-)

About the main topic here, I think we're in violent agreement that there is
_no_ "rule of law" in Potterverse. It's not only not Potterverse reality, a
contemporary understanding of rule of law isn't even a Potterverse concept.

I can agree too that Arthur Weasley makes a fruitful example because we know
more about him than about other MoM employees. At the same time, I suspect
a much more obviously compelling case can be made against Dumbledore, and if
you're going for shock value ;-) D makes a better target. For example, I
don't know exactly what the laws about messing with time say (we weren't
told), but it's clear that they're dead serious, yet D both encouraged and
aided minors to violate those laws. And to what end? To free a convicted
mass murderer, and to save the life of a duly condemned beast! In fact,
there appears to be no case in any of the books where D recognizes an
authority higher than his own personal views. To the contrary, he routinely
breaks laws, and aids and abets others in breaking the law.

Focusing on D wouldn't do anything to advance an argument about the role of
patronage in Potterverse, but I view that as secondary to establishing that
the rule of law is indeed absent in this series. Patronage then fills the
vacuum.

Now all that said, it may be a particularly American view that _because_
rule of law is absent in Potterverse, there's nothing morally objectionable
about going against the MoM: the MoM is not a legitimate government from my
present-day American viewpoint. The founders of my government declared that
it's not only the right of the people, but also "it is their duty, to throw
off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security".
That's from the American Declaration of Independence, written by a gang of
Muggle terrorists seeking to throw off the corrupt rule of the British Lord
Voldemort of their time <wink>.

> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>>
> Tim Peters wrote
>>>>
> ~consul wrote:
>>>>>
> Tim Peters wrote:
>>>>>>

Obvious to even the most casual observer ;-)

<snip>

[Troels]
>>> Arthur Weasley deliberately phrases a new law such that he can
>>> indulge in his favourite pastimes.

[Tim]
>> Well, every law is passed because _someone_ favors it. Certainly
>> conflict of interest here, though.

[Troels]
> More than that, surely. This would be clearly illegal in any modern,
> Muggle, democratic, rule-of-law society.

OTOH, in any modern (etc) society, there would be a system of checks and
balances to _prevent_ a government bureaucrat from changing laws in their
own favor to begin with. If Arthur can change laws on his own say-so,
without due review from superiors, Arthur's petty corruption here is the
least of their worries. The system itself is rotten, and from my
contemporary view, Arthur deserves credit for exploiting it as little as he
does.

>>> Arthur Weasley covers up for a department head's brother when the
>>> brother has violated the laws which Arthur himself wrote, and
>>> which fall under Arthur's jurisdiction. For this Arthur receives
>>> and accepts a number of tickets to the top box at the Quidditch
>>> World Cup finals.

>> Sorry, I don't even remember this one.

> Just before they start discussing Bertha Jorkins:
>
> 'I like Ludo,' said Mr Weasley mildly. 'He was the one
> who got us such good tickets for the Cup. I did him a bit
> of a favour: His brother, Otto, got into a spot of trouble
> -- a lawnmower with unnatural powers -- I smoothed the
> whole thing over.'
> [GoF-5 'Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes']
>
> From an every-day moral this might not seem very bad, but from the
> ethics (still on a 'modern, Muggle, democratic, rule-of-law society
> basis) of civil servants, it is quite bad, actually.

I want to be clearer on which part "is bad". Arthur did two dubious things
here: first, he smoothed over a minor transgression as a personal favor;
and second, he accepted compensation for doing so. In my view, the first
is, in reality, "business as usual" even today; but the second is
inexcusable by contemporary standards (leaving aside that they don't
actually apply in Potterverse).

> In particular because this is Mr Weasley's own /particular/ area of
> responsibility (abuse of Muggle artifacts), and he has actually been
> quite emphatic about it at other occasions, but Ludo's brother Otto? Of
> course that has to be 'smoothed over'.
>
> Again, this is perfectly acceptable in the wizard world, but would
> result in criminal charges in our societies.

I don't think the first would in mine, not on its own. He acted on a matter
clearly within the bounds of his assigned duties, and without the _second_
part also in evidence to show that he derived personal benefit, the only
case that could be made is that someone else's judgment about which pending
matters should be addressed first, and in which ways, differed from
Arthur's. I wouldn't expect more than an administrative reprimand to come
of that. Given that there are only two people working in Arthur's
department, and that the wizarding population is relatively small, it has to
be the case that he often deals, in his official capacity, with wizards he
knows -- that he happened to know Otto's brother wouldn't be prima facie
evidence of wrongdoing. Accepting the tickets would get him in big trouble,
though.

>> Of course I remember he got the tickets. You're certainly right
>> that I didn't view that as notably corrupt at the time, because
>> all the prime seats were occupied by MoM brass and their supporters
>> -- Arthur just didn't stick out there.

> To me he stuck out as a very sore thumb. Giving all these tickets to
> Arthur told me quite a lot about Bagman and his position in the
> Ministry. Arthur isn't the kind of man that Fudge, Scrimgeur (who I
> suppose was Auror head at that time) or Crouch would have brought to
> the top box: they would have brought someone with power (in one of its
> manifestations).

I'm convinced! You're right, Arthur _did_ stick out there. It's been too
long since I last read the older books. There are so many reasons never to
stop ;-)

[snippage]

>>> Arthur Weasley hurries off to create a cover-up for an old friend
>>> (Alastor 'Mad-Eye' Moody), getting him fined (or whatever) on
>>> minor matter, when there are reasons to believe that the friend
>>> had committed far worse crimes, /including/ an unwarranted
>>> violation of the International Statute of Secrecy.

>> Do we know that this was without the MoM's blessing?

> That is very strongly implied. Moody's friends (in this case
> represented by Amos Diggory and Arthur Weasley) are trying to get Moody
> off the hook with a caution despite their firm belief that he violated
> the law:
>
> 'Arthur, you know Mad-Eye,' said Mr Diggory's head,
> rolling its eyes again. 'Someone creeping into his yard in
> the dead of night? More likely there's a very shellshocked
> cat wandering around somewhere, covered in potato peelings.
> But if the Improper Use of Magic lot get their hands on
> Mad-Eye, he's had it -- think of his record -- we've got to
> get him off on a minor charge, something in your department
> -- what are exploding dustbins worth?'
> 'Might be a caution,' said Mr Weasley, still writing very
> fast, his brow furrowed. 'Mad-Eye didn't use his wand? He
> didn't actually attack anyone?'
> 'I'll bet he leapt out of bed and started jinxing
> everything he could reach through the window,' said Mr
> Diggory, 'but they'll have a job proving it, there aren't
> any casualties.'
> [GoF-11 'Aboard the Hogwart Express']

I yield again to superior evidence. Just want to add that there's dark
irony here too: if this incident _had_ been "properly" investigated by the
IUoM lot, they may have uncovered what actually happened to Moody that
night. I'll refrain from leaping from that to a theory that Diggory and
Weasley are really working for V ;-)

>> Are you quite sure you're justified in calling his violation
>> "unwarranted" without a trial ;-)?

> Point taken. I am talking about what Mr Weasley /thinks/ he is doing --
> what Arthur is actually choosing to do.

Fair enough.

[snippage]

>>> A conduct such as this would land the man in jail unconditionally
>>> -- at least in Denmark (if it was discovered, at least).

>> Then isn't it also the case that if the MoM were in Denmark, the
>> whole lot would be thrown in jail?

> Probably, yes. I obviously target Mr Weasley here in order to show that
> this corruption and law-breaking isn't confined to the bad guys.

Indeed not -- and Harry too shows as little regard for following school
rules as Dumbledore shows for obeying laws. More power to all of 'em ;-)

> We are supposed to like Mr Weasley, and I certainly do, but precisely
> because of that his actions speak volumes about the society he lives in.

Agreed. I confess here that I was a bit disappointed in Arthur in HBP's "A
Very Frosty Christmas". He explained to Harry what we all knew anyway, that
Shunpike was arrested only to foster the appearance that the MoM "was doing
something". What disappointed me was Arthur's repeated insistence that
Harry keep this quiet. Partly because he seemed too dense to grasp that all
the good guys knew that anyway, but mostly because he seemed too eager to
play along with the MoM's deception. It might well be worth his MoM job to
oppose them openly on this, but he's got a lot fewer mouths to feed these
days too ;-)

[snippage]

>> Where do you get the idea that the Order is unlawful?

> Good point, there.
>
> There is no indication that the Order is actually not a legal
> organisation.
>
> From a modern point of view, their activies would certainly be illegal,
> but you're right that it might not be illegal in the magical world.

>> WRT whose laws? It wouldn't even be unlawful in America --
>> there's nothing illegal about a private organization here.

> Of course they would.

They would what? Be illegal?

> The Order as an organisation is responsible for e.g. Kingsley
> Shacklebolt consorting with the condemned criminal (according to the
> practice of the wizard world), that he is supposed to catch. The same
> goes with e.g. Mundungus, whom those members who are part of the
> magical law enforcement know to be a criminal.

This reminds of a funny bit from the old Batman TV show, where the nefarious
Penguin is running for mayor. As part of his campaign, he shows many
photographs proving that Batman is most often seen in the company of known
super-criminals, while he himself is most often seen in the company of law
enforcement officers -- it's obvious to the voters too then that the Penguin
hangs out with a better crowd ;-) Even in the real world, cops maintain
contacts among known petty (and worse ...) criminals, hoping it will lead to
bigger fish. You know: don't run Mundungus in for stealing a goblet,
because you want to nail the bigger fish he fences it to; or don't nail the
fence either, because you want to get to the really big fish funding the
stolen-goblet black market.

I agree they would have been screwed had they been caught harboring Sirius.

> Furthermore the Order is subverting civil servants to actively work
> against the government within the Ministry of Magic. What they are
> expected to do is essentially to spy on the Minister for Magic and
> those people in the Ministry who remain loyal to the Minister, and to
> seek to hinder these others' policies.

Isn't it odd that there's no hint in the books that the Order _is_
"illegal"? I suspect the relationship between the MoM and the Order is
really quite complex, also changing over time.

> I know you can go quite far in the US, but an organisation which has
> senior FBI officials consorting with the criminals they're supposed to
> catch would be banned.

Heh -- in this country, we even have them doing that on videotape <wink>.

>>> of vigilantes taking the law into their own hands,

>> Says who? From all I've seen, the Order is extraordinarily
>> passive.

> Come on, now. That is the whole purpose of the Order -- to fight the
> criminal Voldemort.

That is their avowed purpose, but when I look thru the books I indeed see
very little activity to their credit. For example, what did the Order do
throughout all of HBP? D went off searching for Horcruxes, but apparently
on his own. Lupin went off to talk with werewolves. Shacklebolt was
working for the Muggle Minister. Vance got herself murdered. Arthur did
his MoM job. Tonks pined. Mundungus looted Harry's inheritance. Fred and
George are finally of age, but there's no hint that they joined the Order.
Snape killed D. With enemies like the Order and the MoM, V doesn't need any
friends ;-)

> I agree that this might not be illegal under wizarding law, even if it
> does actively oppose official policy (something which might be a
> problem in the wizard world even if it isn't in ours).

It seems in HBP that the MoM is quite keen to cooperate with the Order, at
least for public relations value.

>> Or is it illegal under wizarding (or our) law to inject a spy into
>> Voldemort's camp?

> Illegal under our laws, yes.

Is that for a reason deeper than that the DEs themselves are an illegal
organization? Corporate espionage is a fine American tradition ;-)

>> To send an emissary to the werewolves?

> Insofar as that emmisary becomes aware of crimes without notifying the
> proper authorities, yes, that would be illegal under our laws.

Is there reason to believe Lupin has become aware of such crimes and not
reported them?

[snippage]

>>> and, on the order of said organisation (vulgarly known as 'The
>>> Order of the Phoenix') trespassing at places within the Ministry
>>> of Magic where he is /not/ allowed to be.

>> Are we sure Kingsley Shacklebolt and Tonks (i.e., aurors) weren't
>> allowed in the Department of Mysteries,

> We are not talking Aurors, we are talking Arthur Weasley, and I am
> referring to the day he was bitten on his watch for the Order. Check up
> on all the stuff Dumbledore has to do to ensure the right people find
> Arthur and to make sure Arthur has an appropriate cover story.

It's very clear throughout OotP that Dumbledore wanted to keep Fudge as
blissfully unaware of the Order's activities as possible. That alone is
reason enough for D to get Arthur a good cover story. What you said is more
than that, though: you said Arthur wasn't allowed to be there. "There" in
this case is a hallway, outside the Department of Mysteries. We saw Arthur
there before in OotP, when he accompanied Harry to Harry's hearing (for
conjuring a Patronus in Little Whinging). This was reached just by taking
the lift -- they didn't need any special clearance, or pass thru any
additional security. Sorry, but I just don't see a reason to believe the
hallway was off limits to MoM employees, or even to approved MoM visitors.
Order member Sturgis Podmore got arrested for trespassing, but I dont'
believe he was a MoM employee -- and he was also caught trying to _break in_
to the DoM. Arthur was not.

As to all the stuff D did, the portrait of Everard reported:

"I yelled until someone came running," said the wizard ...
"said I'd heard something moving downstairs ...
[from which I infer he was not speaking to an Order member, else
he would have spoken plainly about what happened]
...
Anyway, they carried him up a few minutes later."

Sounds like whoever found Arthur was a matter of blind luck -- although D
had _asked_ Everard to make sure that "the right people" found him, didn't
seem there was much a portrait could do about that request.

I'm not sure we were told what the MoM thought, but we do know it wasn't
reported in the Daily Prophet. Arthur confirmed the next day that the MoM
hushed it up, because "the Ministry wouldn't want everyone to know a dirty
great serpent got [in to the MoM]." So the MoM knew a lot. What D was most
eager to cover up was Harry's long-distance snake-channeling, and that much
did appear to remain unknown to the MoM. Arthur didn't appear to be in any
trouble, despite being found in the hallway.

[snippage]

> My main point in all this is that we get this absolutely enchanting
> construction called the magical world, ruled by a Ministry of Magic,
> and we get a perfect framework for investigating and discussing the
> differences between 'legal', 'justice' and 'Good'.

Oh yes! Dumbledore good, MoM bad <wink>.

> In order to do that, however, we need to first be clear that there are
> differences -- and even that sometimes there is a conflict.
>
> Generally the rule of law is considered a good thing -- and I'd say so
> as well. There is, however, a major problem when we realise that the
> law is wrong with respect to a specific situation. Breaking the law
> isn't as simple as that, because upholding the law is a good thing in
> itself, so we accept minor injustices -- and even minor evils -- in
> order to maintain the rule of law.
>
> In the wizarding world this situation has been turned on its head. It
> is no longer the law that rules, and the institutions are not really
> meant to uphold the law (with the possible exception of the Statute of
> Secrecy, but let's keep that aside: the Statute is an international
> condition that is being imposed on the British Magical Society). What
> matters in the magical society is personal networks.

Very nicely said.

> In Arthur Weasley already we are shown not only the strengths of such a
> system (to a large extent he really is free to work for the Order), but
> also the weaknesses; Arthur really does smoothe things over for Otto
> Bagman, and he does accept what can, in modern terms, only be called a
> bribe in return.

Bears repeating.

[snippage]

>> And from what we've been told, your "little man" at the start is
>> accurate: his ambitions are small, and his corruptions petty

> Well, my use of 'little man' was not exactly well considered, I admit
> that. It was too ambiguous and mixed up wizard and modern viewpoints.

I didn't object to it. As I said, it was accurate in context. In addition,
Arthur is a little man (at least before HBP) in respect to MoM power and
influence. He appears to be a wonderful father, but it would be generous to
call his ambitions, or his MoM career before HBP, mediocre.

[snippage]

>> If he looked in the Mirror of Erised, he'd see himself
>> learning what keeps airplanes up ;-)

> I was completely taken in by that exchange -- it was so beautiful in
> its simplicity: a very fine example of what I love the most about
> Rowling's writing. Aeroplanes and Mollywobbles ;-)

Tip o' the hat, and please accept half my crystallized pineapple, Troels. I
had to put the book down at the end of that scene, overcome by just how
_delightful_ it was. I don't recall any other series where I've had to stop
so often to recover from an excess of delight <smile!>.

> I am not trying to portray Arthur as a bad guy -- he is a decent guy
> who is working the best he can in a society that is very different from
> ours in many ways

Understood.

> -- I am trying to show why we should be careful about imposing modern
> standards on the wizard world, because according to normal use of the
> rule of law, Percy is the good guy and Arthur is the bad one . . .

Percy remains a git to me. Since there is no rule of law-- period --in
Potterverse, Percy's sucking up to those with power is just sucking up to
those with power. I don't buy that he has any loyalty to "the law" even
such as it is -- as Ron told us, and as is obvious from his actions, Percy
is very ambitious. He doesn't get credit from me for that under any
reading. I'm rather shocked that you've overlooked his spilling Ministry
secrets to Ron (in Percy's letter in OotP's "Percy and Padfoot", in which he
revealed that the MoM intended to oust D from Hogwarts, and urged Ron to
position himself to take advantage of that -- seems that Percy isn't above
abusing his position to advance his relatives either ;-))

[snippage]

> Harry expresses it quite well to Scrimgeur, actually. "I am
> Dumbledore's man".
>
> Mr Weasley is Dumbledore's man as well.

Yes and yes.

[snippage]

> There are some rights that we might today call civil rights that
> obviously exist in some form in the wizard world -- the right to life
> and the right to ownership, for instance.

They seem quite keen on freedom of expression too -- at least outside of
Muggle view. For related examples, The Daily Prophet and The Quibbler both
print highly unflattering things about the MoM. Fudge seemed unable to stop
it, and I believed Rita when she said the Prophet exists to sell itself.

> But the idea of collecting such rights and attributing them en masse
> to the concept of the citizen is, I'd suppose, as alien to the wizard
> world as it would be to any Englishman in 1690.

If I bump into an Englishman from 1690, I'll remember to ask ;-)

>>> If you look at it from outside, it is obvious that the wizard
>>> atttitude towards Muggles is very much in violation of normal
>>> civil, or human, rights, but this is a concept the wizards,
>>> including Arthur, wouldn't understand.

>> I'm not sure of that last part: Arthur appeared to understand
>> quite well what Hermione was talking about when she pressed him on
>> elf rights, and was sympathetic to her arguments.

> I think there's a gap there -- being sympathetic to Hermione's plea to
> treat the house-elves better is something that comes naturally to Mr
> Weasley because he is basically a very decent guy. But that doesn't
> mean that he would grasp the idea that they have a right to that
> treatment.

>> He appeared to have no trouble understanding that Dudley had a
>> right not to have his tongue enlarged either,

> Again I don't agree that there was anything to do with rights in that.
> Mr Weasley realised that enlarging Dudder's tongue wasn't very nice,
> and he was eager to appear polite to the Dursleys.
>
> There is a huge gap between saying that you should treat animals well
> because they deserve it and they are living creatures capable of
> suffering, and then claiming that the animals actually have a right to
> a certain treatment.

Well, I'm sure I have a _very_ American view here. Again from the
Declaration of Independence:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
-- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles,
and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

That was 1776, not so very far from 1690, and the authors of that document
had a strong theory of "natural rights". Note that, in their view, the
rights of the people do _not_ stem from government, or from the law, neither
from the rich or the powerful, and not even from what the majority of people
think. Human rights to them were _birthrights_ ("endowed by their
Creator"), and the role of government under the law was to preserve and
protect those rights, not to grant them.

As I said in a bit that got snipped (which is fine -- this has gotten much
too long):

Where does he demonstrate a lack of understanding of what our world
would call human or civil rights? They may not be codified in
wizarding law, but he seems to me to intuit the basics just fine.

That is, I suspect, a very American response: the founders of my government
held that the nature of human rights is "self-evident", accessible to anyone
with a functioning moral compass. My point above is that Arthur's moral
compass appears to be in fine working order, and from a natural-rights view
that's the _source_. Law and government are needed to protect rights from
those with broken compasses, but aren't needed to proclaim that those rights
exist -- even if bad law or bad government deny them, people are born with
these rights all the same. I'm sure Arthur couldn't articulate a coherent
theory of rights, but then neither could 1 in 100 of my fellow Americans.
Doesn't matter. The ability to recognize, and the drive to act upon, that
some things just "aren't very nice" isn't belittled in this view, it's
cherished as the very soil from which a rule of law can blossom (with luck
and, alas, usually a lot of bloody fighting).

We'll overlook that many of my government's founders owned human slaves,
because that's quite inconvenient to the "self-evident"-ness they claimed
<cough, cough>. Still, a belief in this, conscious or not, considered or
not, is still very much part of American culture, and American government
has had a relatively good record on human rights -- at least wrt its own
citizens, and especially its white citizens, and even more so its white,
male citizens. I suppose Rowling would think it says a lot about me that I
chose to be a white American male ;-)

>>> No, because Arthur had allied himself with Dumbledore, who, while
>>> he held quite a lot of power both at the Ministry and in the
>>> magical society in general, was in opposition to the main people
>>> at the Ministry,

>> Except D didn't break with Fudge until the end of GoF. That's why
>> the chapter in which it occurred was titled "The Parting of the
>> Ways", right?

> And Fudge welcoming Malfoy in the top box at the Quidditch World Cup or
> the events at the end of PoA didn't signal that they were drifting
> apart?

Oh sure, the break wasn't sudden or unexpected. But again, the reason for
Arthur's lack of promotions was said more than once in the books to be his
fondness for Muggles, which the pure-blood bigot Fudge couldn't abide, and
which Arthur would not hide. That doesn't mean there's only one reason, and
association with D surely played an increasing role thru OotP, but Arthur
didn't get a promotion in the first book either. From the start, he was
portrayed as barely able to keep his family fed, and "held back" at the MoM.
"The Muggle-loving excuse" works for me throughout Fudge's reign. This
might be a good time to remind that these are children's books, and when JKR
gives a simple explanation for a thing, it's dubious to go looking for
more-complex theories.

> But it is all connected. Arthur chose Dumbledore, and I'd say that that
> was a moral choice. To what extent is Fudge's evaluation of Arthur
> (lacking proper wizarding pride) based on a knowledge of Arthur, and
> how much is it based on Arthur's association with Dumbledore?

And how much was Fudge's distrust of D based on D's well-known championing
of Muggles and mudbloods? He must have thought that D lacked proper
wizarding pride too. Connections usually don't go in only one direction ;-)
Seriously, why on Earth did Fudge suspect (in OotP) that D wanted to take
over the MoM? In one of the HBP flashbacks, D confirmed to V that he had
been offered the position of Minister three times even then. Fudge surely
knew this, and that D had declined. No rational reason was given for Fudge
believing that D had changed his mind. That leaves me with irrational
reasons, such as those prejudice can indeed invent. Or maybe it was just
stress. Who knows? The books don't really say.

> The patronage system is quite complex, and allows for strange
> constellations. As long as Fudge isn't one of Dumbledore's men, but
> isn't in open opposition to Dumbledore either, then he can treat Arthur
> as he wishes.

The primary reason for Arthur's lack of promotions throughout the first four
books remains as clear as Snape's evil nature ;-)

[unjustified snippage]

I have to stop here -- out of time. I don't at all mean to suggest that the
rest of your post wasn't worth replying to (and it was certainly worth
reading!). If you reply to this, feel free to cut ruthlessly too. Thank
you for the conversation -- it's fun.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Plot Holes in Book6
    ... > Since there is only one wizard who loves spark plugs (as far as we ... > Arthur Weasley deliberately phrases a new law such that he can indulge ... every law is passed because _someone_ favors it. ... suspect the MoM as a whole indulges him on this point (much as they ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: Niggling away at the edges (related to Homemade bullet proof vest)
    ... The earliest version of this niggling away issue that comes to my ... traffic law includes things such as issuing DUI ... rather than driving, because they maintained control of their keys, thus ... busted for DUI for just this reason, and never drove an inch after his ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Durdle Door
    ... explain you were just having a quiet time on the beach ... Ask calmly and politely under what law they are suggesting that you ... Ask again if they know of a valid legal reason why ... lawful and peaceful use of the beach, or will arrest you. ...
    (uk.rec.naturist)
  • disgreeRe: The mechanism behind bouncing...
    ... Its a law that breaks down under certain conditions. ... There's a reason why college ... anything but only offer evidence that its probably not a good idea to think ... If a 2 yr old kid comes up to you and says ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: My Weekly Drash - Vayera
    ... >>> while I said I prefer to know the purpose of a law. ... > a reason. ... >> impart a reson to G-d's command. ... Moshe Schorr ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
Loading