Re: There is proof of a posession of Gryffindors, that is not the sword...in book 4...
- From: "David Sueme" <dsueme@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 19 Aug 2005 09:29:32 -0700
Terry McNeal wrote:
> David Sueme wrote:
> An implied (or more accurately, an inferred) contradiction is not
> clear; the inference could be wrong, for example.
How much Gyffindor DNA do we need to call it his hat? I suppose the
answer may have to do with how may OJ Simpson jurors are involved in
this trial.
Dave
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- There is proof of a posession of Gryffindors, that is not the sword...in book 4...
- From: freckles
- Re: There is proof of a posession of Gryffindors, that is not the sword...in book 4...
- From: David Sueme
- Re: There is proof of a posession of Gryffindors, that is not the sword...in book 4...
- From: Terry McNeal
- There is proof of a posession of Gryffindors, that is not the sword...in book 4...
- Prev by Date: HBP Chapter 1 re-read
- Next by Date: Re: New love for Puntunia
- Previous by thread: Re: There is proof of a posession of Gryffindors, that is not the sword...in book 4...
- Next by thread: Re: There is proof of a posession of Gryffindors, that is not the sword...in book 4...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading