Re: Harry was NOT a Horcrux - Evidence in canon

On 2008-01-18 09:08:10 -0500, Toon <toon@xxxxxxxx> said:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:55:31 -0000, dicconf@xxxxxxxxx (Richard Eney)
wrote:

Voldemort likes elaborate stuff. He was impressing his DEs. He isn't going
to use a simple spell in front of them if he can dress it up with things that
look flashy and don't weaken it. Who knows if that spell really needed the
bone of the father?

Almost certainly, as a source of original DNA, and for testosterone.
had he used Merope, we'd have Voldemortina.

Maybe it didn't even need the flesh of the servant,
though I suspect that might have been more important because of the element
of sacrifice involved (and most significant ceremonies in fantasy novels use
some blood). Did anybody notice that it had to involve some of Wormtail's
blood too?

Yes, and why I believe Voldemrot v 2.0 came out far inferior to the
terror we only heard about.

No evidence in canon to support that. In fact, he appears
more formidable than ever. For one thing, he developed
the ability to fly without broom, thestral, or other visible
means of support.


And Wormtail is a wizard, and any wizard's blood would have
been sufficient - he didn't need Harry's blood at all. Probably all it
needed (besides the evil smelling stuff in the cauldron prepared earlier)
was Wormtail's bit, and that could have been just another finger. But that
wouldn't have been as impressive.

He needed an enemies' blood. He chose Harry for his significance.
Ironically, several resurrection spells I've seen in fiction require
the blood of the one who fell you.


Your problem is you are caught up with one thing. A soul fragment and
a "receptacle" are ingredients - much like flour and sugar are
ingredients. If you put sugar and flour and "other things" together
properly - you can get a cookie. Do it a different way - you can get a
cake - or a bread - or a danish -or etc.

And in this case, you're leaving out one little thing. A cookie is
still a cookie, even if you don't add chocolate chips to it.

True, but that still doesn't mean you get a cookie every time
you mix flour, sugar, milk, egg, and such. Sometimes, you
get a cake, which NOT a cookie, or a pancake, which is ALSO
not a cookie.



Once you accept that JKR spent much of DH discrediting Dumbledore -
making him clearly capable if deceit and lies - you have to also accept
that Dumbledore is capable of being wrong. He has been in the past as well.

Of course he's able to be wrong.

But why is he definitely wrong on HIAH?

"A Horcrux is the complete opposite of a human being."


Then - look at the statements by Hermione regarding Horcruxes (She is
ALWAYS right)

Yes, but as JK said in an interview, the highest form of canon
nowadays, DD is always believed, then Hermione is, because we assume
she just read it in a book (which apparently has been independently
verified off page.) One simply cannot take what everybody else says
over DD, just because he made a few boo boos in his life. It didn't
work with Hagrid, it's not gonna work with Hermione.

?????

Glad to hear you are now accepting Jo's statements as
canon. Welcome to our team.


- and Dumbledore and Snape had where Dumbledore describes what
DID happen that night - and that happens to coincide with what JKR
has said in her interview. Obviously - Harry was not what Hermione
described.

Hemrione doesn't know. She just read it in a book, subject to the
author's biasness and fallacies.

But, it's in DH. As such, in your own terms, it's canon. It doesn't
matter whether Hermione knows or not. It's in the book she
read and it's in the book we all read (HPDH). It's canon.




--
Lyle Delp
Yeah, Lyle Francis Delp! Ya wanna make somethin' outtavit?

.

Quantcast