- This topic has 470 replies, 62 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
And is [??”? it] says befeirush in the book that the wand doesn’t matter so much, its all about the wizard behind it.
I’m not so sure about that, actually. Harry’s wand performs magic that he himself has not the knowledge or the skill to use, because it uses some of Voldemorts magic against himself, doesn’t it?
A quote:
through almost any instrument. The best results, however, must always come where there
is the strongest affinity between wizard and wand. These connections are complex. An
initial attraction, and then a mutual quest for experience, the wand learning from the
Does Dumbledore not say that he didn’t actually beat Grindelwald, but he managed to hold him off for long enough until he collapsed from exhaustion?
yekke2:
That is one possible explanation. Another is that Grindelwald was unable to kill his old friend, and that meant either that the fight was drawn out long enough for Dumbledore to cature him, or that that Grindelwald’s lack of conviction negated the power of the wand.
And, on a more general matter, it is interesting how Grindelwald gained mastery of the Elder Wand simply by stealing it.
You take it personally when people say that you have to listen “Daas Torah” which doesn’t make sense to you, and use the Excessive-Block-Text-Brute-Force-Method to stop anybody arguing!!
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/daas-torah-2
I don’t think I ever indicated that I take it personally. (In fact in that thread I brought seven pro daas torah sources.) Does it come off that way?
And “Excessive-Block-Text-Brute-Force” is meant to promote debate, not stifle it.
I was joking, PAA. Sorry if the British sense of humour isn’t appreciated! I know you don’t take it personally, and I know that the M”M are intended to inspire debate not to destroy it. I actually have never read the Daas Torah thread, I just know that you are very actively involved in it, to say the least!
I personally enjoy the M”M. There are those, however, who cannot follow the Hebrew, and those who cannot cope with the complexity of some of the sources, who are intimidated off a little. But great job anyway!!
Why was it in the Order of the Phoenix, when Dumbledore’s Army attempt their supposed rescue plan, the Ministry was deserted, with no officials, no security and no Unspeakables? This is pointedly discussed on the way in, but never explained actually?
There are those, however, who cannot follow the Hebrew, and those who cannot cope with the complexity of some of the sources, who are intimidated off a little.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/your-coffee-room-report-card-comments#post-530103
I don’t remember if we’ve ever discussed this here.
Rule #1 in any book: If there is a door which doesn’t open, and a valuable tool [Sirius’ knife] is destroyed attempting to open it, you can be sure that at some point, you are going to come back and enter this door. No door is created just to not open.
Why didn’t we ever get to see what happens in the Locked Room? I thought, when at the end of #5 Dumbledore explains the prophecy, that we were guaranteed a visit back there. The Power the Dark Lord Knows Not = Love. There is a Room of Love which remains a mystery. I was sure that the last battle – the climax of the series where Harry wins – would take place back in the Department of Mysteries.
Shame!
i apprieciate PPA’s
Back on page four iBump 2.0 asked:
at the end of book 1, Dumbledore said that his and Hermione’s owl crossed in mid-air, however a few pages later Hermione says to Harry that that she ran into Dumbledore on the way to the Owlery to send him the owl
The answer is that Dumbledore had indeed returned before Hermione could send an owl. Harry, when questioning Dumbledore, did not know this and assumed that Hermione had actually sent an owl. Dumbledore, therefore, thought that Hermione had sent an owl, and thus assumed that he must have crossed it in midair.
considering it was 6 months in the coming i think the 2 weeks for my response can be excused…
in any case, i strongly disagree with your assessment of the situation, that Dumbledore wouldnt have known that the owl never got off. the passage reads: “and we were dashing up to the owlery to contact Dumbledore when we met him in the entrance hall-he already knew- he just said, ‘Harry’s gone after him, hasnt he?’ and hurtled off to the third floor”
so, although the book clearly says that hermione never got a chance to say word(such as ” oh, Professor, we were just about to send an owl to yo-“), it does say that he met them as they were dashing up to the owlery (never mind the side point of how did they get down to the entrance hall on the way up to the owlery from the third floor? -and before anyone answers that they had fallen quite a distance through the trap door under fluffy and we are never told how they got out, so maybe the exit was closer to subterranean levels, i assure you, if there was a closer route to where harry was, Dumbledore wouldnt have hurtled to the third floor-) but, that aside, they were dashing up, surely he saw what direction they were coming from, at the very least, while talking to harry, and discussing hermione, he wouldve pictured his encounter with her in his minds eye and realized that she hadnt been tearing down a flight of stairs(having already sent the owl).
on a side note, i would like to join in condemning all those who mentioned that hpmore! it took me over a week to get through that one thousand nine hundred and thirty page thing! ( and once there i went on to read the james potter series as well, another couple of thousand pages and more coming!)
🙂 Bump 🙂
iBump2.0:
In the computer game, the owlery is in a separate building, which would then necessitate going down to the entrance hall in order to then go up to the owlery.
As for your main point, remember that all Dumbledore has to go on is what Harry told him. So he has no reason to think that Hermione didn’t actually send him an owl, though he missed it. He could have “crossed paths with it” quite some time before he bumped into Hermione in the entrance hall. Thus, she could have had time (in Dumbledore’s mind) to run all over the place, so her location when Dumbledore met her would not be indicative of whether she had already sent the owl. This whole timeline seems to be assuming that Dumbledore flew to the ministry and back, which Mcgonagall does say explicitly. Which begs the question – why didn’t Dumbledore just apparate?
In “the best played game of chess Hogwarts has seen in many years” Harry is a bishop. Yet he effects the checkmate via moving “three spaces to the left” which is not something in the repertoire of a bishop.
Also, you would think that considering the chess game was supposed to be an obstacle to prevent one from getting the most valuable object in existence, it would be a little better than to fall for a simple ploy like the one Ron engaged in.
Haven’t yet found any theories as regards the above questions, so until I have something original to offer, I suppose I’ll just…
#KTCRIM
“Wait until your father hears! Ron, I’m so proud of you, what wonderful news, you could end up Head Boy just like Bill and Percy, it’s the first step!…”—“Well, what will it be? We gave Percy an owl, but you’ve already got one, of course…” (Order of the Phoenix)
Why did Mrs Weasley just mention Percy if she is supposed to go ape every time anybody mentions him?
Contrast this with a couple of pages later:
She stopped dead, catching her breath with a frightened look at her
husband, whose expression was suddenly wooden.
And once we’re on the subject of Percy:
If it is true that there is a jinx on the job since Voldemort applied for it, it must have been Quirrell’s first year teaching. How would Percy know who he was?
I first thought that prefects were given introductions to the new teachers beforehand (in the prefects carriage on the train?), but it is evident in the Order of the Phoenix that prefects are not informed of staffing changes.
It could be that they generally do inform prefects in the carriage on the train, but there was an exception for Umbridge. Remember, the Ministry only have a right to appoint a teacher if the acting Headmaster cannot find an option. Dumbledore was probably waiting until last minute to confirm the position. (Although Defensive Magical Theory was already on the booklist)
It could also be that Quirrell was an exception to the rule. It sounds like Quirrell had been teaching for more than a year already when you look at Hagrid’s introduction:
yekke2:
As regards your Percy question, the question itself is not as commendable as the bekius required to find it. The key difference is the presence of Arthur, as he is the obvious reason she broke off. Also, she doesn’t have to be perfectly consistent, she’s human, after all.
I know, I know, it’s not exactly a rebuttal per se, more kvetching than answering, but some questions can’t be answered with reason.
I believe I’ve heard this question before, regarding Quirrell. I have two weak but relatively plausible theories.
My premise is that we are never illuminated as to the precise nature of this jinx, and only really know that it means no teacher has every taught the subject for more than a year, and that Voldemort cast it.
My first theory is that based on Hagrid’s words, as quoted above. We know that Quirell’s ‘bit of trouble’ was his encounter with, and possession by, Voldemort. If we assume this occurred that summer, than an argument could be made that an exception to the jinx was affected by Voldemort’s possessing him. This could either be because the Quirrell/Voldemort combination wasn’t strictly the same person as the year before, or that the caster of the jinx, Voldemort, lifted the spell in order to enable Quirell’s return.
The second theory is that the year he took off was the previous school year, and therefore he was not teaching for two consecutive years, and as such not technically in contravention of the jinx.
I am fully aware that both theories have numerous issues, chiefly among them that this exception would have been noted as some point during the books, as well as several other notable ones. I simply thought I’d proffer some suggestions. #KTCRIM
2) I alluded to the theory that Quirrell would be different, and I meant because Voldemort was exempt from the jinx.
“When he took a year off” doesn’t actually sound like a year off from teaching, it sounds like he took off a year from studying books. See the quote above.
“…delicious smell of baking salmon wafted tantalisingly in their direction…”
Surely if Dean Thomas could think of summoning fish, Hermione could have come up with the same genius?
Was this accidental magic? What was the connection between the ‘nasty throb of pain’ to the magic? Was the throb the headache from the window or was it something to do with his scar?
Firstly, how does the wand ignite if he wasn’t using it?
Secondly, why is Harry tried for use of the Patronus but not for the use of the Lumos?
Do these two questions answer each other? The Trace may not be on wandless magic; the trace is on the magical signature from when a spell is produced from a wand. (And Dobby deliberately ‘forges’ a magical signature onto his spell to incriminate Harry; Dobby’s other uses of magic therefore go unnoticed) The Lumos was Harry’s desperation forcing a use of wandless magic; it wasn’t a regular spell.
in book one, Gryffindor’s ghost says “I haven’t eaten anything for almost 400 years”. but in the second book he celebrates his 200th yartzeit?
He lied.
Student of Torah, to answer both of your questions:
— The “koshi ha’shibud principle”. The terrible hunger made the 200 feel like 400.
— The reason he didn’t eat for so long was because the thestrals ran out of blood and ate up all the chrein. Gryffindor only eats gefilte fish. But he couldn’t eat gefilte fish without chrein.
(Are those last two posts in the wrong order?)
Mods, I think you should change the thread title back now…
Really, mods…
Dumbledore tells the students that Cedric Diggory “was murdered
by Lord Voldemort,” but he wasn’t. It was Wormtail who murdered
Cedric, after being told by Voldemort to “kill the spare.”
I’m am finding this whole thread hilarious. JK Rowling in England doesn’t have a yiddishe kup and certainly didn’t expect her yiddishe readers to “learn” her books as if it was lehavdil Torah.
We’re learning it like gefilte fish.
Is there a difference between regular spells and spells that are like a command to the wand and the wand itself does something?
I can’t understand how Mrs. Weasley allowed a Troll to live in her attic. Why didn’t she have Mr. Weasley get rid of it RIGHT NOW. I’m sure a troll is worse than a spider!
Spiders are great pets.
So are trolls.
Worse than a spider is like worse than a cupcake.
Ah, it feels good to be back in these hallowed halls. Thanks for the tip-off.
To kick off, may I suggest the creation of a virtual Marauder’s Map for the inhabitants of the CR. It may contain secret passageways to hidden threads such as these, notes as to the virtual whereabouts of posters such as PBA and PAA (As opposed to their physical whereabouts, which would violate the laws of the CR), and perhaps a general, detailed virtual map of the CR. The possibilities are endless. And to enter, we must of course solemnly, b’li neder, swear we are up to the requisite measure of good.
#KTCRIM
BTW filter fish made with Matzo meal, can even be consumed on Erev Pesach until beginning of last 1/4 of the day, because since “Yesh Bishul Acharei Afiyo”, it no longer is considered Matzo unlike Matzo Meal cake which cannot be consumed all day ERev Pesach, since “Ein Afiyo Acharei Afiyo”.
Comlink-X:
You’ve answered your own question. Cedric Diggory was murdered on the orders of Lord Voldemort, and therefore ‘by’ refers to his instigating the action. Perhaps the strictly literal meaning causes confusion, but in common usage, i.e. informal dialogue, this is a commonplace manner of speaking. Were a political killing carried out on the orders of, say, Vladimir Putin, you would say the victim was killed by Putin, even if he didn’t actually pull the trigger.
Seems that Herring has replaced Gefilte Fish as the fighting Fish
Seriously? How is this not simply trolling? I’m sure it was initially hilarious, but I fail to see the purpose of ruining this thread, which is probably the finest I’ve seen in my time here. I welcome any explanation.
You wouldnt get upset if somone served you Herring?
Okay, Mods, kudos, I must concede that’s legitimately hilarious.
Thank You. Whoever you are (and I think I have a pretty good idea…). Thanks. Let’s please get this one restarted.
bump!
LOL! Who do you think I am??
HP = christianity
first 7 books = l’havdil, l’havdil, L’HAVDIL “old testament”
8th book = “new testament” (’cause it’s totally fake and I don’t accept it)
NetiquamErro, who do you think I am?? I am so curious!Do these two questions answer each other? The Trace may not be on wandless magic; the trace is on the magical signature from when a spell is produced from a wand. (And Dobby deliberately ‘forges’ a magical signature onto his spell to incriminate Harry; Dobby’s other uses of magic therefore go unnoticed) The Lumos was Harry’s desperation forcing a use of wandless magic; it wasn’t a regular spell.
The incident with Aunt Marge would seem to refute this theory.
Hey, PAA, welcome!!!!!!!!
Um, I dunno who I thought Zaltzvasser at the time I wrote that. I can’t actually remember what I was replying to. Sorry.
There doesn’t seem to be any post by Zaltzvasser that you could have been referring to.
Rejoice, fans – Codenames Harry Potter has been announced.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.