(Ex) Students behaving out of character with their house
Rats
appears to be on par with how someone from Slytherin would behave. I
haven't seen him do anything "brave" yet to justify him having been a
Gryf.
I also feel Cormack McCleggan and Hermione could quite easily have
been in Slytherin and Ravenclaw respectively.
Any other out of character students?
John VanSickle
> Anyone else thing Percy should have been in Slytherin? His character
> appears to be on par with how someone from Slytherin would behave. I
> haven't seen him do anything "brave" yet to justify him having been a
> Gryf.
He could have been one of those fellows for whom the Sorting Hat took a
long, long time sorting, and it was a close thing.
Or, he had definite ideas on where he wanted to be, and the Sorting Hat
always goes with such ideas when sorting.
Or his head got turned by importance. People change.
Regards,
John
Joe Bednorz
<<cuQZh.5958$Ut6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>>:
Whatever the students' characteristics they still have to be divided
equally into each of the four houses. There's some room for error, of
course. This is made more difficult by taking and assigning the
students one by one. Borderline cases can be assigned to even things
out, then you get four Slytherins in a row as the last four students
sorted. Then what?
--
Links to Gigabytes of free books on line, emphasis on SF:
<http://www.mindspring.com/~jbednorz/Free/>
All the Best,
Joe Bednorz
Richard Eney
Joe Bednorz <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> Whatever the students' characteristics they still have to be divided
>equally into each of the four houses. There's some room for error, of
>course. This is made more difficult by taking and assigning the
>students one by one. Borderline cases can be assigned to even things
>out, then you get four Slytherins in a row as the last four students
>sorted. Then what?
We only have evidence of Harry's year, and even that is sketchy and
doesn't add up.
We have no evidence that every class is evenly divided. There may be
years when there are no Ravenclaws, or very few Gryffindors, etc.
=Tamar
Bonehammer
Rats ha scritto:
I fail to see how Cormac McLaggen shouldn't be in Gryffindor: in fact,
he represents the 'bad' side of that house, the boisterous braggart
with no impulse control who'd get killed for a dare (Sirius must've
been like that too). In fact, he missed the trial for Keeper because
he was ill after a stupid bet.
As per Hermione, the Hat proposed Ravenclaw, but _she_ chose
Gryffindor (that's explained in OotP).
Peter/Wormtail has not shown any Gryffindorish trait so far. Neither
Seamus nor Dean have brave deeds to their name.
No Ravenclaw student has exhibited exceptional intelligence, skill, or
ability.
Theodore Nott has been blending with the wallpaper for six years -
hardly a display of ambition.
etc.
Ron Hunter
> On Tue, 01 May 2007 23:58:00 GMT, John VanSickle wrote in
> <<cuQZh.5958$Ut6...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>>:
>
>> Rats wrote:
>>> Anyone else thing Percy should have been in Slytherin? His character
>>> appears to be on par with how someone from Slytherin would behave. I
>>> haven't seen him do anything "brave" yet to justify him having been a
>>> Gryf.
>> He could have been one of those fellows for whom the Sorting Hat took a
>> long, long time sorting, and it was a close thing.
>>
>> Or, he had definite ideas on where he wanted to be, and the Sorting Hat
>> always goes with such ideas when sorting.
>>
>> Or his head got turned by importance. People change.
>>
>
> Whatever the students' characteristics they still have to be divided
> equally into each of the four houses. There's some room for error, of
> course. This is made more difficult by taking and assigning the
> students one by one. Borderline cases can be assigned to even things
> out, then you get four Slytherins in a row as the last four students
> sorted. Then what?
>
>
>
an equal number for each group, which isn't the case.
David Foster
> Anyone else thing Percy should have been in Slytherin? His character
> appears to be on par with how someone from Slytherin would behave. I
> haven't seen him do anything "brave" yet to justify him having been a
> Gryf.
>
I feel like we need to give Percy some time. His intentions may turn out
to be honorable. By that I mean that he has taken some drastic measures to
advance in the MOM. When he has made a success of himself, he will return
to his family and use his influence to better their lives as well. This is
actually a very brave act. Dumbledore said that it is one thing to stand
up to your enemies, but it is another thing to stand up to your friends.
In Percy's case, he is standing up to his family. The end result will be
better for everyone involved.
Toon
Peter pettigrew
Toon
>Or his head got turned by importance. People change.
I still think that prefects In Power book bewitches you into over
ambition.
Toon
<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Whatever the students' characteristics they still have to be divided
>equally into each of the four houses.
Says who?
mewthree
wait till book 7 to see if he redeems his self.
Ron Hunter
I still feel that Percy is Dumbledore's man in the MOM.
Bill Blakely
wrote:
Say, that's a truly interesting idea! And one I never thought of.
Kind of a Snape, junior grade.
Bill Blakely
wrote:
If wizards and witches are like muggles, there would be many more
Slytherins and Hufflepuffs than Ravenclaws and Gryffindors.
Helena Bowles
"Bill Blakely" <wcbl...@hughesnet.com> wrote in message
news:ls3h33h2p6lmn30vs...@4ax.com...
I've wondered about this as well. It's entirely possible that Percy's
defection was set up by DD to keep an eye in the ministry. The only question
would be whether Arthur was in on the deception as well.
Helena
Tom Stern
wouldn't even let his parents know for fear of their safety.
Toon
wrote:
>No Ravenclaw student has exhibited exceptional intelligence, skill, or
>ability.
Luna did face off against 12 DE's. And might be so intelligent she
can recognize crumpled horn snorkack evidence.
Toon
<helena...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
Well, there was the post analyzing Percy's AntiHarry letter to Ron,
allegedly warning him of Umbridge's take over.
Course, many believed the DE's were controlling him, but alas, no.
Toon
<tomst...@forteinc.com> wrote:
>
>I've long hoped that Percy was under "deep cover" to the point that he
>wouldn't even let his parents know for fear of their safety.
And better cover story.
Ron Hunter
too straightforward a guy to carry off such a scheme.
mueckelein
> On Wed, 02 May 2007 03:44:51 -0000, dicc...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article <km1g335vrgv3pourcmvkp9js6it1pfh...@4ax.com>,
> >Joe Bednorz <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Whatever the students' characteristics they still have to be divided
> >>equally into each of the four houses. There's some room for error, of
> >>course. This is made more difficult by taking and assigning the
> >>students one by one. Borderline cases can be assigned to even things
> >>out, then you get four Slytherins in a row as the last four students
> >>sorted. Then what?
>
> >We only have evidence of Harry's year, and even that is sketchy and
> >doesn't add up.
> >We have no evidence that every class is evenly divided. There may be
> >years when there are no Ravenclaws, or very few Gryffindors, etc.
>
> >=Tamar
>
> If wizards and witches are like muggles, there would be many more
> Slytherins and Hufflepuffs than Ravenclaws and Gryffindors.
Hufflepuffs are "hard workers". Are you sure we have that many of them
in the muggle world? In fact all I can see is that everybody is happy
doing the "bare necessities". Doing more is not really popular....
Joe Bednorz
<<1178215818.3...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>>:
Even in the wizarding world the real hard workers are the "little
people" who actually keep everything working, i.e. house elves.
Another example literality in character is Professor Binns, a dead
professor teaching a dead subject. Not to mention that a dust bin can
represent "the ashheap of history."
Karnak17
I remember that. It was an interesting post, and an interesting
letter. I don't completely rule out the idea of Percy being a spy.
However . . .
There seems to be an assumption that because Percy does not toe the
line with DD and his family, that he is either Quasi-Evil or faking
it. I completely disagree. Percy split with his family for perfectly
normal reasons which would apply to many nineteen year olds, and the
fault was on their side, not on his.
Percy is no more ambitious than his older brothers. It is the twins
who exhibit evidence of criminal tendencies and exploitation of others
to achieve their goals. Percy shows every evidence of being honorable
and conscientious, but with extremely poor judgment. And "good
judgment" is certainly not a Gryffindor trait.
drusilla
But is not completely impossible that Percy thought that he would be a
spy inside the MoM, secretly tell DD about whatever is happening and
later appear as the tragic hero that had to even break up with his
family in order to "save the day", that is how he would see his actions.
Being arrogantly pretentious is a very Gryffindorish trait ;)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Toon
<gammanormids*erasethis*@gmail.com> wrote:
>Being arrogantly pretentious is a very Gryffindorish trait ;)
and a great cover story.
David Foster
>
> There seems to be an assumption that because Percy does not toe the
> line with DD and his family, that he is either Quasi-Evil or faking
> it. I completely disagree. Percy split with his family for perfectly
> normal reasons which would apply to many nineteen year olds, and the
> fault was on their side, not on his.
>
>
Nah. He's faking it. When LV is finally laid to rest (7 times) Percy will
make up with his family and help his dad get promoted to Minister of Magic.
I do like the idea of him being DD's spy though.
Karnak17
> Karnak17wrote:
>
> > There seems to be an assumption that because Percy
> > does not toe the
> > line with DD and his family, that he is either Quasi-Evil or
> > faking
> > it. I completely disagree. Percy split with his family for
> > perfectly
> > normal reasons which would apply to many nineteen
> > year olds, and the fault was on their side, not on his.
>
> Nah. He's faking it.
Possible! But . . .real anger and hatred splitting a family is truly
dramatic. Faking anger and hatred for a noble cause, where everyone
is really all sweet and good, is just cheap slurpy melodrama. So I
doubt it.
My take on it was that Percy was humiliated by his failure with
Crouch. When Arthur told him he was only getting another job in the
Ministry in order to spy on his family, that attacked his pride. You
could say the subconsciously he is more trying to prove himself to
Arthur, rather than really hating him. But that's not what I consider
"faking it".
> When LV is finally laid to rest (7 times) Percy will
> make up with his family and help his dad get promoted to
> Minister of Magic.
I see nothing so pleasant in the cards for Percy, myself.
> I do like the idea of him being DD's spy though.
I don't. The world isn't divided into "good little soldiers of
Dumbledore" and "Death Eaters". Making Percy a good little soldier as
a way of solving the problem would be a copout.
Karnak17
wrote:
<snip>
> > There seems to be an assumption that because Percy
> > does not toe the line with DD and his family, that he is
> > either Quasi-Evil or faking
> > it. I completely disagree. Percy split with his family for
> > perfectly normal reasons which would apply to many
> > nineteen year olds, and the
> > fault was on their side, not on his.
>
> > Percy is no more ambitious than his older brothers. It is
> > the twins who exhibit evidence of criminal tendencies and
> > exploitation of others
> > to achieve their goals. Percy shows every evidence of
> > being honorable and conscientious, but with extremely
> > poor judgment. And "good
> > judgment" is certainly not a Gryffindor trait.
>
> But is not completely impossible that Percy thought that he
> would be a spy inside the MoM, secretly tell DD about
> whatever is happening and later appear as the tragic hero
> that had to even break up with his family in order to "save
> the day", that is how he would see his actions.
I find it more likely that he broke with this family to 1) make sure
he couldn't be used against them, as Arthur claimed was the reason for
his promotion, and 2) make sure that if he succeeded in the MOM, he
couldn't have Arthur throw that reason in his face again.
If you were Dumbledore, would you hire the guy who didn't notice that
his own boss was under the Imperius Curse as a spy? Percy has no tact
or discretion, zero people skills, he judges people by surface traits
like social standing. He would make the world's very worst spy. DD
has made some dumb moves, but my guess is, not this one.
The only reason the MOM hired him to "spy" on the family was because
they thought he was too dense to realize that he was being used. And
they were right -- Arthur had to point it out to him. Nobody would
hire him as a real spy.
I'd hire the twins as double agents in a second -- if I thought I
could trust them (which I don't). They are oily, cunning, charming,
observant, and know how to manipulate people. Their is every evidence
that they collaborating with the bad guys at this point. I would
sooner buy that THEY are DD's double agents than Percy.
> Being arrogantly pretentious is a very Gryffindorish trait ;)
Being arrogant is. Pretentiousness is Percy's personal contribution.
Mishagam
It appears impossible for Rowling to show that somebody is bad. Even if
she shows this without any possibility of doubt, like in the case of
Percy or Snape, there appears people to found some deeply hidden honor
in their actions. Apparently these people wishes to believe in something
that is impossible to overcome.
mueckelein
Concerning the twins I agree that they are selfish and do not care
what hazard they cause to people they don´t like. But if you look at
it more closely Hermione is not much better. She almost killed
Umbridge and the twins never really endangered anyone. Okay, they
almost let Ron do the unbreakable vow but we don´t know what for and
if they knew what the consequences of it were. I don´t think they
really wanted Ron to die! All I can see is that they have a rather
mean sense of humor but as far as I can remember they always had a lot
of laughers on their side. Even Flitwick is impressed by them. What
makes you think they are on Voldemort´s side? Because they did not
give Ron all the stuff he wanted for nothing? They bought him the
dress cloak, which definately shows they know better what Ron really
needs. And I am sure they would not have said "no" if Ron ever was in
trouble with anything. They gave Harry the map which was selfless and
meaningful to Harry.
Oh, and where are they oily and where do they manipulate people. I
must have missed something!
Clell Harmon
> David Foster wrote:
>> Rats wrote:
>>> Anyone else thing Percy should have been in Slytherin? His character
>>> appears to be on par with how someone from Slytherin would behave. I
>>> haven't seen him do anything "brave" yet to justify him having been a
>>> Gryf.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I feel like we need to give Percy some time. His intentions may turn
>> out to be honorable. By that I mean that he has taken some drastic
>> measures to advance in the MOM. When he has made a success of
>> himself, he will return to his family and use his influence to better
>> their lives as well. This is actually a very brave act. Dumbledore
>> said that it is one thing to stand up to your enemies, but it is
>> another thing to stand up to your friends. In Percy's case, he is
>> standing up to his family. The end result will be better for everyone
>> involved.
>
> It appears impossible for Rowling to show that somebody is bad. Even if
She's done a pretty good job with Tom Riddle Jr...
Joe Bednorz
<<ZjR%h.102299$_c5.31980@attbi_s22>>:
>Mishagam wrote:
>> David Foster wrote:
>>> Rats wrote:
>>>> Anyone else thing Percy should have been in Slytherin? His character
>>>> appears to be on par with how someone from Slytherin would behave. I
>>>> haven't seen him do anything "brave" yet to justify him having been a
>>>> Gryf.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I feel like we need to give Percy some time. His intentions may turn
>>> out to be honorable. By that I mean that he has taken some drastic
>>> measures to advance in the MOM. When he has made a success of
>>> himself, he will return to his family and use his influence to better
>>> their lives as well. This is actually a very brave act. Dumbledore
>>> said that it is one thing to stand up to your enemies, but it is
>>> another thing to stand up to your friends. In Percy's case, he is
>>> standing up to his family. The end result will be better for everyone
>>> involved.
>>
>> It appears impossible for Rowling to show that somebody is bad. Even if
>
> She's done a pretty good job with Tom Riddle Jr...
It's more that JKR doesn't have any characters who regard themselves
as evil. (This is true in life as well.) Consider the rationalization:
"There is only power, and those too weak to seek it."
Hence Dumbledore's constant negotiating, even with his enemies. E.g.
the duel with Voldemort in the MoM in OotP. Or with Draco in the tower
in HBP.
Karnak17
mueckelein wrote:
> On 6 Mai, 16:20, Karnak17 <karna...@cs.com> wrote:
> > On May 3, 11:56 pm, drusilla <gammanormids*eraseth...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > I'd hire the twins as double agents in a second -- if I thought I
> > could trust them (which I don't). They are oily, cunning,
> > charming, observant, and know how to manipulate people. Their
> > is every evidence
> > that they collaborating with the bad guys at this point. I would
> > sooner buy that THEY are DD's double agents than Percy.
> >
> > > Being arrogantly pretentious is a very Gryffindorish trait ;)
> >
> > Being arrogant is. Pretentiousness is Percy's personal
> > contribution.
>
> Concerning the twins I agree that they are selfish and do not care
> what hazard they cause to people they don´t like.
Yes.
> But if you look
> at it more closely Hermione is not much better.
No.
> She almost killed
> Umbridge and the twins never really endangered anyone.
1) Twins maim and nearly murder Montague for fun (Hermione wants to
tell Pomfrey about it to help cure Montague, but the boys stop her).
2) Twins test products containing illegal Class C poisons on idiot
first years. (Hermione puts a stop to it).
> Okay, they
> almost let Ron do the unbreakable vow but we don´t know what for
> and if they knew what the consequences of it were. I don´t think
> they really wanted Ron to die! All I can see is that they have a
> rather mean sense of humor but as far as I can remember they
> always had a lot of laughers on their side.
So it is okay to be a bully if you have BACKUP? Okay.
> Even Flitwick is
> impressed by them. What
> makes you think they are on Voldemort´s side? Because they did not
> give Ron all the stuff he wanted for nothing?
Yes, I think that this clearly proves that they are Death Eaters. *_*
> They bought him the
> dress cloak,
Oh, no! You are right, they must be noble heroes.
> which definately shows they know better what Ron
> really needs.
Are you on drugs? They bought that because Harry TOLD them to as his
one condition of their huge loan, then resented having done so later.
And what they heck it has to do with them being Death Eaters I DON'T
know. If Lucius Malfoy buys Draco's team nice new brooms, that means
he is innocent? Please. To misquote Sirius yet again, "The world is
not divided into Good Brothers and Death Eaters." Those are two
different things.
> And I am sure they would not have said "no" if Ron
> ever was in trouble with anything. They gave Harry the map which
> was selfless and meaningful to Harry. Oh, and where are they oily
> and where do they manipulate people. I must have missed something!
Well, there is time to read the books again. Lacking that, you could
google "Crooked Weasleys" or "Evil Twins" or the words "Fred" and
"puffskein".
Ron Hunter
killing Grindlewald. He seeks to avoid having to harm anyone, even
Voldemort, in the effort to not accrue more guilt. In this sense, he is
much like Harry.
Toon
wrote:
>She's done a pretty good job with Tom Riddle Jr...
Yeah, but even Harry Potter started feeling sorry for him, just a bit.
Paracelsus
> Mishagam wrote:
>
>> David Foster wrote:
>>
>>> Rats wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyone else thing Percy should have been in Slytherin? His character
>>>> appears to be on par with how someone from Slytherin would behave. I
>>>> haven't seen him do anything "brave" yet to justify him having been a
>>>> Gryf.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I feel like we need to give Percy some time. His intentions may
>>> turn out to be honorable. By that I mean that he has taken some
>>> drastic measures to advance in the MOM. When he has made a success
>>> of himself, he will return to his family and use his influence to
>>> better their lives as well. This is actually a very brave act.
>>> Dumbledore said that it is one thing to stand up to your enemies,
>>> but it is another thing to stand up to your friends. In Percy's
>>> case, he is standing up to his family. The end result will be
>>> better for everyone involved.
>>
>>
Percy's problem is not that he is ambitious but that he is proud. He did
not break with his family to get promotion. Fudge promoted Percy and his
father then suggested to him that the reason for the promotion was not
Percy's outstanding talent, but his connection to the Weasley family
which Fudge hoped to use to spy on Dumbledore. Percy found this
insulting.After Fudge fell, an ambitious Slytherin would have tried to
get back into his family's good graces. Percy's Gryffindor pride has
prevented him from doing this. Percy has never been actively hostile to
his family. The letter he wrote to Ron in OOtP, shows that he was
genuinely concerned about his brother's well-being.
Ron Hunter
Toon
wrote:
>Dumbledore is that way because he still carries a load of guilt from
>killing Grindlewald. He seeks to avoid having to harm anyone, even
>Voldemort, in the effort to not accrue more guilt. In this sense, he is
>much like Harry.
Except there's no proof he ever killed Grindlewald. He might have
given him a fate worse than death.
Toon
<petersim@_nospam_shaw.ca> wrote:
>The letter he wrote to Ron in OOtP, shows that he was
>genuinely concerned about his brother's well-being.
Mainly because he was told without proof Ron was in danger form crazy
old Harry Potter. Which ran contrary to everything Percy knew about
him.
But he was honestly proud Ron was a Prefect, having given up on him
going the Fred & George route. I'm sure he was hoping this meant
after his split with the family, he might gain a brother back. I
don't know what their previous relationship was like, but Ron getting
a MOM job would only bring them closer together. Percy was clearly
lonely, especially being so far from his dad, who was physically so
close to him day after day.
He also found Umbridge delightful, so, I'm guessing one too many twin
pranks scrambled his brain.
richard e white
I disagree. The split was more on percy's then his family's side. I am not
saying all of it as the split with aurther and the twins are understandable.
But breaking off with molly and Ginny who didn't take part in the row or haras
him all the time was on percy's.
>
> >
> > Percy is no more ambitious than his older brothers.
How do you figure that? charly went off to study dragons and Bill went for
cursebreaking. We don't know how much dragon raseing pays but it doesnt seam
much. And Bill took less pay to help the order. Though he did meet flur that
way to. But Percy didn't go for the money he went the road of power.
Remember he wants to be minster of magic one day. True ron said it but
percy's reaction and actions sence then tend to confirm the goal. But none of
Percy's older brothers have been ignoreing rules to help railroad some one.
Though I will admit that I think Percy didn't realize how far fudge was
willing to go untill just before the fight in DD's office in book five. But
even though DD's words schocked percy he still was happy to help fudge.
> It is the twins
> > who exhibit evidence of criminal tendencies and exploitation of others
> > to achieve their goals. Percy shows every evidence of being honorable
> > and conscientious, but with extremely poor judgment. And "good
> > judgment" is certainly not a Gryffindor trait.
>
I would say that percy doesn't break rules himself unless told to. But the
fact that he is willing to help his boss break rules is even worse to my
thinking.
Still like I said I can understand percy breaking up with the twins. And his
father is the one that had the row with him so that is easy to see as well.
But not even willing to tolk with his mother? That's another matter.
>
> But is not completely impossible that Percy thought that he would be a
> spy inside the MoM, secretly tell DD about whatever is happening and
> later appear as the tragic hero that had to even break up with his
> family in order to "save the day", that is how he would see his actions.
>
> Being arrogantly pretentious is a very Gryffindorish trait ;)
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
That would only explain Percy's actions before the mom where friendly with DD
again. Percy wasn't likeing going back to his family even as the new
minerster reason for visiting Harry.
--
Richard The Blind Typer.
Lets hear it for talking computers.
Lets go for talking i-pods!
richard e white
> Clell Harmon wrote:
>
> > Mishagam wrote:
> >
> >> David Foster wrote:
> >>
> >>> Rats wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Anyone else thing Percy should have been in Slytherin? His character
> >>>> appears to be on par with how someone from Slytherin would behave. I
> >>>> haven't seen him do anything "brave" yet to justify him having been a
> >>>> Gryf.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I feel like we need to give Percy some time. His intentions may
> >>> turn out to be honorable. By that I mean that he has taken some
> >>> drastic measures to advance in the MOM. When he has made a success
> >>> of himself, he will return to his family and use his influence to
> >>> better their lives as well. This is actually a very brave act.
> >>> Dumbledore said that it is one thing to stand up to your enemies,
> >>> but it is another thing to stand up to your friends. In Percy's
> >>> case, he is standing up to his family. The end result will be
> >>> better for everyone involved.
> >>
> >>
> Percy's problem is not that he is ambitious but that he is proud. He did
> not break with his family to get promotion. Fudge promoted Percy and his
> father then
Fudge didn't promote percy's father. Skrimjaw did that after V was known to
be back.
>
> suggested to him that the reason for the promotion was not
> Percy's outstanding talent, but his connection to the Weasley family
> which Fudge hoped to use to spy on Dumbledore. Percy found this
> insulting.After Fudge fell, an ambitious Slytherin would have tried to
> get back into his family's good graces. Percy's Gryffindor pride has
> prevented him from doing this. Percy has never been actively hostile to
> his family.
That depends on witch member you are talking about. He is with the twins but
I think that is justafied.
> The letter he wrote to Ron in OOtP, shows that he was
> genuinely concerned about his brother's well-being.
That depends on who had percy write it. If it was percy's own idea then it
shows that he did have feelings for Ron or at least Ron's new stadis. But I
have a problem with that letter. For Percy knew how often harry and ron where
together. So he should have known that Harry would most likely seen ron get
it no matter what time it showed up. That along with it trying to get Ron to
help the toad makes me think that percy was used by fudge and the toad to try
and split ron and harry up. For they are the type to think that the letter
could show up with Harry knowing as nether of them knew that harry and ron are
nearly always together in the commen room.
mueckelein
So you would put Fred and George onto the list of people who were put
into the wrong house, too. Fact is that you see the twins trying
their inventions on first years a bit strange. They first tested the
stuff on themselves, and they did not make the kids test the stuff
that had negative side effects. A Slytherin would have tested the
stuff on others first before trying himself. The twins did it the
other way round.
Hermione stopped the twins because she is muggle born like you and
compares the tests to the animal tests in the muggle world. There is
just a little difference: the kids do that on their own free will or
do you think the twins imperiused them?
They don´t want to harm anyone with that stuff - they want to open a
joke shop and need products. And they sell the same products boxwise a
year later and noone is harmed as far as we know: with two exceptions:
Dudley and Katie, who got the wrong candy by them and had a really bad
nosebleed which Mme Pomfrey could easily heal. Dudley got this large
tongue but we mustn´t forget that Hagrid gave Dudley a pigtail, too,
and Dudley had to have an operation to have it removed. Hagrid even
wanted to turn him into a pig, which definately would have been
impossible to operate. Dudley hadn´t said a thing to Hagrid, there was
no need to give him the tail that moment. Is Hagrid a DE, too?
Oh, before I forget it: why did Fred and George give Harry the map and
the extendable ears? They were really useful for Harry. They joined
the DA, they supported Harry wherever they could. Why did they do that
if they were DE?
And I read all these links you pointed out when they appeared in this
group months ago but they didn´t convince me. I could tell you at
least as much as that about Hagrid, James Potter, who was steadily
shown as a moron, Sirius and Gilderoy Lockheart. They all are least
likely to have been or to be DEs! They just share something: they do
that for their own sake and if some people they don´t like suffer a
bit from that they don´t care. But that doesn´t make them DEs.
Oh, and do you think Zonko is a DE, too? He sold magical joke stuff,
too, and that stuff once must have been tested by anyone! He´s
probably gone to meet Florian Fortescue and Ollivander inventing fake
wands which produce ice cream for the DE when being waved....
Paracelsus
"The world is not divided into good people and Death Eaters."
The twins do some bad things, but that does not make them potential
traitors. Their misdeeds fall into two categories. One is sheer
thoughtlessness. They are robust young men. They play a sport, with the
full approval of everyone around them, that involves trying to knock
people off their brooms with balls the weight of cannonballs. They
simply do not realize that other people may not have the same toleration
for pain and risk that they themselves have. This is not the same thing
as being a bully. Bullies cause pain because they enjoy seeing others
suffer. People like the twins cause pain because they do not realize
that others find what they are doing painful. When someone like Hermione
tells them to stop, they stop.
Their other motive is retaliation or pre-emptive attack against people
who are trying to harm themselves and their friends.
They will not join the Death Eaters, but they may, by thoughtlessness,
make the Death Eater's job easier. They have already done this twice.
Malfoy only learned about the vanishing cabinet because of what the
twins did to Montague. They also sold Peruvian Instant Darkness Powder
to a Death Eater.
Karnak17
No!
> Fact is that you see the twins trying
> their inventions on first years a bit strange. They first tested the
> stuff on themselves, and they did not make the kids test the stuff
> that had negative side effects. A Slytherin would have tested the
> stuff on others first before trying himself. The twins did it the
> other way round.
> Hermione stopped the twins because she is muggle born like you and
> compares the tests to the animal tests in the muggle world. There is
> just a little difference: the kids do that on their own free will or
> do you think the twins imperiused them?
Are you aware that you just made the argument that testing on children
is better than testing on animals?
> They don´t want to harm anyone with that stuff - they want to open a
> joke shop and need products. <snip>
No matter what.
>Dudley got this large
> tongue but we mustn´t forget that Hagrid gave Dudley a pigtail, too,
> and Dudley had to have an operation to have it removed. Hagrid even
> wanted to turn him into a pig, which definately would have been
> impossible to operate. Dudley hadn´t said a thing to Hagrid, there was
> no need to give him the tail that moment. Is Hagrid a DE, too?
> Oh, before I forget it: why did Fred and George give Harry the map and
> the extendable ears? They were really useful for Harry. They joined
> the DA, they supported Harry wherever they could. Why did they do that
> if they were DE?
They aren't Death Eaters, they are collaborators.
> And I read all these links you pointed out when they appeared in this
> group months ago but they didn´t convince me. I could tell you at
> least as much as that about Hagrid, James Potter, who was steadily
> shown as a moron, Sirius and Gilderoy Lockheart. They all are least
> likely to have been or to be DEs!
You mean, because Hagrid has faults and is not a Death EAter, that
means the twins, who also have faults, also cannot be Death Eaters.
That does not follow. The twins CAN be Death Eaters. I don't think
they are, of course. Merely collaborators, as I said.
<snip>
> Oh, and do you think Zonko is a DE, too?
Possible, but in my view, highly unlikely. If Zonko was in
Voldemort's pocket, he wouldn't be going out of business at just this
time.
Karnak17
> >Karnak17escribió:
> > > Toon wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 2 May 2007 17:57:14 +0100, "Helena Bowles"
> > >> <helena.bow...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Bill Blakely" <wcblak...@hughesnet.com> wrote in message
> > >>>news:ls3h33h2p6lmn30vs...@4ax.com...
> > >>>> On Wed, 02 May 2007 07:40:51 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphun...@charter.net>
> > >>>> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> David Foster wrote:
> > >>>>>> Rats wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Anyone else thing Percy should have been in Slytherin? His
> > >>>>>>> character appears to be on par with how someone from
> > >>>>>>> Slytherin would behave. <snip>
> > > There seems to be an assumption that because Percy does not toe the
> > > line with DD and his family, that he is either Quasi-Evil or faking
> > > it. I completely disagree. Percy split with his family for perfectly
> > > normal reasons which would apply to many nineteen year olds, and the
> > > fault was on their side, not on his.
>
> I disagree. The split was more on percy's then his family's side.
The SPLIT was Percy's doing, yes. The FAULT for it was more the
family than Percy.
> I am not
> saying all of it as the split with aurther and the twins are understandable.
> But breaking off with molly and Ginny who didn't take part in the row or haras
> him all the time was on percy's.
Ginny DID encourage the twins harrassment against Percy before the
split. She certainly was extremely angry and hostile to him after the
row with Arthur, and unwelcoming and hostile to him at Christmas.
None of this is true of Molly, of course. However, I agree that Percy
chose to split with the entire family, not with specific individual
members. And I still say his behavior was normal for a nineteen year
old in the circumstance, and need not be evidence either of Evilness
or of Secret Agent Man status.
> > > Percy is no more ambitious than his older brothers.
>
> How do you figure that?
How do you figure otherwise?
> charly went off to study dragons and Bill went for
> cursebreaking. We don't know how much dragon raseing pays but it doesnt seam
> much. And Bill took less pay to help the order.
Here you equate "ambition" with "desire for wealth". But the Ministry
scarcely seems to be the way to get wealthy, and we certainly have no
evidence that Percy is particularly well off. Unlike Bill with his
dragon skin boots and the twins with their dragon skin suits.
> Though he did meet flur that
> way to. But Percy didn't go for the money he went the
> road of power. Remember he wants to be minster of
> magic one day. True ron said it but
> percy's reaction and actions sence then tend to confirm
> the goal.
Okay, so we agree Percy is not money hungry. But we can make the safe
assumption that he wants to succeed and excell at his chosen
profession. Like his brothers.
> But none of
> Percy's older brothers have been ignoreing rules to help
> railroad some one.
> Though I will admit that I think Percy didn't realize how far
> fudge was willing to go untill just before the fight in DD's
> office in book five. But even though DD's words schocked
> percy he still was happy to help fudge.
I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. There is no evidence
that Percy ever tried to deliberately railroad anybody. You seem to
be assuming that Percy knows perfectly well that Fudge is wrong, that
Dumbledore is right, and that Harry is innocent. What evidence do you
have for this position?
> > It is the twins
> > > who exhibit evidence of criminal tendencies and
> > > exploitation of others to achieve their goals. Percy
> > > shows every evidence of being honorable
> > > and conscientious, but with extremely poor judgment.
> > > And "good judgment" is certainly not a Gryffindor
> > > trait.
>
> I would say that percy doesn't break rules himself unless
> told to. But the fact that he is willing to help his boss break
> rules is even worse to my thinking.
Again, not sure what you are arguing here. That it is sorta bad to
trade in illegal poisons and test them on children IF you do it under
your own initiative for your own profit. But it is worse to do it if
your boss tells you to? Which means that if something IS crooked
about Weasley's Wizard Wheazes, as I suspect, you would hold VERITY
the employee as a worse person than F&G, the actual owners. Is this
correct, or have I missed your point?
Karnak17
Paracelsus wrote:
> "The world is not divided into good people and Death Eaters."
>
> The twins do some bad things, but that does not make them
> potential traitors.
Depends on which bad things you are referring to.
I believe my original point, though, was that Percy does not have the
talents to be a good double agent, and that Fred and George would make
a better choice assuming they were trustworthy.
> Their misdeeds fall into two categories. One is sheer
> thoughtlessness. They are robust young men. They play a sport,
> with the full approval of everyone around them, that involves
> trying to knock people off their brooms with balls the weight
> of cannonballs. They simply do not realize that other people
> may not have the same toleration for pain and risk that they
> themselves have. This is not the same thing as being a bully.
Yes it is. You mean that it is not the same as being a sadist.
> Bullies cause pain because they enjoy seeing others
> suffer. People like the twins cause pain because they do not
> realize that others find what they are doing painful. When
> someone like Hermione tells them to stop, they stop.
When she FORCES them to stop, they stop. And then continue doing it
behind her back.
Just out of curiousity, what motive done one have for putting boil
powder in a fellow classmates pj's during final exams other than
wanting to see people suffer?
See, what you and M are doing is claiming on the one hand that being
rotten doesn't make them Death Eaters, then trying to argue that they
are not so rotten as though that proves they are not Death Eaters,
which is distracting and confusing.
I don't think they are DE's, and I do think they are extremely rotten
little bullying sadists. However, they are not the only rotten little
bullying sadists on the side of the good guys. Their rottenness is
not the reason I suspect them of complicity in DE schemes. THAT
suspicion is based on the evidence of their business dealings, which
is a bit off topic for this thread.
> Their other motive is retaliation or pre-emptive attack against
> people who are trying to harm themselves and their friends.
>
> They will not join the Death Eaters, but they may, by
> thoughtlessness, make the Death Eater's job easier. They have
> already done this twice.
It is possible that what the twins are up to is not deliberate
treachery.
Toon
<petersim@_nospam_shaw.ca> wrote:
>Bullies cause pain because they enjoy seeing others
>suffer. People like the twins cause pain because they do not realize
>that others find what they are doing painful. When someone like Hermione
>tells them to stop, they stop.
When they mixed up the nosebleed and cure gum, they were genuinely
upset. Bullies would have laughed about it. These two were horrified
they messed up and made things worse.
Living in a world of near instant cures, they tend to forget not
everything just bounces off of people as no harm done, especially non
pureblood's unused to wizarding ways.
In the end, they were like Bagman. Stupdily helping the DE's out
without realizing it. Thye wouldn't deliberately give DE's ideas or
weapons to invade Hogwrats with, but they still inadvertently did.
mueckelein
I just want to add, that the two coincidents, the thing with the
vanishing cabinet and the Peruvian instant darkness powder, were
merily fate: the twins thought the vanishing cabinet was o.k., they
wanted to send Montague far away. But the cabinet was broken, and only
by that Montague was able to hear the happenings in the shop and make
Malfoy find out that there is a link between the two cabinets. Noone
noticed the cabinet had gone from first floor and deriving from CoS
the cabinet was rather large. But noone cared it had vanished. Noone
noticed Malfoy transporting that large piece of furniture up to the
seventh floor. In addition Harry stood right in front of the cabinet
when he listened to Malfoy in the shop. He wanted Mr. Weasley to
search the Malfoy´s house but noone had the idea of searching at Borgin
´s and Burkes. It´s a bit easy to push it all on the twins.
The instant darkness powder was probably bought by Draco himself under
the cover of polyjuice. He and his "friends" used that potion
frequently to deceive everyone coming along seventh floor. He could
easily have gone to the shop looking like Neville or Luna during
Christmas holidays. Draco is cunning and probably a better actor than
Harry and Ron, and they were able to mislead Malfoy for almost an hour
by Polyjuice. Why should Malfoy not be able to deceive the twins. We
know how crowded their shop is; they won´t be able to find out in that
limit of time.
Due to this discussion I am reading through OotP again, the "frosty
Christmas" chapter: Fred and George ARE rather mean there but not
violently. Nut there is one remark that makes me think: Fred asks if
Percy came for CHrismas. His mother answers: No, he´s busy, I expect,
at the Ministry."
" or he´s the world´s biggest prat." said Fred, as Mrs. Weasley left
the kitchen. "One of the two!" Well, let´s get going then, George."
Who is the other person they think is a prat. Umbridge? Or someone
else? Do they know more?
DaveD
"mueckelein" <mueck...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179005949.5...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 10 Mai, 09:46, Toon <t...@toon.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2007 02:02:16 GMT, Paracelsus
>
> <petersim@_nospam_shaw.ca> wrote:
[snip]
<quote>
Due to this discussion I am reading through OotP again, the "frosty
Christmas" chapter: Fred and George ARE rather mean there but not
violently. Nut there is one remark that makes me think: Fred asks if
Percy came for CHrismas. His mother answers: No, he´s busy, I expect,
at the Ministry."
" or he´s the world´s biggest prat." said Fred, as Mrs. Weasley left
the kitchen. "One of the two!" Well, let´s get going then, George."
Who is the other person they think is a prat. Umbridge? Or someone
else? Do they know more?
</quote>
I think the "2" they're referring to are that he is busy at the ministry as
Mrs Weasley suggested, or that he's the world's biggest prat.
I don't think they're saying there are 2 big prats and Percy's one of them!
Isn't English wonderful at being so ambiguous :)
DaveD
Drusilla
> On 1 May 2007 15:18:49 -0700, Rats <crapa...@yahoo.com.au> said:
>
>
>> Anyone else thing Percy should have been in Slytherin? His character
>> haven't seen him do anything "brave" yet to justify him having been a
>> Gryf.
>>
>> been in Slytherin and Ravenclaw respectively.
McCleggan was not out of character. (we) Gryffindors are arrogant and
full of themselves like he was many times.
>> Any other out of character students?
>
> Hermione once said that the Sorting Hat considered putting her in
> Ravenclaw.
>
> Another out of character student.
>
> Very brave Snape.
Are we going to start again with the old "not all Slytherins are
supposed to be cowards"?
Toon
<gammanormids*erasethis*@gmail.com> wrote:
>McCleggan was not out of character. (we) Gryffindors are arrogant and
>full of themselves like he was many times.
IE, James and Sirius.
>> Very brave Snape.
>
>Are we going to start again with the old "not all Slytherins are
>supposed to be cowards"?
Yes. The hat sorts on overwhelming, defining characteristic. not the
only one. Doens't matter which house you're in, you can show other
house traits. But your predominately one. Mnay Slytherins can be
smart brave and loyal, but they're all even more so ambitious. and
that results in a better you than me mentality.
Hermione is quite smart, but even more so brave. and look what she
does for 7 years.