Hermione in COS
Mark W.
movie. She mention important clues for future events in the Book and
getting them in the movie without being too obvious.
Harry finds a torn page from a book in her petrified hand. In the COS it
is described as "torn page from an old library book". But Hermione does
not seem the type to tear out a page from a book.
When I look at the DVD of COS. One thing happen early on that wasn't in
the book... In Flourish and Blotts as Harry , Ginny, and the rest were
leaving the crowd surronding Lockhart signing. You could see Malfoy
reading a book. He then tears out a page from a book and puts it into
his pocket. I wonder if this a bit an actor ad-libbing or was this part
added by JKR . A hint she could not put into the books, without being
too heavy handed.
Mark W.
EAO
"Mark W." <Ey...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25154-3F...@storefull-2272.public.lawson.webtv.net...
If there was a threat of mortal danger loose in the castle, Hermione
wouldn't worry about a book.
Mark W.
Re: Hermione in COS
Group: alt.fan.harry-potter Date: Sun, Aug 10, 2003, 4:20pm (CDT-2)
From: edwa...@hotmail.com (EAO)
It hard for people to break habits . Hermione is used to carrying books
to Harry and Ron.
PJ Browning
Mark W. <Ey...@webtv.net> wrote:
> I was reading an interview that JKR gave just before the release of COS
> movie. She mention important clues for future events in the Book and
> getting them in the movie without being too obvious.
this is partly why she is involved in the scripting of the movies.
What if Steve had left out that bit in SS/PS that Hagrid isn't supposed
to do magic. seems petty at first but it ties into Chamber and the idea
that he was expelled. that's just a simple example
> Harry finds a torn page from a book in her petrified hand. In the COS it
> is described as "torn page from an old library book". But Hermione does
> not seem the type to tear out a page from a book.
this is one of those places that seems off. it would have made some
sense for us to see Hermione and see her in a hurry so she rips the
page out (knowing that it would be easy to repair). but since we only
see what Harry sees, we don't get that scene.
> When I look at the DVD of COS. One thing happen early on that wasn't in
> the book... In Flourish and Blotts as Harry , Ginny, and the rest were
> leaving the crowd surronding Lockhart signing. You could see Malfoy
> reading a book. He then tears out a page from a book and puts it into
> his pocket.
if you think back to the first book there is mention when Harry is in
the shop for the first time of books of curses and hexes. he wants to
get one to try some of them on Dudley. it is likely that that is what
Draco is looking at and he rips the page out cause he likes the spell.
he wouldn't want to tip them off by having the whole book in his hand
with all those folks around. again we don't know for certain because
Harry wasn't there looking at the book in Draco's hand.
Mark W.
Re: Hermione in COS
Group: alt.fan.harry-potter Date: Mon, Aug 11, 2003, 1:09am (CDT+5)
From: anta...@pacbell.net (PJ Browning)
Like I said it could of been ad-libbing on the actors part. It just
reminds me of the adage the gun on the wall in the first act will be
used in the third act. Draco tearing a page in first act. A torn page in
Hermione hand begins the third act.
Jule
and then pocketing the page because he's growing into a destructive
young man. He's not only a school git and perpetually angry and
resentful, but it's obvious that his father is abusive. Draco is
basically stealing the page, and damaging the book, because he feels
like it. Later in the Slytherin common room, when Ron and Harry are
disguised as Crabbe and Goyle, we see Draco find a little green box
and pocket it. He steals that, too. He's showing a destructive
pattern of behavior.
It does seem strange that Hermione would tear out a page from a book,
but she may have had a good reason--perhaps the book was from the
restricted section and she had no time to write anything down, maybe
the book was the size of Oregon.
(One thing I always wondered was why the basilisk never struck at or
ate any victims. It just looked at them in the eye.)
Mark W.
Re: Hermione in COS
Group: alt.fan.harry-potter Date: Mon, Aug 11, 2003, 4:05am (CDT-2)
From: carme...@yahoo.com (Jule)
Draco is definitely shown as a thief. In the book COS Draco shows
interest in the Hand of Glory. His father got a little tick off that
Draco showed his interest in it. Almost like this was a sore point
between the two. But being a thief doesn't necessary make him
destructive.
On the book size , At one point I thought about the book size might
cause her do that. But the page in her hand , even though it crumpled
up, was still hard to see in her .
Jane Grey
[snip]
> it's obvious that [Draco's] father is abusive.
really? when is this made obviuos?
--
Jane Grey
HPCode(1.1) R PS++COS+++*POA+++GOF+++OOTP++FF= Q+
Markku Uttula
> Re: Hermione in COS
>
> Group: alt.fan.harry-potter Date: Mon, Aug 11, 2003, 4:05am (CDT-2)
> From: carme...@yahoo.com (Jule)
I don't wish to sound a netcop here, but you could take a brief look
at http://www.hogwarts-library.net/reference/netiquette_faq.html#FOUR
since it has some nice guidelines for people using WebTV (among other
things). Reading your posts is a bit hard because they do not follow
the normal quotation used in this group. Thanks for hearing me out :)
--
Markku Uttula
Jule
> Jule thought about Howling but then opted with Owling the following:
>
> [snip]
> > it's obvious that [Draco's] father is abusive.
>
> really? when is this made obviuos?
We're talking about the movie Lucius, and he seems pretty abusive to
me. At least emotionally. If you watch one of the deleted scenes in
which Lucius and Draco are in that Knockturn Alley shop, you see how
fiercely and impatiently he deals with his son.
mdelcroix
I seem to recall Jason Issacs saying something in an interview about
playing the character that way deliberatly. Something about giving the
kid a break or getting sympathy for Draco's character (he seemed to
think Tom Felton was a hoot - said the kid was quite popular with all
the little girls <g>. That so not Draco <g>.)
PJ Browning
<mwil...@ev1.net> wrote:
> carme...@yahoo.com (Jule) wrote in message
> news:<b85819de.03081...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Jane Grey" <thisi...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:<bh8ibh$30i$8...@titan.btinternet.com>...
> > > Jule thought about Howling but then opted with Owling the following:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > > > it's obvious that [Draco's] father is abusive.
> > >
> > > really? when is this made obviuos?
> >
> > We're talking about the movie Lucius, and he seems pretty abusive to
> > me. At least emotionally. If you watch one of the deleted scenes in
> > which Lucius and Draco are in that Knockturn Alley shop, you see how
> > fiercely and impatiently he deals with his son.
>
>
> I seem to recall Jason Issacs saying something in an interview about
> playing the character that way deliberatly.
yep. I believe that was the interview on the CoS Dvd.
> Something about giving the
> kid a break or getting sympathy for Draco's character
which is why the scene was cut in the end. because they didn't want
folks to feel bad for Draco. they want everyone to just blast him as a
bully etc.
PJ Browning
Mark W. <Ey...@webtv.net> wrote:
> Draco is definitely shown as a thief. In the book COS Draco shows
> interest in the Hand of Glory. His father got a little tick off that
> Draco showed his interest in it. Almost like this was a sore point
> between the two. But being a thief doesn't necessary make him
> destructive.
Draco is very much in a 'me' frame of mind. he sees something he wants
and he gets it. either by begging it from Daddy, or taking it, etc.
as for the path of destruction, being a thief is a step in that
direction because it could be seen as a lack of respect for others and
their property.
Sirius Kase
carme...@yahoo.com (Jule) wrote:
> It seemed to me that Draco was shown tearing that page out of the book
> and then pocketing the page because he's growing into a destructive
> young man. He's not only a school git and perpetually angry and
> resentful, but it's obvious that his father is abusive. Draco is
> basically stealing the page, and damaging the book, because he feels
> like it. Later in the Slytherin common room, when Ron and Harry are
> disguised as Crabbe and Goyle, we see Draco find a little green box
> and pocket it. He steals that, too. He's showing a destructive
> pattern of behavior.
>
> It does seem strange that Hermione would tear out a page from a book,
> but she may have had a good reason--perhaps the book was from the
> restricted section and she had no time to write anything down, maybe
> the book was the size of Oregon.
>
This is one of those situational ethics sort of thing. Hermione and
Draco committed the same crime but they were motivated by different
circumstances. Hermione was trying to stop the basilisk, we don't know
why Draco did what he did, but we can assume it was for less noble
reasons.
Sirius Kase
Check this out: http://www.hogwarts-library.net/reference
Jane Grey
Well I'd have imagined they left that scene out of the movie so as to stay
true to JKR's character rather than Jason Issacs' misguided interpretion of
Draco.
That scene in the book only has Lucius talking coldly at Draco at the
thought that his son is not pulling his weight academically, letting a mere
muggle-born beat him at every subject; this is normal for parents who want
their kid to do well at school and it hardly counts as 'obviuosly abusive'.
--
Jane Grey
"I want to fix that in my memory forever," said Ron, his eyes closed and an
uplifted expression on his face. "Draco Malfoy, the amazing bouncing
ferret."
Jule
> thought that his son is not pulling his weight academically, letting a mere
> muggle-born beat him at every subject; this is normal for parents who want
> their kid to do well at school and it hardly counts as 'obviuosly abusive'.
Oh brother. WHATEVER. Lucius treats his son badly, IN MY OPINION.
Okay? I think it's "obviuos" [sic]. Jason Isaacs' acting choices,
JKR's subtext, it all pretty much adds up to Mr Malfoy not being all
that sweet to his son.
Lucius beats on Dobby, uses his cane to move Draco aside in the
bookshop, as if he doesn't want to touch him, and he does the same
with Harry. Sorry, but I just can't picture Lucius being the life of
the party/ray of sunshine. *Tries to form mental image of Lucius with
lampshade on his head. Nope, can't do it.*
Fish Eye no Miko
news:b85819de.03081...@posting.google.com...
> > That scene in the book only has Lucius talking coldly at
> > Draco at the thought that his son is not pulling his weight
> > academically, letting a mere muggle-born beat him at
> > every subject; this is normal for parents who want their
> > kid to do well at school and it hardly counts as 'obviuosly
> > abusive'.
>
> Oh brother. WHATEVER. Lucius treats his son badly, IN
> MY OPINION.
Just for the record, opinions can be wrong.
> Okay? I think it's "obviuos" [sic]. Jason Isaacs' acting
> choices,
Which were his own. I don't recall him mentioning ever talking to JKR
about his decision.
> JKR's subtext,
Which subtext, exactly?
> it all pretty much adds up to Mr Malfoy not being all that
> sweet to his son.
Well, no, it doesn't.
> Lucius beats on Dobby,
Irrelevant. Many people treat their servants (slaves) very differently
from how the treat their family. Especially someone like Lucius, who sees
other HUMANS, much less House-elves and the like, as less important than he
and his full-blood brethren.
> uses his cane to move Draco aside in the bookshop,
A deleted scene in the movie is not proof of anything. Was that in the
book? No. Then it doesn't count.
> Sorry, but I just can't picture Lucius being the life of the
> party/ray of sunshine.
And what has that got to do with how he treats his son?
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"How'd you get through security? Cuz, baby, you're the bomb."
-"Weird Al" Yankovic, "Wanna B Ur Lovr".
Mark W.
Re: Hermione in COS
Group: alt.fan.harry-potter Date: Tue, Aug 12, 2003, 12:22pm (CDT+5)
From: siriu...@earthlink.net (Sirius Kase)
wrote
>Hermione and Draco committed the same crime but they
>were motivated by different circumstances. Hermione
>was trying to stop the basilisk, we don't know why Draco did
>what he did, but we can assume it was for less noble reasons.
>Sirius Kase
>Check this out: >http://www.hogwarts-library.net/reference
It just that the action of Draco in the bookstore was to the only in the
film. I always said it possible that it might be ad-libbing, But the
actor himself said he was trying to make Draco a little more
sympathetic. Petty vandalism doesn't fit in with the actors aims. So it
quite possible that a clue was given in the Movie that might of been
edited out of the book for being tooooo obvious. But easily over
looked in the movie. In fact I had seen the movie numerous times and
didn't notice it till last week.
On the other Hermione to rip a page out of a book is almost totally
out of character for a person who credits her cleverness is do to Books.
Its just something to keep in mind .
Sirius Kase
"Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote:
> > uses his cane to move Draco aside in the bookshop,
>
> A deleted scene in the movie is not proof of anything. Was that in the
> book? No. Then it doesn't count.
>
> > Sorry, but I just can't picture Lucius being the life of the
> > party/ray of sunshine.
>
> And what has that got to do with how he treats his son?
the bottom line is we aren't supposed to feel sorry for the kid. Even
if Isaacs' interpretation is exactly right, at this point, it has never
occurred to Harry to feel any sympathy for Draco and therefore that idea
had to be deleted.
Jule
movie showed Draco and his dad having unhealthiness in their
relationship. That's all I can really comment about it, it's really
no big deal. Go back to your wanking and cigarettes.
Fish Eye no Miko
news:b85819de.03081...@posting.google.com...
> I am just backing up my opinion with concrete examples.
No, you're not, actually.
> I think the movie showed Draco and his dad having
> unhealthiness in their relationship.
The movie IS NOT CANON. It doesn't count.
> That's all I can really comment about it, it's really
> no big deal.
Then why can't you admit you're wrong?
> Go back to your wanking and cigarettes.
Ah, a personal attack. How nice.
<plonk>
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"Blood loss is fun!"
-Carson, _Queer Eye for the Straight Guy_.
stark
Okay, so here is a pet peeve of mine:
We get a decent number of people who pop onto the group, and write up some
thought like: "It obvious that Snape is in love with McGonnagal". When
people ask why that is obvious, the person often posts various nebulous
references from the movie or book, and then takes a huge number of weak
references and jumps to a conclusion.
Naturally, the people here call them on it. However, it seems that if you
are one of those people who points out the flaws in someone's "proof", you
are seen as attacking them. The original person usually backs off, stating
a terribly weaker form of their original statement, claiming that is all
they really meant, and insulting everyone who pointed out their faulty
reasoning.
Much like:
"Draco loves Hermione" -> "There might be something between them, its
just my OPINION"
we now have:
"Lucious obviously abuses Draco" -> "Draco and his dad have unhealthyness
in their relationship"
Now, often the original poster walks away feeling angry and picked on.
Which is unfortunate, becuase most people who respond to dispell the poor
reasoning mean only to show the poor reasoning, and not insult anyone.
I wonder if this ever happens with Masters thesis presentations.
Grad Student: ...and thus, its obvious the Earth is flat.
Professor A: No its not. We have pictures from space.
Professor B: Gravity studies show the Earth to be an oblate speroid.
Professor C: Trigonometry with the moon shows that the surface of the
Earth is indeed spherical.
Grad Student: I'm just saying the Earth might not a perfect ball! You all
suck! Go back to your wanking and cigarettes!
--
737461726B3A30382F31332F3033203039303723696E636C756465203C6373746469
6F3E0A23696E636C756465203C756E697374642E683E0A6D61696E28297B666F7228
6368617220632C693D2D313B7265616428302C26632C31293B69253D333429707269
6E74662822257325303258222C2B2B693D3D33343F225C6E223A22222C63293B7D0A
stark
> It just that the action of Draco in the bookstore was to the only in the
> film. I always said it possible that it might be ad-libbing, But the
> actor himself said he was trying to make Draco a little more
> sympathetic. Petty vandalism doesn't fit in with the actors aims. So it
> quite possible that a clue was given in the Movie that might of been
> edited out of the book for being tooooo obvious. But easily over
> looked in the movie. In fact I had seen the movie numerous times and
> didn't notice it till last week.
How could you miss it? Its a focus of attention in the scene. You should
have caught it the first time you saw it.
And I doubt that its the actor ad libbing. Not to sound insulting, but I
dont think any of the children are talented or experienced enough to do such
a thing. Rickman, Isaacs, Smith, and Oldman I would trust to pull it off,
but the children probably should stick to the script. I would guess that
the directors probably agree. And there is a difference between changing a
few words in a line, which they are capable of, and adding actions which
characterize. The latter requires a bit more experience.
--
737461726B3A30382F31332F3033203039323323696E636C756465203C6373746469
6F3E0A23696E636C756465203C756E697374642E683E0A6D61696E28297B666F7228
6368617220632C693D2D313B7265616428302C26632C31293B69253D333429707269
6E74662822257325303258222C2B2B693D3D33343F225C6E223A22222C63293B7D0A
Jane Grey
Jule thought about Howling but then opted with Owling the following:
since when are deleted scenes in the movies 'concrete'?
> movie showed Draco and his dad having unhealthiness in their
> relationship.
the movie didn't. Maybe a deleted scene did (but I can't comment on that
because I haven't seen it).
> That's all I can really comment about it, it's really
> no big deal.
Why make it out to be one then?
> Go back to your wanking and cigarettes.
bet your a sore loser too.
Jule
You're making a lot of this, you're disagreeing with my opinion, I'm
not diagreeing with yours by defending mine. You're insisting you're
right, I don't agree. This is stupid usenet, it's no big deal.
>
> > Go back to your wanking and cigarettes.
>
> Ah, a personal attack. How nice.
> <plonk>
>
> Catherine Johnson.
It wasn't a personal attack, it was a general saying, NOT AIMED AT
YOU. Guess you've never heard of--oh FUCK THIS. Sorry if you took it
personally. Get over it.
PJ Browning
<thisi...@nospam.com> wrote:
> That scene in the book only has Lucius talking coldly at Draco at the
> thought that his son is not pulling his weight academically, letting a mere
> muggle-born beat him at every subject; this is normal for parents who want
> their kid to do well at school and it hardly counts as 'obviuosly abusive'.
>
in this day and age, if you aren't showering your kid with accolades
and hugs and kisses, then there will be a group of folks that think
that something abusive is going on.
PJ Browning
<fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote:
> A deleted scene in the movie is not proof of anything. Was that in the
> book? No. Then it doesn't count.
actually it was an actual scene in the movie.
I realize that you are a purist and you want everything to be just the
books, but try to keep in mind that Steve didn't create these scripts
in a vacuum. JKR knows what he's doing and if she had any objections
I'm sure she feels the freedom to voice them. If she was adamant about
something, I doubt that Steve would just tell her to piss off.
PJ Browning
<fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote:
> "Jule" <carme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b85819de.03081...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I am just backing up my opinion with concrete examples.
>
> No, you're not, actually.
>
> > I think the movie showed Draco and his dad having
> > unhealthiness in their relationship.
>
> The movie IS NOT CANON. It doesn't count.
>
that is your opinion. it is not shared by all.
perhaps the solution to this to create two harry potter newsgroups, one
for the books (where only the things that appear in the books is
allowed) and one for the movies. Then the purists like yourself can be
isolated from comments by those that feel that the movies are just as
valid as the books.
> > That's all I can really comment about it, it's really
> > no big deal.
>
> Then why can't you admit you're wrong?
>
> > Go back to your wanking and cigarettes.
>
> Ah, a personal attack. How nice.
as much as I disagree with Jules comment, I don't see that you have
acted any nicer with your "you're wrong and I'm right" comments.
PJ Browning
<at_n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <22457-3F...@storefull-2276.public.lawson.webtv.net>, Mark W.
> wrote:
> > It just that the action of Draco in the bookstore was to the only in the
> > film. I always said it possible that it might be ad-libbing, But the
> > actor himself said he was trying to make Draco a little more
> > sympathetic. Petty vandalism doesn't fit in with the actors aims. So it
> > quite possible that a clue was given in the Movie that might of been
> > edited out of the book for being tooooo obvious. But easily over
> > looked in the movie. In fact I had seen the movie numerous times and
> > didn't notice it till last week.
>
> How could you miss it? Its a focus of attention in the scene. You should
> have caught it the first time you saw it.
>
> And I doubt that its the actor ad libbing. Not to sound insulting, but I
> dont think any of the children are talented or experienced enough to do such
> a thing.
the children could be talented enough. tom isn't some neophyte. However
adlibbing 'stage business' is rarely done in movies. And when it is,
it's typically done in rehearsals with the director setting what he
likes before the cameras role. so even if that little bit was Tom's
idea, Chris would have yeah or nay'd it before they shot the scene.
Fish Eye no Miko
news:130820031030434433%anta...@pacbell.net...
> Fish Eye no Miko <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote:
> > "Jule" <carme...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I think the movie showed Draco and his dad having
> > > unhealthiness in their relationship.
> >
> > The movie IS NOT CANON. It doesn't count.
>
> that is your opinion. it is not shared by all.
No, it's not my opinion. How can something NOT written by JKR be canon?
> perhaps the solution to this to create two harry potter newsgroups,
> one for the books (where only the things that appear in the books is
> allowed) and one for the movies. Then the purists like yourself can
> be isolated from comments by those that feel that the movies are just
> as valid as the books.
They're not. They can't be. If they were, why should JKR bother with the
books? She should just write movie scripts.
> > > Go back to your wanking and cigarettes.
> >
> > Ah, a personal attack. How nice.
>
> as much as I disagree with Jules comment, I don't see that you have
> acted any nicer with your "you're wrong and I'm right" comments.
Umm.. I was sticking with her supposed facts and opinions, not her personal
life. If you can't see the difference, I really don't know what to say...
BTW, Jules, I've never smoked. No one in my family smokes. I'm a lung
transplant recipient... Do you think they'd've put me on the list, much
less bothered with the expense and effort of a transplant if I smoked?
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
Jane Grey
> In article <b85819de.03081...@posting.google.com>, Jule wrote:
> > I am just backing up my opinion with concrete examples. I think the
> > movie showed Draco and his dad having unhealthiness in their
> > relationship. That's all I can really comment about it, it's really
> > no big deal. Go back to your wanking and cigarettes.
>
> Okay, so here is a pet peeve of mine:
>
> We get a decent number of people who pop onto the group, and write up some
> thought like: "It obvious that Snape is in love with McGonnagal". When
> people ask why that is obvious, the person often posts various nebulous
> references from the movie or book, and then takes a huge number of weak
> references and jumps to a conclusion.
>
> Naturally, the people here call them on it. However, it seems that if you
> are one of those people who points out the flaws in someone's "proof", you
> are seen as attacking them. The original person usually backs off,
stating
> a terribly weaker form of their original statement, claiming that is all
> they really meant, and insulting everyone who pointed out their faulty
> reasoning.
>
> Much like:
>
> "Draco loves Hermione" -> "There might be something between them, its
> just my OPINION"
>
> we now have:
>
> "Lucious obviously abuses Draco" -> "Draco and his dad have unhealthyness
> in their relationship"
you've hit the nail on the head!
> Now, often the original poster walks away feeling angry and picked on.
> Which is unfortunate, becuase most people who respond to dispell the poor
> reasoning mean only to show the poor reasoning, and not insult anyone.
<nods vigorously> yes, exactly!
> I wonder if this ever happens with Masters thesis presentations.
>
> Grad Student: ...and thus, its obvious the Earth is flat.
> Professor A: No its not. We have pictures from space.
> Professor B: Gravity studies show the Earth to be an oblate speroid.
> Professor C: Trigonometry with the moon shows that the surface of the
> Earth is indeed spherical.
> Grad Student: I'm just saying the Earth might not a perfect ball! You all
> suck! Go back to your wanking and cigarettes!
lol!
> 737461726B3A30382F31332F3033203039303723696E636C756465203C6373746469
> 6F3E0A23696E636C756465203C756E697374642E683E0A6D61696E28297B666F7228
> 6368617220632C693D2D313B7265616428302C26632C31293B69253D333429707269
> 6E74662822257325303258222C2B2B693D3D33343F225C6E223A22222C63293B7D0A
So what does this jumbled block mean then? I have no idea how one is s'posed
to go about deciphering such a thing.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Fish Eye no Miko <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote:
>
> > A deleted scene in the movie is not proof of anything. Was
> > that in the book? No. Then it doesn't count.
>
> actually it was an actual scene in the movie.
No, it was deleted from the movie.
> I realize that you are a purist and you want everything to be just
> the books,
Well, yes. Let's see... JKR write the books, someone else writes the
scripts. Which do you think I should pay attention to?
> but try to keep in mind that Steve didn't create these scripts
The script, yes. And if you read script for that scene, it doesn't come
off as "abusive" at all. The "abusive" bits, like the thing with the cane,
are actions which were added later, and would not be in the script.
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"It's not a good sign when the action in your movie is upstaged by a
mural."
Crow, _Mystery Science Theater 3000_.
Brenda Krause
"Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote in message
news:A9v_a.10354$2g.3822@fed1read05...
> And if you read script for that scene, it doesn't come
> off as "abusive" at all. The "abusive" bits, like the thing with the
cane,
> are actions which were added later, and would not be in the script.
Actually, I think it depends on the script. Some writers write in literally
everything and some give considerable leeway. I heard one of the writers of
"I Love Lucy" lament that critics used to think the writers had an
incredibly easy job, that they could write, "Lucy enters room, hilarity
ensues," and go home. Lucy showed one of the critics her script where every
grimace, gesture, head toss, etc. was scripted in. So, since none of us has
a copy of the script (Right? No one's holding out on us? :-) Okay...), there
is no evidence of what is or isn't indicated. Do I think it's possible
Isaacs elaborated? Most certainly, and he even hints as such in the
interviews. Is it possible it's scripted? Sure.
That said, I think there is at least reason to entertain the possibility
that Lucius might be abusive in some way to Draco. It's nothing definite for
sure, but there is nothing to suggest it's outside the realm of possibility.
>
> Catherine Johnson.
> --
> fenm at cox dot net
> "It's not a good sign when the action in your movie is upstaged by a
> mural."
> Crow, _Mystery Science Theater 3000_.
>
I love Crow more than is healthy!
Brenda
PJ Browning
<fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote:
>
> The script, yes. And if you read script for that scene, it doesn't come
> off as "abusive" at all. The "abusive" bits, like the thing with the cane,
> are actions which were added later, and would not be in the script.
do you have a copy of the script. because there are many times when
actions such as the cane are in the script.
I have a friend in the UK that worked on the movie. He offered me his
copy of the script but I had turned him down. I think I'll see if he
still has it and ask him about it.
PJ Browning
<fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote:
> They're not. They can't be. If they were, why should JKR bother with the
> books? She should just write movie scripts.
because she isn't a screenwriter. contrary to popular belief, writing
movies isn't something a monkey can do. it takes a great deal of skill.
>
> Umm.. I was sticking with her supposed facts and opinions, not her personal
> life. If you can't see the difference, I really don't know what to say...
I don't see a difference between her being a jerk with her personal
comment and you being a jerk with your comments about her opinions.
> BTW, Jules, I've never smoked. No one in my family smokes. I'm a lung
> transplant recipient... Do you think they'd've put me on the list, much
> less bothered with the expense and effort of a transplant if I smoked?
and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China. are we
supposed to forgive you for being a jerk because you had a lung
transplant. does that make your attitude forgiveable. Not in my book.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Fish Eye no Miko <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote:
>
> > They're not. They can't be. If they were, why should JKR bother
> > with the books? She should just write movie scripts.
>
> because she isn't a screenwriter.
Do you get my point at all?
> > Umm.. I was sticking with her supposed facts and opinions, not
> > her personal life. If you can't see the difference, I really don't
> > know what to say...
>
> I don't see a difference between her being a jerk with her personal
> comment and you being a jerk with your comments about her opinions.
...
Wow. Really?
You know opinions can be wrong, don't you? And that for an opinion to have
merit, it must be based on facts? And that pointing that out is not the
same as insulting someone's personal life?
> > BTW, Jules, I've never smoked. No one in my family smokes. I'm a
> > lung transplant recipient... Do you think they'd've put me on the
list, much
> > less bothered with the expense and effort of a transplant if I smoked?
>
> and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China.
She made a comment about me "going back to my wanking and cigarettes".
> are we supposed to forgive you for being a jerk because you had a
> lung transplant.
No. I just wanted to set the record straight re: my smoking (or, rather
lack thereof). I have never and WILL never ask for anyone to treat me
special on ngs based on my medical condition.
> does that make your attitude forgiveable. Not in my book
What's so unforgivable about telling someone they're wrong?
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"What are you doing, Potter?"
"I'm trying to decide which curse to use on Malfoy, sir."
-_Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix_.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Fish Eye no Miko <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote:
>
> > The script, yes. And if you read script for that scene, it doesn't
> > come off as "abusive" at all. The "abusive" bits, like the thing
> > with the cane, are actions which were added later, and would
> > not be in the script.
>
> do you have a copy of the script.
No.
> because there are many times when actions such as the cane are in the
script.
Yes And many times there's not, for many reasons. Isaacs himself has said
he added things; I'm willing to bet these "additions" aren't in the script.
> I have a friend in the UK that worked on the movie. He offered me his
> copy of the script but I had turned him down. I think I'll see if he
> still has it and ask him about it.
Ok.
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
Fish Eye no Miko
news:Rlv_a.137241$Ho3.17076@sccrnsc03...
> "Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote:
>
> > And if you read script for that scene, it doesn't come off as
> > "abusive" at all. The "abusive" bits, like the thing with the
> > cane, are actions which were added later, and would not be
> > in the script.
>
> Actually, I think it depends on the script.
True.
> Some writers write in literally everything and some give considerable
> leeway.
And I've seen scripts where what's in the script and what's on screen is
different. I mean, *way* different. I once did a MSTing of the Power
Rangers movie script, and there are MAJOR differences between it and what
we see on screen. Maybe there's another version of the script somewhere,
but my point is, if this happened with the HP movies, it possible that what
JKR approved is vastly different than what was actually filmed.
> I heard one of the writers of "I Love Lucy" lament that critics used to
> think the writers had an incredibly easy job, that they could write,
> "Lucy enters room, hilarity ensues," and go home. Lucy showed one
> of the critics her script where every grimace, gesture, head toss, etc.
> was scripted in.
Wow... O_O
And good for her for sticking up for the writers. ^_^
> So, since none of us has a copy of the script (Right? No one's holding
> out on us? :-) Okay...), there is no evidence of what is or isn't
indicated.
Fair enough.
> Do I think it's possible Isaacs elaborated? Most certainly, and he even
> hints as such in the interviews. Is it possible it's scripted? Sure.
> That said, I think there is at least reason to entertain the possibility
> that Lucius might be abusive in some way to Draco. It's nothing definite
for
> sure, but there is nothing to suggest it's outside the realm of
possibility.
Nor is there anything to suggest he IS abused, yet some people seem to
treat it as a certainty. That's what I object to.
> > "It's not a good sign when the action in your movie is upstaged
> > by a mural."
> > Crow, _Mystery Science Theater 3000_.
>
> I love Crow more than is healthy!
Not possible. ^_^
"I love you Tom Servo."
"I love you Joel."
"I love you, Crow."
"You're not my real father!"
By the way, considering that Crow's actor/puppeteer was named "Beaulieu", I
love when he's make some anti-French comment, and Joel would day, "Crow
what is it with you and the French?!" I'm almost sure that was supposed to
be an inside gag.
Catherine Johnson "I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the
odds I was doing something incredibly stupid... and I went ahead anyway."
--
fenm at cox dot net
PJ Browning
<fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote:
>
> She made a comment about me "going back to my wanking and cigarettes".
actually she didn't name any names nor did she quote anything you said.
so you'll be hard pressed to prove that she was directing it at you
PJ Browning
<fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote:
>
> Nor is there anything to suggest he IS abused, yet some people seem to
> treat it as a certainty. That's what I object to.
it's funny to see you posting the above. because in another thread you
pretty much defended a posting by someone that suggested that Snape
might have been raped and there is nothing in the books to suggest that
notion.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Fish Eye no Miko <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote:
>
> > She made a comment about me "going back to my wanking
> > and cigarettes".
>
> actually she didn't name any names nor did she quote anything you
> said. so you'll be hard pressed to prove that she was directing it at you
Friar enough. Of course, you'd be equally hard pressed to prove she
wasn't. I mean, unless she posts and states who she was referring to,
we'll never know. This is why people need to quote in their posts.
However, as someone in this thread, I don't think it's entirely
unreasonable for me to assume she might have been referring to me, and to
defend myself. Is it really so bad for me to do that?
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
Fish Eye no Miko
I defended the notion that Snape was raped? Where?
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
Troels Forchhammer
>
> Fish Eye no Miko <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote:
>>
>> The movie IS NOT CANON. It doesn't count.
>
> that is your opinion. it is not shared by all.
It is, however, generally accepted by the majority.
The movies are based on the books - the relationship is a one-way affair,
where the books influence the movies, not the other way around.
Therefore anything in the movies that goes beyond what it in the books
is unreliable, questionable and doubtful /with respect to the books/.
The movies are, obviously, the only canon with respect to the movies
themselves.
The movies are not by Rowling and do therefore not qualify as canon
with respect to Rowling's work and Rowling's vision:
<http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=11155&dict=CALD>
and
<http://www.writersu.net/?link=term&id=76>
> perhaps the solution to this to create two harry potter newsgroups, one
> for the books (where only the things that appear in the books is
> allowed) and one for the movies. Then the purists like yourself can be
> isolated from comments by those that feel that the movies are just as
> valid as the books.
The movies are, IMO, a valid subject of discussions here - see the many
casting threads, pieces of news posted here etc.
The only point where confusion should be avoided is that 'facts' stemming
only from the movies are not accepted when we're arguing some point about
the books (quite simple, isn't it - when we discuss points about the books
we are in reality trying to second-guess the author, and only first-hand
sources should be allowable for that).
--
______ | Troels Forchhammer
___/L_][_/(__ | Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
(___{__{__{___7 |
`(_)------(_)-' | My other .sig is a Rolls ...
Jule
> "Lucious obviously abuses Draco" -> "Draco and his dad have unhealthyness
> in their relationship"
>
> Now, often the original poster walks away feeling angry and picked on.
> Which is unfortunate, becuase most people who respond to dispell the poor
> reasoning mean only to show the poor reasoning, and not insult anyone.
Um, I didn't insult anyone. Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
Wanking and cigarettes is a saying that an English friend of mine uses
a lot, and it's become just a "okay, whatever, chill out" saying. And
all this jump-ugliness on something that is obvious to me, that Lucius
is abusive to his son in whatever way he may be abusive, is getting to
be bizarre. I don't understand why there is all this fuss about it.
So, I'm just gonna back away slowly and hope whoever has a problem
with my opinion will find something else to pick on. Evidently Usenet
was having a quiet week.
And as long as we're analyzing argument tactics, let me just say that
saying that my opinion is wrong is yet another opinion. I can't
dispell that anymore than I can prove my theory, especially since
these characters are FICTIONAL.
I don't smoke either, Catherine. It wasn't a literal comment, which
I've posted already. It wasn't a personal attack, and jeez, you must
be bored to jump all over this.
For what it's worth, from the time Lucius was introduced in the books,
I felt that he was treating people the way he'd been treated--stiffly,
remotely, coldly, neglectfully (is that a word?) and completely devoid
of affection. That's abuse, at least in my opinion. Emotional,
physical, whatever, we aren't told. But I think it's a reasonable
assumption.
Miranda
PJ Browning <anta...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<130820031131182490%anta...@pacbell.net>...
<snip>
[Catherine]
> > BTW, Jules, I've never smoked. No one in my family smokes.
> > I'm a lung transplant recipient... Do you think they'd've put me on the > > list, much
> > less bothered with the expense and effort of a transplant if I smoked?
>
> and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China.
It has a lot to do with not being a *smoker*, of which carmenlee/Jule
accused Catherine and other posters to this thread.
> are we
> supposed to forgive you for being a jerk because you had a lung
> transplant.
First, cite an example where she was a jerk. I don't see a post of
Catherine's telling OPs to go back to wanking and smoking.
>does that make your attitude forgiveable. Not in my book.
Fortunately for a.f.h-p, your book is not canon.
Miranda
Jule
> It has a lot to do with not being a *smoker*, of which carmenlee/Jule
> accused Catherine and other posters to this thread.
Yeah, I accused everyone of being a smoker. Them's fightin' words!
I didn't accuse anyone of anything, not even of wanking.
>
> > are we
> > supposed to forgive you for being a jerk because you had a lung
> > transplant.
>
> First, cite an example where she was a jerk. I don't see a post of
> Catherine's telling OPs to go back to wanking and smoking.
Get the hell over it. Jeez, this is Usenet. That quip was a peck on
the cheek. You want personal rants? Here's one. A couple of people
(not naming names, don't want to offend) are awfully thin-skinned.
Turn off the computer, go outside.
>
> >does that make your attitude forgiveable. Not in my book.
>
> Fortunately for a.f.h-p, your book is not canon.
>
> Miranda
I'm starting to want to spell canon with two n's if this shit
continues...
Jule
Only when I don't stretch beforehand.
Jule
> suck! Go back to your wanking and cigarettes!
Gee, that post was...really pointless.
(The thesis committee, probably comprised of tight-assed know it alls,
probably never STOPPED wanking and smoking through that whole
exchange, by the by).
Jane Grey
> In article <uDk_a.10317$2g.2905@fed1read05>, Fish Eye no Miko
> <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote:
>
> > "Jule" <carme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:b85819de.03081...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > I am just backing up my opinion with concrete examples.
> >
> > No, you're not, actually.
> >
> > > I think the movie showed Draco and his dad having
> > > unhealthiness in their relationship.
> >
> > The movie IS NOT CANON. It doesn't count.
> >
>
> that is your opinion. it is not shared by all.
The movies can't be taken literally where they give a different
impression from the books. How JKR portrays Draco is the /real(fictional)/
Draco.
JKR said this in the royal albert hall interview a few months ago:-
JK Rowling:
Many boys dressed as Harry. And lately I've noticed people like dressing up
as Draco a lot more, which I'm finding a little bit worrying. (To audience)
I think you're all getting far too fond of Draco.
Also;
Stephen Fry:
Mafloy, Goyle & Crabbe are almost irredeemably bad. There's almost nothing
about Goyle and Crabbe who really are repulsive. Malfoy I suppose is very
stylish in his nastiness.
JK Rowling:
He's very stylish in the film.
Stephen Fry:
And in the books as well I think?
JK Rowling:
Yes, he does have a certain flare.
So JKR seems to think, IMO, that the movies make Draco seem too likeable.
Jane Grey
unhealthyness
> > in their relationship"
> >
> > Now, often the original poster walks away feeling angry and picked on.
> > Which is unfortunate, becuase most people who respond to dispell the
poor
> > reasoning mean only to show the poor reasoning, and not insult anyone.
>
> Um, I didn't insult anyone. Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
> Wanking and cigarettes is a saying that an English friend of mine uses
> a lot, and it's become just a "okay, whatever, chill out" saying. And
well, we don't know this friend of yours, also I live in England and have
never heard this 'saying'. Really you'd have done well in taging it a joke.
> all this jump-ugliness on something that is obvious to me, that Lucius
not jump-ugliness. you said it was 'obvious', I asked how it was obviuos.
you pointed me in the direction of a deleted scene in the movie. I didn't
see how this means he was obviuosly abusive. nothing ulgy about it. it's
called discussion, kinda what this group is all about.
it only got ugly when people called you on your next, rather huffy post.
<snip>
> I don't smoke either, Catherine. It wasn't a literal comment, which
> I've posted already. It wasn't a personal attack, and jeez, you must
> be bored to jump all over this.
well you replied to Catherine's post, you made what appeared to be a rude
comment without tagging it as a joke, you can't then fairly blame Catherine
for thinking it was a personal attack.
> For what it's worth, from the time Lucius was introduced in the books,
> I felt that he was treating people the way he'd been treated--stiffly,
Well the way he treats people he thinks are beneath him doesn't say anything
about the way he treats his only son, his own flesh and pureblood.
Everything about Draco screams spoilt brat at me. In contrast, there's lots
about Snape that suggest /he's/ had an abusive childhood...
Jule
I didn't insult or jump on anyone, unlike what people have been doing
with me. Stop this pointless discussion, please. This is annoying
even for Usenet.
Fish Eye no Miko
news:bhftin$7mf$3...@titan.btinternet.com...
> "Jule" <carme...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't smoke either, Catherine. It wasn't a literal comment, which
> > I've posted already. It wasn't a personal attack, and jeez, you must
> > be bored to jump all over this.
>
> well you replied to Catherine's post, you made what appeared to
> be a rude comment without tagging it as a joke, you can't then
> fairly blame Catherine for thinking it was a personal attack.
You know what I hate? I hate when someone insults someone else, then, when
that person has the <sarcasm> AUDACITY to be *offended* by the insult
</sarcasm>, the person who made the insult won't apologize or even
acknowledge it as an insult. Instead, they'll backpedal, with some
bullshit like, "It was just a joke!". Now, instead of the person who
issued the insult in the first place being the jerk, the person who was
insulted is supposed to look like a jerk for not being able to "take a
joke".
Well, fuck that. You DID insult me, and all your "it was just a joke/it
wasn't supposed to be in insult" bullshit doesn't wash.
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
Rebecca Webb
If you don't want to use your lung transplant to generate consideration in
a newsgroup, I trust you'll have to good sense to use it to reap dividends
elsewhere. You suffered the pain, now rake in the benefits!
The free garage door opener was my favorite.
RW
--
-----------------------------------------------
"Snape was a Death Eater War hero. That makes him the only Death Eater War hero Head of House at Hogwarts."
"I'd like to see how heroic he is when he's not hiding behind Dumbledore's robes."
Troels Forchhammer
>
<snip>
> So JKR seems to think, IMO, that the movies make Draco seem too likeable.
<heavy sarcasm>
That can't be, because you know she approves everything in the movies ...
</sarcasm>
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
"Lo! we have gathered, and we have spent, and now the time of
payment draws near."
- Aragorn Son of Arathorn, 'LotR' (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Jule
> that person has the <sarcasm> AUDACITY to be *offended* by the insult
> </sarcasm>, the person who made the insult won't apologize or even
> acknowledge it as an insult. Instead, they'll backpedal, with some
> bullshit like, "It was just a joke!". Now, instead of the person who
> issued the insult in the first place being the jerk, the person who was
> insulted is supposed to look like a jerk for not being able to "take a
> joke".
> Well, fuck that. You DID insult me, and all your "it was just a joke/it
> wasn't supposed to be in insult" bullshit doesn't wash.
>
> Catherine Johnson.
I'm not offended by anything you've said, I'm not backpedaling. I do
think you're a bit of a whiner, though. And yes, that's a personal
comment, but it's based on some pretty solid evidence.
Jane Grey
> > it only got ugly when people called you on your next, rather huffy post.
>
> I didn't insult or jump on anyone, unlike what people have been doing
> with me.
So according to you poeple disagreeing with your opinions is insulting and
them jumping on you? But your dismissive comments of other people's
opinions,
("Oh brother. WHATEVER.") is neither of those things?
well I disagree.
Jane Grey
when
> > that person has the <sarcasm> AUDACITY to be *offended* by the insult
> > </sarcasm>, the person who made the insult won't apologize or even
> > acknowledge it as an insult. Instead, they'll backpedal, with some
> > bullshit like, "It was just a joke!". Now, instead of the person who
> > issued the insult in the first place being the jerk, the person who was
> > insulted is supposed to look like a jerk for not being able to "take a
> > joke".
> > Well, fuck that. You DID insult me, and all your "it was just a joke/it
> > wasn't supposed to be in insult" bullshit doesn't wash.
yeah, tell it like it is Catherine!
> >
> > Catherine Johnson.
>
> I'm not offended by anything you've said, I'm not backpedaling. I do
> think you're a bit of a whiner, though. And yes, that's a personal
> comment, but it's based on some pretty solid evidence.
Where is the evidence of this whining then?
I don't see any evidence of Catherine 'whining' but I do see evidence of you
being unecessarily offensive.
stark
> stark thought about Howling but then opted with Owling the following:
>> Much like:
>>
>> "Draco loves Hermione" -> "There might be something between them, its
>> just my OPINION"
>>
>> we now have:
>>
>> "Lucious obviously abuses Draco" -> "Draco and his dad have unhealthyness
>> in their relationship"
>
YAY! Someone agrees.... I wondered if I was the only one who saw it.
>> Now, often the original poster walks away feeling angry and picked on.
>> Which is unfortunate, becuase most people who respond to dispell the poor
>> reasoning mean only to show the poor reasoning, and not insult anyone.
>
><nods vigorously> yes, exactly!
>
>> I wonder if this ever happens with Masters thesis presentations.
>>
>> Grad Student: ...and thus, its obvious the Earth is flat.
>> Professor A: No its not. We have pictures from space.
>> Professor B: Gravity studies show the Earth to be an oblate speroid.
>> Professor C: Trigonometry with the moon shows that the surface of the
>> Earth is indeed spherical.
>> Grad Student: I'm just saying the Earth might not a perfect ball! You all
>> suck! Go back to your wanking and cigarettes!
>
> lol!
Its nice to see that there are sane people in the world. If only Jule would
read this and understand as well as you seem to have.
>> 737461726B3A30382F31332F3033203039303723696E636C756465203C6373746469
>> 6F3E0A23696E636C756465203C756E697374642E683E0A6D61696E28297B666F7228
>> 6368617220632C693D2D313B7265616428302C26632C31293B69253D333429707269
>> 6E74662822257325303258222C2B2B693D3D33343F225C6E223A22222C63293B7D0A
>
> So what does this jumbled block mean then? I have no idea how one is s'posed
> to go about deciphering such a thing.
Well... here is where you will probably stop understanding me. I dont think
that many people would know where to even start. Troels maybe. JAB should.
A couple others. I had more people decoding my sig when it was in binary.
This is hex. A base-16 numbering system. When you pair off the characters
and change the hexidecimal value to a decimal value, you'll get a string of
ASCII code which you can assemble into text (or you can just go straight
from the hex-codes to ASCII, if you are so inclined). When you do that,
you'll get:
stark:08/15/03 1204
#include <cstdio>
#include <unistd.h>
main(){for(char c,i=-1;read(0,&c,1);i%=34)printf("%s%02X",++i==34?"\n":"",c);}
Which is:
<my name>:<date> <localtime in 24-hour format>
<The C program used to translate all of the text into hex>
Thus, my odd sense of irony is pleased by the fact that my .sig contains the
code used to create it.
--
737461726B3A30382F31352F3033203131353623696E636C756465203C6373746469
6F3E0A23696E636C756465203C756E697374642E683E0A6D61696E28297B666F7228
6368617220632C693D2D313B7265616428302C26632C31293B69253D333429707269
6E74662822257325303258222C2B2B693D3D33343F225C6E223A22222C63293B7D0A
Bojan Bugarin
several people in alt.fan.harry-potter looked around in alarm, and then
continued:
[Hmm... how odd. The previous two posts never came through my sever.]
<snip>
>> you've hit the nail on the head!
>
> YAY! Someone agrees.... I wondered if I was the only one who saw it.
Believe me, you are not alone in that thought.
>>> Grad Student: ...and thus, its obvious the Earth is flat.
>>> Professor A: No its not. We have pictures from space.
>>> Professor B: Gravity studies show the Earth to be an oblate speroid.
>>> Professor C: Trigonometry with the moon shows that the surface of the
>>> Earth is indeed spherical.
>>> Grad Student: I'm just saying the Earth might not a perfect ball! You all
>>> suck! Go back to your wanking and cigarettes!
ROTFL.
[stark's sig.]
> I dont think that many people would know where to even start.
Actually I would have known where to start, but would've gotten stuck in
the middle.
> This is hex. A base-16 numbering system.
Actually that is fairly easy to guess. And base-16 is more-or-less a
standard base. (after binary and decimal of course.)
> When you pair off the characters
For me, this would be the hardest part. To know whether to sort them in
pairs or trios or whatever. But I think I would have gotten it eventually.
> and change the hexidecimal value to a decimal value, you'll get a string of
> ASCII code which you can assemble into text
Which is again all quite easy.
> Thus, my odd sense of irony is pleased by the fact that my .sig contains the
> code used to create it.
Brilliant. 3B2D29
--
426F6A616E204275676172696E
HPCode(1.1) - S PS=COS+*POA+++GOF++OOTP+++ FF= QC
CM+*CH+++DD++HB-HM++MS+PO+++TR+++ HP/Lu-RW/He
Get your HPCode here:
<http://www.hogwarts-library.net/common/hpcode.html>
stark
> 'Hem, hem,' said stark, in such a good imitation of Professor Umbridge that
> several people in alt.fan.harry-potter looked around in alarm, and then
> continued:
>
> [Hmm... how odd. The previous two posts never came through my sever.]
Yeah... my news server was acting odd. I actually posted them days ago,
but it took a couple before even I could see them.
>>>> Grad Student: ...and thus, its obvious the Earth is flat.
>>>> Professor A: No its not. We have pictures from space.
>>>> Professor B: Gravity studies show the Earth to be an oblate speroid.
>>>> Professor C: Trigonometry with the moon shows that the surface of the
>>>> Earth is indeed spherical.
>>>> Grad Student: I'm just saying the Earth might not a perfect ball! You all
>>>> suck! Go back to your wanking and cigarettes!
>
> ROTFL.
I'm here to amuse.
> [stark's sig.]
>
>> When you pair off the characters
>
> For me, this would be the hardest part. To know whether to sort them in
> pairs or trios or whatever. But I think I would have gotten it eventually.
Its pretty standard in the computer world to decode hex is pairs of digits.
Two hex digits are eight bits, the smallest unit of data normally used. If
you dont get anything interesting with only 2 digits, you can switch to 8,
and see if you get an interesting 32 bit integer, but no one likes trying to
figure out what the 32 or 64 bit IEEE floating point number might be.
>> Thus, my odd sense of irony is pleased by the fact that my .sig contains the
>> code used to create it.
>
> Brilliant. 3B2D29
Why thank you. I might have to give out the code to decode it.
--
737461726B3A30382F31362F3033203038323323696E636C756465203C6373746469
6F3E0A23696E636C756465203C756E697374642E683E0A6D61696E28297B666F7228
6368617220632C693D2D313B7265616428302C26632C31293B69253D333429707269
6E74662822257325303258222C2B2B693D3D33343F225C6E223A22222C63293B7D0A
Mark Evans
> In article <b85819de.03081...@posting.google.com>, Jule wrote:
>> I am just backing up my opinion with concrete examples. I think the
>> movie showed Draco and his dad having unhealthiness in their
>> no big deal. Go back to your wanking and cigarettes.
> Okay, so here is a pet peeve of mine:
> We get a decent number of people who pop onto the group, and write up some
> thought like: "It obvious that Snape is in love with McGonnagal". When
> people ask why that is obvious, the person often posts various nebulous
> references from the movie or book, and then takes a huge number of weak
> references and jumps to a conclusion.
> Naturally, the people here call them on it. However, it seems that if you
> are one of those people who points out the flaws in someone's "proof", you
> are seen as attacking them. The original person usually backs off, stating
> a terribly weaker form of their original statement, claiming that is all
> they really meant, and insulting everyone who pointed out their faulty
> reasoning.
> Much like:
> "Draco loves Hermione" -> "There might be something between them, its
> just my OPINION"
> we now have:
> "Lucious obviously abuses Draco" -> "Draco and his dad have unhealthyness
> in their relationship"
Most likely Draco, Lucius, Narcissa & Bellatrix would see nothing at all
wrong here. Nor would the potrait of Draco's great aunt... Doubt Andromeda
has ever met either Lucious or Draco...
Bojan Bugarin
several people in alt.fan.harry-potter looked around in alarm, and then
continued:
> In article <1ww3qw1dzt7r9$.11wgi7yq...@40tude.net>, Bojan Bugarin wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> [stark's sig.]
>>
>>> When you pair off the characters
>>
>> For me, this would be the hardest part. To know whether to sort them in
>> pairs or trios or whatever. But I think I would have gotten it eventually.
>
> Its pretty standard in the computer world to decode hex is pairs of digits.
Somehow I should know that from RGB colour codes.
> Two hex digits are eight bits, the smallest unit of data normally used. If
> you dont get anything interesting with only 2 digits, you can switch to 8,
> and see if you get an interesting 32 bit integer, but no one likes trying to
> figure out what the 32 or 64 bit IEEE floating point number might be.
Hmmm... thanks for that.
--
Bojan Bugarin
Looking for a FAQ?
<http://www.hogwarts-library.net/reference>
<http://www.m5p.com/~pravn/hp/faq.html>
Julian Day
"Ed" <arji...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c2ukvo32pulcufft...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 17:33:27 -0500 (CDT), Ey...@webtv.net (Mark W.)
> wrote:
>
> >opps should of said Draco instead of just Malfoy
>
> It's should've, not should of. A common mistake, considering they
> sound alike. Should of is not proper English. Should have is the
> proper usage. Should've is the short form of should have and sounds
> like should of but should not be confused for should of.
Do you think "confused for" is correct English here, or should it perhaps be
"confused with"? ;-)
Since few, if any, of us have perfect grammar and spelling, it's probably
better to leave discussions of grammar in alt.english.usage,
Julian
Chris Morriss
<julia...@mrc-hnr.cam.ac.uk> writes
I see that one way that Terry Pratchett shows that a person is of low
intellect is for the character to use the phrase 'should of'.
--
Chris Morriss