On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 10:53:43 AM UTC-7, Bill Dugan wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 14:48:34 -0600, Chrysi Cat <
chry...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You don't know how ill it's making me to have to defend TS...so let's
> >get this done quick!
> >
> >On 10/3/2016 1:49 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
> >> On 2016-10-02,
tsbr...@gmail.com <
tsbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>> But if Dobby did pick up socks from under a bed, wouldn't that count as
> >>> the Malfoys giving him clothing?
> >>
> >> Nope. That counts as him _taking_ clothing that's lying there. If just
> >> picking up clothing freed a house-elf - or food, or supplies, or a broom -
> >> then no way could any CHORES get done. THINK, please.
> >
> >Not that either of you isn't summoning voodoo sharks, but it's pretty
> >firmly established that house elves indeed *do* count as receiving
> >clothes for something like that.
> >
> >Remember how SPEW frightened the Hogwarts elves out of cleaning
> >Griffyndor Tower because they were always worried they'd pick up one of
> >those hats Hermione was laying out, not realising that with *very*
> >limited exceptions, they really *do* fear being bound to no house?
>
> Wouldn't it be the intention that makes them gifts?
Given that intent, positive and negative, is necessary to magic, yes. There's plenty of instances of Magic Gone Wrong because the intent didn't match the physical action.
The house-elf-clothing thing is about intent to possess.
When Hermione laid out the clothing items, she *intended* for the elves to take them, making them elf-freeing because she no longer considered them her property. But the elves apparently couldn't tell which items were the result of ordinary laziness by other students who did want them back and which were her booby-trapped items, without touching them.
When Harry freed Dobby by hiding his sock in the diary it worked *not* because Malfoy wanted Dobby to have it, but because Malfoy didn't in his mind consider it his property.
> >Not that 'telekinetically gathering clothing makes any *more* sense,
> >though. Can we just accept that everything works the way JKR wants it
> >to, always will, and there can be odd issues like this because A Wizard
> >Quite Literally Did It?
Well, duh.
> >TS, *especially* since you have the habit of running your main and a
> >sock at the same time, I'd suspect nearly as many people have plonked
> >you as are still reading your threads.
It's possible he just has different accounts on different devices. Aargh, now I'm defending him!
> >I mean, it's not like you see *me* asking what happened to the first two
> >Potterverse books when about 6-10 copies must have inevitably gone back
> >to 1632 with Grantville. Although admittedly if I ever validated a
> >Baen's Bar membership I *might* ask it. And, likely, immediately
> >afterwards receive a forum ban.
Oh, no problem. That just created an Alternate Timeline in which Our Dread Lord won and Potter died.
> >Some things you just have to let go. Or even form your own headcanon for.
So many heads, so few cannons.
Mark L. Fergerson