J.K. Rowling is pathetic
Tonawanda Kardex
If you wanted to make a statement, Jo, let Dumbledore be gay from Book
1. Don't spring it posthumously on adoring fans AFTER the completion
of the canon.
How weak can you get ...
Bold? That would have been designing Dumbledore as gay from the start,
instead doing your usual revisionist garbage just because you want
more attention.
Blech.
Steve Cutchen
Tonawanda Kardex <tonawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Dan Bretta
wrote:
Fake outrage. We can't get enough of it....carry on Sam.
Dan
rich hammett
> Seriously.
> Blech.
She did design him as gay from the start.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ Barry Goldwater: "Every good Christian should line up
\ and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."
samson
nud...@yahoo.com says...
Potter-loving gay bashers are in an existential bodyknot right now.
S.
James Schrumpf
> In rec.sport.football.college Tonawanda Kardex
> <tonawan...@gmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>> Seriously.
>
>> If you wanted to make a statement, Jo, let Dumbledore be gay from
>> Book 1. Don't spring it posthumously on adoring fans AFTER the
>> completion of the canon.
>
>> How weak can you get ...
>
>> Bold? That would have been designing Dumbledore as gay from the
>> start, instead doing your usual revisionist garbage just because you
>> want more attention.
>
>> Blech.
>
> She did design him as gay from the start.
>
> rich
How so? "From the start", Dumbledore was an ancient headmaster. There was
never any mention of relationships with ANY of the members of the faculty.
Name _one_ that was mentioned as having a wife, husband, or any kind of
"significant other."
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
Play like your couch is on fire!
Fish Eye no Miko
> How so? "From the start", Dumbledore was an ancient
> headmaster. There was never any mention of relationships
> with ANY of the members of the faculty. Name _one_
> that was mentioned as having a wife, husband, or any kind
> of "significant other."
Hagrid was attracted to Olympe Maxime. And Snape spent pretty much
his whole life in love with Lily. After quitting, Lupin married
Tonks.
The argument that DD being gay is shouldn't have been brought up
because the sexuality of none of the rest Hogwarts faculty was ever
touched upon is simply not true.
Catherine Johnson.
Catherine Johnson.
James Schrumpf
True enough. But Hagrid wasn't "faculty", he was a groundskeeper, and
mostly comic relief. Snape's unrequited love for Lily was far from obvious,
until the last volume. His relationships with the others was always
presented from the student POV. Lupin didn't have a relationship until he
quit and was no longer faculty.
Obviously many characters in the Potter universe had relationships,
otherwise there would have been no more students for Hogwarts.
What about Prof. McGonagall? Prof. Sprout? Was Mrs. Norris fixed?
Lots of unanswered questions about faculty sexuality. Why suddenly
Dumbledore, post-fact?
rich hammett
> Quiet, rich hammett <bubba...@warmmail.com> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>> In rec.sport.football.college Tonawanda Kardex
>> <tonawan...@gmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>>> Seriously.
>>
>>> If you wanted to make a statement, Jo, let Dumbledore be gay from
>>> Book 1. Don't spring it posthumously on adoring fans AFTER the
>>> completion of the canon.
>>
>>> How weak can you get ...
>>
>>> Bold? That would have been designing Dumbledore as gay from the
>>> start, instead doing your usual revisionist garbage just because you
>>> want more attention.
>>
>>> Blech.
>>
>> She did design him as gay from the start.
> How so? "From the start", Dumbledore was an ancient headmaster. There was
> never any mention of relationships with ANY of the members of the faculty.
> Name _one_ that was mentioned as having a wife, husband, or any kind of
> "significant other."
He should have sex for your amusement? Or do gay people always
"let it slip" by lisping occasionally or flouncing around? He
was at least as gay as the gay guy I worked with at a defense
contractor.
rich hammett
> James Schrumpf <jaspammenotschru...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
Has somebody here said that? Or are you just defending Dumbledore's
honor?
James Schrumpf
Well, if one doesn't know how a guy swings, how does one know he's gay or
not?
If Rowling doesn't ever mention one thing about a guy's life outside the
academy, how does one claim that "he designed him as gay from the start"?
Or do you figure all old teachers without wives or children must be gay?
Fish Eye no Miko
> In rec.sport.football.college Fish Eye no
> Miko <f...@cox.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Why TF is this scrossposted to a football ng?!
> > James Schrumpf <jaspammenotschru...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
> >
> >> How so? "From the start", Dumbledore was an ancient
> >> headmaster. There was never any mention of relationships
> >> with ANY of the members of the faculty. Name _one_
> >> that was mentioned as having a wife, husband, or any kind
> >> of "significant other."
> >
> > Hagrid was attracted to Olympe Maxime. And Snape spent
> > pretty much his whole life in love with Lily. After quitting,
> > Lupin married Tonks.
> > The argument that DD being gay is shouldn't have been brought
> > up because the sexuality of none of the rest Hogwarts faculty
> > was ever touched upon is simply not true.
>
> Has somebody here said that? Or are you just defending
> Dumbledore's honor?
It seem to me that that is kinda what James was hinting at. And, yes,
others have made that argument on other threads.
Catherine Johnson.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Quiet, Fish Eye no Miko <f...@cox.net> -- I'm transmitting rage.
> > James Schrumpf <jaspammenotschru...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
>
> >> How so? "From the start", Dumbledore was an ancient
> >> headmaster. There was never any mention of relationships
> >> with ANY of the members of the faculty. Name _one_
> >> that was mentioned as having a wife, husband, or any kind
> >> of "significant other."
>
> > Hagrid was attracted to Olympe Maxime. And Snape spent
> > pretty much his whole life in love with Lily. After quitting,
> > Lupin married Tonks.
> > The argument that DD being gay is shouldn't have been
> > brought up because the sexuality of none of the rest
> > Hogwarts faculty was ever touched upon is simply not true.
>
> > Catherine Johnson.
>
> True enough. But Hagrid wasn't "faculty", he was a groundskeeper,
He was Professor of Care of Magical Creatures from Harry's their year
till at least about the middle of the last book.
> and mostly comic relief.
You said "faculty". You didn't say anything about whether they had to
be serious/
> Snape's unrequited love for Lily was far from obvious,
> until the last volume.
You didn't say he had to be obvious from a certain point in the books.
> His relationships with the others was always
> presented from the student POV.
It was presented from Harry's POV, specifically. Why s this relevant?
> Lupin didn't have a relationship until he quit and was
> no longer faculty.
Well, you did say "faculty", so... ok.
> Obviously many characters in the Potter universe had
> relationships, otherwise there would have been no
> more students for Hogwarts.
>
> What about Prof. McGonagall? Prof. Sprout? Was Mrs. Norris fixed?
How is that relevant? Neither she nor Mr. Filch or faculty.
> Lots of unanswered questions about faculty sexuality.
Yes. And some where.
> Why suddenly Dumbledore, post-fact?
Jo was *specifically* asked about DD's love life, that's why.
Catherine Johnson.
rich hammett
You've made my point for me.
Anthony Summers
> > Why suddenly Dumbledore, post-fact?
>
> Jo was *specifically* asked about DD's love life, that's why.
Doesn't anyone find it more than a little bizarre that people are so
wound-up by this "issue"? Nothing about the stories has suddenly
changed because of this "news": J.K. Rowling remains what she's always
been: a fair-to-middling writer who found one hook and exploited it
beyond her wildest dreams.
So she keeps herself in the spotlight for a few days, mostly because of
some peoples' over-reaction to a canonical "And another thing..." from
the author. So what?
Those truly upset by this "revelation" should have the sense to
recognize it for what it is, and deny Rowling their attention. Those
actually wasting brain electricity on mounting a defense for Ms. Rowling
really need to get ahold of their lives.
--
A. Summers || summerstorm0007-->at<--yahoo.com
James Schrumpf
Let's just say that Dumbledore in particular was never described in any
romantic sense whatsoever. Rowling's assertion that "a sensitive adult
reader" would have seen something in his connection with Grindelwald
beyond friendship is untrue, unless one was supposed to assume that
Harry's close bond with Ron Weasely was also supposed to have gay
overtones.
Rather, the entire series is fraught with close male bondings, and a few
that went awry: James Potter's with Peter Pettigrew, Harry and Ron's in
GOF, and Dumbledore and Grindelwald's. Why should suddenly D's be the
one gay relatonship?
I'm not saying that Rowland might not have had it in mind all along; it's
just not obvious from her writing, that's all.
James Schrumpf
You had a point? You said "She did design him as gay from the start,"
but offered no evidence of it. Is that what you call having a point?
James Schrumpf
rage.
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:58:55 -0000, Fish Eye no Miko wrote...
Well, in a sense it's like saying that Doctor Quest was actually gay, and
kept Race Bannon around for gay sex while pretending he was the kids'
guardian.
It might be true, but it can't be proved by watching the cartoons.
rich hammett
>> In rec.sport.football.college Fish Eye no
>> Miko <f...@cox.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
> Why TF is this scrossposted to a football ng?!
The person who started this thread is a poster on rsfc who has a
weird sense of humor, usually involving taunting people.
>> Has somebody here said that? Or are you just defending
>> Dumbledore's honor?
> It seem to me that that is kinda what James was hinting at. And, yes,
> others have made that argument on other threads.
James might have been going that direction. He doesn't like it
when issues he finds purely political intersect with his Real
World, even if the Real World in question is mostly a fictional
England.
stephenj
yes, that's what hammett calls having a point. most others would call it
having a pointy head.
--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
Fish Eye no Miko
<jaspammenotschru...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
> Well, in a sense it's like saying that Doctor Quest was
> actually gay,
No, It's not. Jo Rowling, the person who created the character has
said he's gay. Yes, she should have had the guts to put that info in
the books, but seeing as Dumbledore is HER character, if she says he's
gay, even in an interview, guess what? He's gay.
Catherine Johnson.
OrangeDood
<jaspammenotschru...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
> Quiet, rich hammett <bubbaric...@warmmail.com> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>
> >> Well, if one doesn't know how a guy swings, how does one know he's
> >> gay or not?
>
> >> If Rowling doesn't ever mention one thing about a guy's life outside
> >> the academy, how does one claim that "he designed him as gay from the
> >> start"?
>
> >> Or do you figure all old teachers without wives or children must be
> >> gay?
>
> > You've made my point for me.
>
> but offered no evidence of it. Is that what you call having a point?
If she says he was gay all along, he was bloody well gay all along.
She wrote the damb books, after all, you TWIT. The characters are
entirely a construct of her mind. She owns them, lock, stock and
barrel, and can do with them as she pleases. That is all the evidence
necessary.
P.S. I can pretty much guarantee you she was not simply putting on a
glory-seeking publicity stunt. It's not her personality and never has
been. This is well-documented.
Cheers,
--Jeff
James Schrumpf
I actually have no argument with that, though it's unfair to do so so late
in the game. What I argue with is her statement that "a sensitive adult"
would have seen the gay relationship between D and G. That's just not
there at all in the book, no matter how one reads it, unless one has some
kind of "gaydar" that sees gay lust everywhere in male relationships.
James Schrumpf
> In rec.sport.football.college Fish Eye no Miko <fe...@cox.net> sanoi,
> hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>> On Oct 26, 5:58 pm, rich hammett <bubbaric...@warmmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> In rec.sport.football.college Fish Eye no
>>> Miko <f...@cox.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>
>> Why TF is this scrossposted to a football ng?!
>
> The person who started this thread is a poster on rsfc who has a
> weird sense of humor, usually involving taunting people.
>
>>> Has somebody here said that? Or are you just defending
>>> Dumbledore's honor?
>
>> It seem to me that that is kinda what James was hinting at. And,
>> yes, others have made that argument on other threads.
>
> James might have been going that direction. He doesn't like it
> when issues he finds purely political intersect with his Real
> World, even if the Real World in question is mostly a fictional
> England.
>
> rich
There's a political component of Dumbledore being gay? Do tell.
Fish Eye no Miko
<jaspammenotschru...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
> Quiet, Fish Eye no Miko <f...@cox.net> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>
> >> >> How so? "From the start", Dumbledore was an ancient
> >> >> headmaster. There was never any mention of relationships
> >> >> with ANY of the members of the faculty. Name _one_
> >> >> that was mentioned as having a wife, husband, or any kind
> >> >> of "significant other."
> >> >
> >> > Hagrid was attracted to Olympe Maxime. And Snape spent
> >> > pretty much his whole life in love with Lily. After quitting,
> >> > Lupin married Tonks.
> >> > The argument that DD being gay is shouldn't have been
> >> > brought up because the sexuality of none of the rest
> >> > Hogwarts faculty was ever touched upon is simply not true.
> >>
> >> True enough. But Hagrid wasn't "faculty", he was a
> >> groundskeeper,
> >
> > He was Professor of Care of Magical Creatures from Harry's
> > third year till at least about the middle of the last book.
> >
> >> and mostly comic relief.
> >
> > You said "faculty". You didn't say anything about whether
> > they had to be serious.
> >
> >> Snape's unrequited love for Lily was far from obvious,
> >> until the last volume.
> >
> > You didn't say he had to be obvious from a certain point in
> > the books.
> >
> >> His relationships with the others was always
> >> presented from the student POV.
> >
> > It was presented from Harry's POV, specifically. Why is
> > this relevant?
> >
> >> Lupin didn't have a relationship until he quit and was
> >> no longer faculty.
> >
> > Well, you did say "faculty", so... ok.
> >
> >> Obviously many characters in the Potter universe had
> >> relationships, otherwise there would have been no
> >> more students for Hogwarts.
> >>
> >> What about Prof. McGonagall? Prof. Sprout? Was
> >> Mrs. Norris fixed?
> >
> > How is that relevant? Neither she nor Mr. Filch or faculty.
> >> Lots of unanswered questions about faculty sexuality.
> >
> > Yes. And some were.
> >
> >> Why suddenly Dumbledore, post-fact?
> >
> > Jo was *specifically* asked about DD's love life, that's why.
>
> Let's just say that Dumbledore in particular was never described
> in any romantic sense whatsoever.
How about you address some of the points I made, first? This was the
point you were making, after all. Frankly, you could have at least
have had the courtesy of deleting the text of my post if you're
weren't going to actually address any of it.
Catherine Johnson.
James Schrumpf
Rich claimed that "she designed him gay from the start," yet there's
absolutely no evidence in the books that she did. Oh sure, in book seven
she describes the battle between D and G, and later explained how D was
broken-hearted from unrequited love for G -- but that's not in the book
anywhere.
She can claim whatever she wants for her characters, for sure -- but that
doesn't mean that any of it was ever made apparent in the books.
What, do you think I'm arguing that D _isn't_ gay?
James Schrumpf
Which points? I grant most of what you said, which is why I moved to D
specifically. I suppose I could argue Snape, but your comment on him
didn't really make sense -- "being obvious... in the books" is why I'm
complaing about D's gayness in the first place: because it wasn't
obvious. Neither was Snape's love for Lily, but at least she made it
clear by the end.
McGonagall's and Sprout's lack of sexual activity was noted because D had
exactly the same lack in print, yet somehow we're supposed to find it
obvious that D was gay and McG and Sprout were... what?
Mrs. Norris was a joke. Sorry it went over your head.
Actually, I'm glad it makes you happy that Rowling said that D was gay.
There's not enough happiness in the world as it is. Enjoy your many
rereadings of the books with your new interpretation in mind.
Anthony Summers
> > Those truly upset by this "revelation" should have the sense to
> > recognize it for what it is, and deny Rowling their attention. Those
> > actually wasting brain electricity on mounting a defense for Ms. Rowling
> > really need to get ahold of their lives.
> >
>
> Well, in a sense it's like saying that Doctor Quest was actually gay, and
> kept Race Bannon around for gay sex while pretending he was the kids'
> guardian.
It's not anything like that at all, Mr. Schrumpf, unless you're
suggesting that Rowling has stated that her gay character was after
Harry Potter's anal cherry.
Drusilla
> Quiet, Fish Eye no Miko <fe...@cox.net> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>
>> On Oct 26, 7:33 pm, James Schrumpf
>> <jaspammenotschru...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, in a sense it's like saying that Doctor Quest was
>>> actually gay,
>> No, It's not. Jo Rowling, the person who created the character has
>> said he's gay. Yes, she should have had the guts to put that info in
>> the books, but seeing as Dumbledore is HER character, if she says he's
>> gay, even in an interview, guess what? He's gay.
>>
>> Catherine Johnson.
>>
>>
>
> I actually have no argument with that, though it's unfair to do so so late
> in the game. What I argue with is her statement that "a sensitive adult"
> would have seen the gay relationship between D and G. That's just not
> there at all in the book, no matter how one reads it, unless one has some
> kind of "gaydar" that sees gay lust everywhere in male relationships.
>
Bullshit. Following that statement then the DE are gay too. Or the
Phoenixes.
Then again, I think its a big flaw in DD's character to have followed GG
biased by romantic/erotic/whatever feelings, and the same about
Bellatrix. And she might say it, but I don't believe she planned this
way from the beginning. The plot perhaps, but not DD's sexual
orientation. She might have planned from the beginning of DH, but no
since PS/SS.
--
_ _
Granjeros en Peru tienen ganancias de menos de $1 por dia. El proyecto
"POTATO GOLDMINE" puede cambiar eso.
Farmers of Peru have incomes of less than $1 per day. The "POTATO
GOLDMINE" project might change that.
Drusilla
Many afhp posters might disagree with you.
Me, I do think she knew what this revelation meant: look how many posts
we have now? Do you actually think she didn't know how much we were
going to talk about it? I have no problem about it, though, I LOVE Harry
Potter, I LOVE discuss about it.
OTOH Many others might say "but she had been a hypocrite if she had say
nothing at all". They might have made a point if she had simply said
this time "Yes, he loved a person once" and declared 10 years from now
"I could have told you he was gay, but I didn't because I didn't want to
infuriate my readers", after all, we fans don't care he's gay or not.
What I think is lightly hypocrite is that she waited for the series to
end it to say it, when she got LOTS of chances to do it IN the books (DH
and OotP) and it had made sense in the plot.
But for those who say "Yeah! he made him gay!" and celebrate this, many
times this kind of specification "helps" to cause the segregation. She
was asked about Cho's future, she said "she married a muggle" not "yes,
she married a muggle, as a straight woman she was and they both have
heterosexual sex". And it also follows the old cliche that "close
admiration equals romantic interest" (which is what we can see in
another relationship as Bella and LV) or that "love is the big
motivation for the plot" (Snape/Lily).
Fish Eye no Miko
> But for those who say "Yeah! he made him gay!" and
> celebrate this, many times this kind of specification
> "helps" to cause the segregation.
She should have just said he was in love with Grindelwald?
> She was asked about Cho's future, she said "she married
> a muggle" not "yes, she married a muggle, as a straight
> woman she was and they both have heterosexual sex".
That's because marriage, as currently defined in most places,
presupposes heterosexuality and straight sex.
> And it also follows the old cliche that "close admiration
> equals romantic interest" (which is what we can see in
> another relationship as Bella and LV) or that "love is the
> big motivation for the plot" (Snape/Lily).
Jo is nothing if not cliche.
Catherine Johnson.
OrangeDood
> OrangeDood escribió:
> > If she says he was gay all along, he was bloody well gay all along.
> > She wrote the damb books, after all, you TWIT. The characters are
> > entirely a construct of her mind. She owns them, lock, stock and
> > barrel, and can do with them as she pleases. That is all the evidence
> > necessary.
>
> > P.S. I can pretty much guarantee you she was not simply putting on a
> > glory-seeking publicity stunt. It's not her personality and never has
> > been. This is well-documented.
>
> Many afhp posters might disagree with you.
>
> Me, I do think she knew what this revelation meant: look how many posts
> we have now? Do you actually think she didn't know how much we were
> going to talk about it? I have no problem about it, though, I LOVE Harry
> Potter, I LOVE discuss about it.
>
> OTOH Many others might say "but she had been a hypocrite if she had say
> nothing at all". They might have made a point if she had simply said
> this time "Yes, he loved a person once" and declared 10 years from now
> "I could have told you he was gay, but I didn't because I didn't want to
> infuriate my readers", after all, we fans don't care he's gay or not.
> What I think is lightly hypocrite is that she waited for the series to
> end it to say it, when she got LOTS of chances to do it IN the books (DH
> and OotP) and it had made sense in the plot.
My point is, I don't think she planned ahead of time to release this
information as some sort of attention-getting stunt. I think she just
answered an honest question honestly. Perhaps feeling free to finally
do so, now that the series is indeed finished.
Why was she afraid to say so before? The answer seems (sadly) obvious,
and I can't say I blame her.
Cheers,
--Jeff
Anthony Summers
> Why was she afraid to say so before? The answer seems (sadly) obvious,
> and I can't say I blame her.
If she lied in the name of profit, I can certainly blame her, and would
if I believed for a moment that this was anything more than a sad plea
for more attention now that she's finished with the series.
mianderson
wrote:
> Seriously.
who cares? The books are the books....JKrawling doesn't get to decide
whether a character in a book that has already been published is gay
anymore than you or me do.
People can look at the books themselves and judge the books for
themselves on what went down in the books.......
oh, and the fact that so many of you guys seem to know so much about
this stuff is a little creepy.
John Rogers
<gocinc...@yahoo.com>... A donut without a hole is a Danish.
>On Oct 26, 10:31 pm, James Schrumpf
><jaspammenotschru...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
>> Quiet, rich hammett <bubbaric...@warmmail.com> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>>
>> >> Well, if one doesn't know how a guy swings, how does one know he's
>> >> gay or not?
>>
>> >> If Rowling doesn't ever mention one thing about a guy's life outside
>> >> the academy, how does one claim that "he designed him as gay from the
>> >> start"?
>>
>> >> Or do you figure all old teachers without wives or children must be
>> >> gay?
>>
>> > You've made my point for me.
>>
>> You had a point? You said "She did design him as gay from the start,"
>> but offered no evidence of it. Is that what you call having a point?
>
>If she says he was gay all along, he was bloody well gay all along.
Are you getting a WOODY???!?!? ($1 to MoParMan)
John Rogers
AU Class of 1985
The Al Del Greco of Atlanta
The Nail Gun of Quiet Reflection
Deacon Dr. John Flow
RSFC Lay Eucharistic Minister
The Lost 7th Member of the 'Friends' Cast
"It marks the first national championship for Alabama, which has
a rich bowl tradition dating back to the 1920's, but the Crimson
Tide finished second in 1945 and has been in the top 10 the last
two years." (Montgomery Advertiser, 12/10/61)
John Rogers
<gocinc...@yahoo.com>... A donut without a hole is a Danish.
>Why was she afraid to say so before? The answer seems (sadly) obvious,
>and I can't say I blame her.
That's artistic integrity for ya.
Tonawanda Kardex
> On Oct 26, 2:07 pm, Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Seriously.
>
> > If you wanted to make a statement, Jo, let Dumbledore be gay from Book
> > 1. Don't spring it posthumously on adoring fans AFTER the completion
> > of the canon.
>
> > How weak can you get ...
>
> > instead doing your usual revisionist garbage just because you want
> > more attention.
>
> > Blech.
>
Ah, but it was excellent bait nonetheless.
Dan Bretta
wrote:
True...I didn't even notice the xpost until it was too late.
Dan
Tonawanda Kardex
I mean, it's no Kate Winsley xpost, but ...
Phil
"Tonawanda Kardex" <tonawan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193425626.4...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Seriously.
>
> If you wanted to make a statement, Jo, let Dumbledore be gay from Book
> 1. Don't spring it posthumously on adoring fans AFTER the completion
> of the canon.
>
> How weak can you get ...
>
> Bold? That would have been designing Dumbledore as gay from the start,
> instead doing your usual revisionist garbage just because you want
> more attention.
>
> Blech.
>
Harsh on her, but I agree it's trying to keep the whining queers and
significantly more loudmouthed and repelant dykes happy.
But that said, I thought she did it tastefully.
John Rogers
Bill Blakely
<jaspammen...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
>Quiet, Fish Eye no Miko <fe...@cox.net> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>
>> On Oct 26, 7:33 pm, James Schrumpf
>> <jaspammenotschru...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, in a sense it's like saying that Doctor Quest was
>>> actually gay,
>>
>> No, It's not. Jo Rowling, the person who created the character has
>> said he's gay. Yes, she should have had the guts to put that info in
>> the books, but seeing as Dumbledore is HER character, if she says he's
>> gay, even in an interview, guess what? He's gay.
>>
>> Catherine Johnson.
>>
>>
>
>I actually have no argument with that, though it's unfair to do so so late
>in the game. What I argue with is her statement that "a sensitive adult"
>would have seen the gay relationship between D and G. That's just not
>there at all in the book, no matter how one reads it, unless one has some
>kind of "gaydar" that sees gay lust everywhere in male relationships.
I disagree. The intensity and irrationality of the D/G relationship
made me wonder if there wasn't an erotic/romantic component to it.
-----------------------------------------------
George W. Bush: Billions for Halliburton but not one cent for children's health care.
John Rogers
<wcbl...@hughesnet.com>... A donut without a hole is a Danish.
>On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:11:22 -0500, James Schrumpf
><jaspammen...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
>
>>Quiet, Fish Eye no Miko <fe...@cox.net> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>>
>>> On Oct 26, 7:33 pm, James Schrumpf
>>> <jaspammenotschru...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, in a sense it's like saying that Doctor Quest was
>>>> actually gay,
>>>
>>> No, It's not. Jo Rowling, the person who created the character has
>>> said he's gay. Yes, she should have had the guts to put that info in
>>> the books, but seeing as Dumbledore is HER character, if she says he's
>>> gay, even in an interview, guess what? He's gay.
>>>
>>> Catherine Johnson.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I actually have no argument with that, though it's unfair to do so so late
>>in the game. What I argue with is her statement that "a sensitive adult"
>>would have seen the gay relationship between D and G. That's just not
>>there at all in the book, no matter how one reads it, unless one has some
>>kind of "gaydar" that sees gay lust everywhere in male relationships.
>
>I disagree. The intensity and irrationality of the D/G relationship
>made me wonder if there wasn't an erotic/romantic component to it.
Did thinking about it make you horny?
Jethro Rogers
Vance AL
Keeper of the Houndstooth
"ROLLLLLLLLLLLLLE TIDE ROLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLE!!!!"
Jim Weeks
"John Rogers" <tige...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fgr6i3dok976g3s6k...@4ax.com...
> Does Dumbledore have a "wide stance"?
>
i always thought he had a thing for Harry .. in a priestly sort of way.
jpw
Trent Woodruff
>>On Oct 26, 3:07 pm, Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com>
>> Seriously.
>who cares? The books are the books....JKrawling doesn't get to decide
>whether a character in a book that has already been published is gay
>anymore than you or me do.
>People can look at the books themselves and judge the books for
>themselves on what went down in the books.......
>oh, and the fact that so many of you guys seem to know so much about
>this stuff is a little creepy.
Not as creepy as how much you know about man-purses and facial cremes.
...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When
you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I
dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
OrangeDood
by hand:
> A flute without holes, is not a flute, OrangeDood
> <gocinc...@yahoo.com>... A donut without a hole is a Danish.
>
>>Why was she afraid to say so before? The answer seems (sadly)
>>obvious, and I can't say I blame her.
>
> That's artistic integrity for ya.
It's called making a living.
--
Cheers,
--Jeff
Read the damb FAQ.
http://www.rsfckers.com/faq.htm
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley:
LSD and BSD. We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
--Jeremy S. Anderson
James Schrumpf
Don't forget his thing with Tom Riddle.
Drusilla
> On Oct 26, 9:44 pm, Drusilla <gammanormidsERASET...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But for those who say "Yeah! he made him gay!" and
>> celebrate this, many times this kind of specification
>> "helps" to cause the segregation.
>
> She should have just said he was in love with Grindelwald?
She could have just said "yes, he was in love once, and this affected
his even affected his decisions".
>> She was asked about Cho's future, she said "she married
>> a muggle" not "yes, she married a muggle, as a straight
>> woman she was and they both have heterosexual sex".
>
> That's because marriage, as currently defined in most places,
> presupposes heterosexuality and straight sex.
Heterosexuality is mostly the "default" state; when one meets a persons,
it's very likely they would assume this person is straight, that's what
many assume as "normal" or "common" and we don't need the specification.
Some others DO specify when the introduce a gay person. A pathetic
example: I saw this headline in a past news article: "Gay son kills
father and sisters". Why was needed to express he was gay?
Because it sells more.
>> And it also follows the old cliche that "close admiration
>> equals romantic interest" (which is what we can see in
>> another relationship as Bella and LV) or that "love is the
>> big motivation for the plot" (Snape/Lily).
>
> Jo is nothing if not cliche.
I read last night an old article about the HP clichés in fanfic and the
whole "Snape loved Lily" sounded so ridiculous when it was parodied :D
--
_ _
Granjeros en Peru tienen ganancias de menos de $1 por dia. El proyecto
"POTATO GOLDMINE" puede cambiar eso.
Farmers of Peru have incomes of less than $1 per day. The "POTATO
GOLDMINE" project might change that.
http://www.theworldchallenge.co.uk/potato.php
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Karnak17
It was ridiculous in DEATHLY HALLOWS, too.
-- Karnak
(still sulking)
Drusilla
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:11:22 -0500, James Schrumpf
> <jaspammen...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
>
>> Quiet, Fish Eye no Miko <fe...@cox.net> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>>
>>> On Oct 26, 7:33 pm, James Schrumpf
>>> <jaspammenotschru...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, in a sense it's like saying that Doctor Quest was
>>>> actually gay,
>>> No, It's not. Jo Rowling, the person who created the character has
>>> said he's gay. Yes, she should have had the guts to put that info in
>>> the books, but seeing as Dumbledore is HER character, if she says he's
>>> gay, even in an interview, guess what? He's gay.
>>>
>>> Catherine Johnson.
>>>
>>>
>> I actually have no argument with that, though it's unfair to do so so late
>> in the game. What I argue with is her statement that "a sensitive adult"
>> would have seen the gay relationship between D and G. That's just not
>> there at all in the book, no matter how one reads it, unless one has some
>> kind of "gaydar" that sees gay lust everywhere in male relationships.
>
> I disagree. The intensity and irrationality of the D/G relationship
> made me wonder if there wasn't an erotic/romantic component to it.
You're like my mother: she thinks that any intense and close friendship
always involves erotic/romantic feelings. That's why I NEVER bring
friends home. NEVER. :P
Thom Madura
> Fish Eye no Miko escribió:
>> On Oct 26, 9:44 pm, Drusilla <gammanormidsERASET...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But for those who say "Yeah! he made him gay!" and
>>> celebrate this, many times this kind of specification
>>> "helps" to cause the segregation.
>>
>> She should have just said he was in love with Grindelwald?
>
> She could have just said "yes, he was in love once, and this affected
> his even affected his decisions".
>
>>> She was asked about Cho's future, she said "she married
>>> a muggle" not "yes, she married a muggle, as a straight
>>> woman she was and they both have heterosexual sex".
>>
>> That's because marriage, as currently defined in most places,
>> presupposes heterosexuality and straight sex.
>
> Heterosexuality is mostly the "default" state; when one meets a persons,
> it's very likely they would assume this person is straight, that's what
> many assume as "normal" or "common" and we don't need the specification.
I have worked in the Music and Movie industries since I was a little
kid. It was a LOT harder to decide who was straight than it was to
decide who was gay early on. I learned not to assume either way for most
people.
Plaidmoon
wrote:
>Does Dumbledore have a "wide stance"?
There's a reason why he wears a robe and no underwear.
Plaidmoon
----------------------------------------------------
If you can read this, you've reached the end of this post.
Bill Blakely
Not always, but the though did cross my mind.
So, your mother thinks you have no friends!? LOL
Bill Blakely
For a long time I thought Snape was Lily's brother, based on the
Perseus Evans anagram. That would have made a lot more sense to me.
Even the crummiest people often still have strong feelings for family.
Much classier anagram, too.
Bill Blakely
wrote:
>A flute without holes, is not a flute, Bill Blakely
Sorry to disappoint you, but no. But don't get discouraged: It's not
a bad pickup line, although you would be better off hitting on guys
who live much nearer to you.
John Rogers
Hennig, Furr, and Weeks is all my bitches.
rich hammett
> James Schrumpf wrote:
>> Quiet, rich hammett <bubba...@warmmail.com> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>>
>>
>>>In rec.sport.football.college James Schrumpf
>>><jaspammen...@comcast.nospamnet> sanoi, hitaasti kuin
>>>hämähäkki:
>>>
>>>>Quiet, rich hammett <bubba...@warmmail.com> -- I'm transmitting
>>>>rage.
>>>
>>>>>In rec.sport.football.college James Schrumpf
>>>>><jaspammen...@comcast.nospamnet> sanoi, hitaasti kuin
>>>>>hämähäkki:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Quiet, rich hammett <bubba...@warmmail.com> -- I'm transmitting
>>>>>>rage.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>In rec.sport.football.college Tonawanda Kardex
>>>>>>><tonawan...@gmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>>>>>>>>Seriously.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If you wanted to make a statement, Jo, let Dumbledore be gay from
>>>>>>>>Book 1. Don't spring it posthumously on adoring fans AFTER the
>>>>>>>>completion of the canon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How weak can you get ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Bold? That would have been designing Dumbledore as gay from the
>>>>>>>>start, instead doing your usual revisionist garbage just because
>>>>>>>>you want more attention.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Blech.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>How so? "From the start", Dumbledore was an ancient headmaster.
>>>>>>There was never any mention of relationships with ANY of the
>>>>>>members of the faculty. Name _one_ that was mentioned as having a
>>>>>>wife, husband, or any kind of "significant other."
>>>>>
>>>>>He should have sex for your amusement? Or do gay people always
>>>>>"let it slip" by lisping occasionally or flouncing around? He
>>>>>was at least as gay as the gay guy I worked with at a defense
>>>>>contractor.
>>>>>
>>>>>rich
>>>
>>>>Well, if one doesn't know how a guy swings, how does one know he's
>>>>gay or not?
>>>
>>>>If Rowling doesn't ever mention one thing about a guy's life outside
>>>>the academy, how does one claim that "he designed him as gay from the
>>>>start"?
>>>
>>>>Or do you figure all old teachers without wives or children must be
>>>>gay?
>>>
>>>You've made my point for me.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You had a point? You said "She did design him as gay from the start,"
>> but offered no evidence of it. Is that what you call having a point?
> yes, that's what hammett calls having a point. most others would call it
> having a pointy head.
You must be a great professor!
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ Barry Goldwater: "Every good Christian should line up
\ and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."
rich hammett
>> On Oct 26, 10:31 pm, James Schrumpf
>> <jaspammenotschru...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
>>> Quiet, rich hammett <bubbaric...@warmmail.com> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>>>
>>> >> Well, if one doesn't know how a guy swings, how does one know he's
>>> >> gay or not?
>>>
>>> >> If Rowling doesn't ever mention one thing about a guy's life outside
>>> >> the academy, how does one claim that "he designed him as gay from the
>>> >> start"?
>>>
>>> >> Or do you figure all old teachers without wives or children must be
>>> >> gay?
>>>
>>> > You've made my point for me.
>>>
>>> You had a point? You said "She did design him as gay from the start,"
>>> but offered no evidence of it. Is that what you call having a point?
>>
>> If she says he was gay all along, he was bloody well gay all along.
>> She wrote the damb books, after all, you TWIT. The characters are
>> entirely a construct of her mind. She owns them, lock, stock and
>> barrel, and can do with them as she pleases. That is all the evidence
>> necessary.
>>
>> P.S. I can pretty much guarantee you she was not simply putting on a
>> glory-seeking publicity stunt. It's not her personality and never has
>> been. This is well-documented.
> Rich claimed that "she designed him gay from the start," yet there's
> absolutely no evidence in the books that she did. Oh sure, in book seven
> she describes the battle between D and G, and later explained how D was
> broken-hearted from unrequited love for G -- but that's not in the book
> anywhere.
> She can claim whatever she wants for her characters, for sure -- but that
> doesn't mean that any of it was ever made apparent in the books.
You still don't quite understand. WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD YOU WANT TO
SEE IN THE BOOKS?
> What, do you think I'm arguing that D _isn't_ gay?
I think you're arguing that you know more than the author about
her characters.
rich hammett
But how is she going to keep the foul-smelling straight people
happy?
Lance Freezeland
<jaspammen...@comcast.nospamnet> gave us:
>Quiet, rich hammett <bubba...@warmmail.com> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>> In rec.sport.football.college Tonawanda Kardex
>> <tonawan...@gmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>>> Seriously.
>>> If you wanted to make a statement, Jo, let Dumbledore be gay from
>>> Book 1. Don't spring it posthumously on adoring fans AFTER the
>>> completion of the canon.
>>> How weak can you get ...
>>> Bold? That would have been designing Dumbledore as gay from the
>>> start, instead doing your usual revisionist garbage just because you
>>> want more attention.
>>> Blech.
>> She did design him as gay from the start.
>How so?
He walked funny.
--
Lance
"I believe in the Church of Baseball" Annie Savoy
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Archie Leach
>On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:56:09 -0500, James Schrumpf
><jaspammen...@comcast.nospamnet> gave us:
>>Quiet, rich hammett <bubba...@warmmail.com> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>>> In rec.sport.football.college Tonawanda Kardex
>>> <tonawan...@gmail.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
>
>>>> Seriously.
>
>>>> If you wanted to make a statement, Jo, let Dumbledore be gay from
>>>> Book 1. Don't spring it posthumously on adoring fans AFTER the
>>>> completion of the canon.
>
>>>> How weak can you get ...
>
>>>> Bold? That would have been designing Dumbledore as gay from the
>>>> start, instead doing your usual revisionist garbage just because you
>>>> want more attention.
>
>>>> Blech.
>
>>> She did design him as gay from the start.
>
>>How so?
>
>He walked funny.
And he sounded like the medieval version of Paul Lynde.
Tonawanda Kardex
> Does Dumbledore have a "wide stance"?
Gives that whole anecdote about the Room of Requirement providing him
with chamber pots a new definition, indeed.
Tonawanda Kardex
<jaspammenotschru...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
> Quiet, "Jim Weeks" <jwe...@austin.rr.com> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>
>
>
> >news:fgr6i3dok976g3s6k...@4ax.com...
> >> Does Dumbledore have a "wide stance"?
>
> > i always thought he had a thing for Harry .. in a priestly sort of way.
>
> > jpw
>
> Don't forget his thing with Tom Riddle.
What thing was that?
James Schrumpf
rage.
> On Oct 27, 6:02 pm, James Schrumpf
> <jaspammenotschru...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
>> Quiet, "Jim Weeks" <jwe...@austin.rr.com> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>>
>>
>>
>> > "John Rogers" <tiger7...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:fgr6i3dok976g3s6k...@4ax.com...
>> >> Does Dumbledore have a "wide stance"?
>>
>> > i always thought he had a thing for Harry .. in a priestly sort of
>> > way.
>>
>> > jpw
>>
>> Don't forget his thing with Tom Riddle.
>
> What thing was that?
>
>
Didn't you read the book? He pulled Riddle into Hogwarts from the
orphanarium where he was abusing the other kids and stealing their stuff.
Riddle was D's protege a generation before Harry.
Tom Riddle was basically the mirror image of Harry, being a super-talented
wizard and all, but prone to make bad choices.
Tonawanda Kardex
<jaspammenotschru...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
> Quiet, Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> -- I'm transmitting
> rage.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 27, 6:02 pm, James Schrumpf
> > <jaspammenotschru...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
> >> Quiet, "Jim Weeks" <jwe...@austin.rr.com> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>
> >> > "John Rogers" <tiger7...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:fgr6i3dok976g3s6k...@4ax.com...
> >> >> Does Dumbledore have a "wide stance"?
>
> >> > i always thought he had a thing for Harry .. in a priestly sort of
> >> > way.
>
> >> > jpw
>
> >> Don't forget his thing with Tom Riddle.
>
> > What thing was that?
>
> Didn't you read the book? He pulled Riddle into Hogwarts from the
> orphanarium where he was abusing the other kids and stealing their stuff.
> Riddle was D's protege a generation before Harry.
Protege? Hardly. Didn't _you_ read the book(s)?
James Schrumpf
rage.
> On Oct 30, 5:45 pm, James Schrumpf
> <jaspammenotschru...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
>> Quiet, Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> -- I'm
>> transmitting rage.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 27, 6:02 pm, James Schrumpf
>> > <jaspammenotschru...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
>> >> Quiet, "Jim Weeks" <jwe...@austin.rr.com> -- I'm transmitting
>> >> rage.
>>
>> >> > "John Rogers" <tiger7...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:fgr6i3dok976g3s6k...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> Does Dumbledore have a "wide stance"?
>>
>> >> > i always thought he had a thing for Harry .. in a priestly sort
>> >> > of way.
>>
>> >> > jpw
>>
>> >> Don't forget his thing with Tom Riddle.
>>
>> > What thing was that?
>>
>> Didn't you read the book? He pulled Riddle into Hogwarts from the
>> orphanarium where he was abusing the other kids and stealing their
>> stuff. Riddle was D's protege a generation before Harry.
>
> Protege? Hardly. Didn't _you_ read the book(s)?
>
>
Perhaps a loose usage of the word, but D always had his eye on Riddle and
took great interest in what he did, more so than the rest of the kids
under his care at the time. He didn't lift a finger to keep Hagrid from
being tossed out of school, nor keep Snape from being bullied by Harry's
dad and pals.
Actually, Harry wasn't much of a protege either, as much as he was a
"favorite", and that only because V had decided that Harry was the
subject of the prophecy. If he'd decided it was Nigel, then he would
have been D's main interest.
The entire series points out the similarities between Harry and Tom, and
shows how they became different people because of the choices they made.
To try and claim that Riddle wasn't of special interest to D is a bit off
the mark.
Toon
<jaspammen...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
>Riddle was D's protege a generation before Harry.
No he wasn't. He was just another student.
Toon
<jaspammen...@comcast.nospamnet> wrote:
>Perhaps a loose usage of the word, but D always had his eye on Riddle and
>took great interest in what he did, more so than the rest of the kids
>under his care at the time.
Because he was evil, and up to no good. That's not a loose
definition, but a wrong one.
> He didn't lift a finger to keep Hagrid from
>being tossed out of school,
Very few teachers can outrank a headmaster to achieve this.
>nor keep Snape from being bullied by Harry's
>dad and pals.
Most teachers/admins subscribe to the That's Life, toughen up and gain
some character.
>The entire series points out the similarities between Harry and Tom, and
>shows how they became different people because of the choices they made.
>To try and claim that Riddle wasn't of special interest to D is a bit off
>the mark.
When did anybody ever claim that?
Louis Epstein
:>> and the whole "Snape loved Lily" sounded so ridiculous when it was
:>> parodied :D
:>
:>It was ridiculous in DEATHLY HALLOWS, too.
:>
:>-- Karnak
:>(still sulking)
:
: For a long time I thought Snape was Lily's brother, based on the
: Perseus Evans anagram. That would have made a lot more sense to me.
: Even the crummiest people often still have strong feelings for family.
:
: Much classier anagram, too.
No no...Perseus was related to MARK Evans,not Lily and Petunia...
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Louis Epstein
: On Oct 26, 3:07 pm, Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com>
:> Seriously.
:
: who cares? The books are the books....JKrawling doesn't get to decide
: whether a character in a book that has already been published is gay
: anymore than you or me do.
Authors are entitled to expand upon canon.
: People can look at the books themselves and judge the books for
: themselves on what went down in the books.......
And where they disagree with the author they lack...ahem...
"authority".
: oh, and the fact that so many of you guys seem to know so much about
: this stuff is a little creepy.
-=-=-
Louis Epstein
:
:
: ...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
: than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
: gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
: - Stephen Roberts
I've seen this balderdash and regard it as terminally clueless.
Disproving false claims about the Infinitely First Cause of Existence
can not call the necessity of there being an Infinitely First Cause of
Existence into question.
Saying Christmas presents don't come from Santa Claus,
or Black Peter,or pink fairies in chariots of fire,
is not an answer to where they DO come from...and
their existence needs explaining.
KarentheUnicorn
sudden statement in an interview that Dumbledore is gay...does it
affect canon, is it in the book? Let me say first I would not have a
problem with a gay Dumbledore but this is a bit tricky isn't it.
Now that it's been said it does become important to the book. But some
of you say no it isn't important but it is because JKR said it and in
follow up interviews I have read and seen that I have a problem with
how she addresses questions about it and the issue of homosexuality.
It sort of becomes almost a flippant issue, a well lets wait till
after 7 to bring it up...lets use another political issue to get
ourselves in the headlines. I don't want to believe thats true but on
many instances JKR has been asked questions about Dumbledore. I do
remember in a mugglenet interview after book 6 was out she even
commented on Dumbledore in regards to having a signifigant other/
partner. If she was addressing that issue so closely then, if she were
really wanting to tell us about Dumbledore should could have revealed
it then.
But then see here is where the problem is; she said Dumbledore being
infatuated with another man was a big part of book 7. So for everyone
to say it isn't important isn't actually reading the authors
interviews.
Most say well it isn't important that Dumbledore was gay, but JKR says
in an interview that: The plot is what it is, and he did have, as I
say this rather tragic infatuation, but that is a key part of the
ending of the story. So there it is, why would I put the key part of
my ending of my story in book one? It's about the construction of the
story. It's not ... It is what it is.
She herself says Dumbledore being infatuated/in love with Gellard is a
key part of the story. But then later in the same interview she goes
on to say:
Q: So the ending was at the news conference I gather for you, when you
revealed it publicly?
JKR: Not at all. No. This wasn't a news conference, this was a
question and answer with a fan, and ... why is that the ending of the
book? It is in the book he had ... it's very clear in the book he that
he ... absolutely, a child will see a friendship, and I think a
sensitive adult may well understand that it was an infatuation. I knew
it was an infatuation.
This is where I have a big problem. A sensitive adult will see it but
a child see's friendship. So I would gather that anyone that doesn't
see or read that Dumbledore is in love with Gellard then that means
we're all children or are ont sensitive enough to get it.
I do not really believe that is what she means but I still thing those
words are chosen very poorly.
It is very much like saying, simply because you don't read the book
the way I meant it to be read then you are just to ignorant to figure
it out. Perhaps it isn't the reader that wasn't the problem. You can't
say well a sensitive adult would get it...So to me it would be left up
to everyone to decide for themselves what they see in Dumbledore's
relationships with men and women but unfortunatly JKR did not allow
that.
If someone wanted to believe Dumbledore was not a homosexual then by
reading the books and NOT the interviews you can still believe that.
IF someone wants to beleive Dumbledore is gay, then by reading the
books a person can still imagine that. That is why JKR's books are so
popular, there is a lot left open to the imagination...there is a lot
you can interperit your own way and still enjoy the book and talking
with other fans who have differnet ideas.
But she telling us as readers that only the sensitive among us can
read it the way she meant it to be read DOES sort of beging to limit
the character to a narrow field of interpritation. JKR herself above
in the quotes now says it was a important part of the story...that in
fact Dumbledore having an attraction to Gellard was the big part...but
only the sensitive among us will fully get what she is trying to say.
So it isn't like I have a problem with gay Dumbledore I just
personally didn't care either way but it becomes sort of a
disappointing situations when the author says well if you don't read
it this way then you are lacking a certain sensitivity to understand
these deep issues. Maybe it's not the reader that has the problem
here.
Karen
Trent Woodruff
>>In alt.fan.harry-potter Trent Woodruff <afre...@charter.net> wrote:
>> ...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
>> than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
>> gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
>> - Stephen Roberts
>I've seen this balderdash and regard it as terminally clueless.
>Disproving false claims about the Infinitely First Cause of Existence
>can not call the necessity of there being an Infinitely First Cause of
>Existence into question.
>Saying Christmas presents don't come from Santa Claus,
>or Black Peter,or pink fairies in chariots of fire,
>is not an answer to where they DO come from...and
>their existence needs explaining.
Thank you, Harry Potter fan.
--
Louis Epstein
: I don't think JKR is pathetic but I do have a problem with this
A well written book needs to stimulate the imagination,
but at the same time not be left open to misinterpretation!
: But she telling us as readers that only the sensitive among us can
: read it the way she meant it to be read DOES sort of beging to limit
: the character to a narrow field of interpritation. JKR herself above
: in the quotes now says it was a important part of the story...that in
: fact Dumbledore having an attraction to Gellard was the big part...but
: only the sensitive among us will fully get what she is trying to say.
Rowling's politics being what they are,
she considers the more-accepting-of-homosexuality
to be more enlightened.
In any event it's a matter of minor significance in Dumbledore's
life and in my opinion of him.
: So it isn't like I have a problem with gay Dumbledore I just
: personally didn't care either way but it becomes sort of a
: disappointing situations when the author says well if you don't read
: it this way then you are lacking a certain sensitivity to understand
: these deep issues. Maybe it's not the reader that has the problem
: here.
:
: Karen
-=-=-
Thom Madura
Karen
You are reading more in to this issue that is needed.
Dumbledore's sexual preference has nothing to do with the books - one
way or the other. It is at best - background material. At the very least
- it is JKR showing the she is not afraid to say what she established as
true in her world - rather than try to cover it up - which she could
have. This is to her credit and only supports the truth for other
statements she has made about the books as well. She has pointed out
that she would have had to refuse the question before book 7 - since it
would have given some hints to the Grindwald/DD relationship that she
would not want to reveal - so It did have to happen after the books were
written.
However - in the actual stories in the books - Dumbledore's preference
is neither needed nor important to the story. The stories stand on their
own - without out knowledge of the sexual preference of LOTS of
characters - not just Dumbledore. It is just not an issue - except for
those who are prejudiced in some way. JKR would not have changed the
stories for us if she revealed Dumbledore had actually been married -
or had children - or lots of other things that never entered the story
line either.
If you are having a problem reading into the book to see this - welcome
to the club. It appears only the anti-gay perverts that quickly overran
this group saw the "obvious" - albeit after the fact. THe fact is - you
really could not have seen this until the full relationship Dumbledore
had with Grindewald was revealed in DH - and even then - it would be
easy to overlook.
Dumbledore - until the last book - always appeared to be that "normal"
wise old man who knew everything and could be trusted. It was not until
we learned from Aberforth (ANd the DD/Snape info) that Dumbledore was
capable of deceit and lies - that his image was tarnished. However -
NONE of that was dependent on his sexuality - nor a product of it either.
Drusilla
Imagination can misinterpret things as well. Fan fic authors have turned
gay almost any kind of character they have found. And for many of them,
friendship between males equals romantic relationship. DD (and other
"confirmed" straight characters) has been gay in the fandom for years,
and many authors surely were convinced he was gay not because there were
clues - which were not there - but because they wanted him to be gay.
And I also agree with the OP. I am a sensitive adult who see things
diferent from a kid's PoV but I can't see one single clue in the whole 7
books that tells that DD was gay. I read book 7 and I see a desolated
and frustrated young man who found an equal, a friend. Pretty much what
Sirius could have seen in James the first time they met. Perhaps we're
not the problem, perhaps it's Jo who thinks that that kind of admiration
must be love. I don't see it that way, canon or not. The plot worked
quite well with Dd being straight and with them being platonic friends,
so, gay or not, this is NOT significant or important in the plot of book
7 or the whole series.
Alex Clark
> In alt.fan.harry-potter Trent Woodruff <afreti...@charter.net> wrote:
> :
> :
> : ...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
> : than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
> : gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
> : - Stephen Roberts
>
> I've seen this balderdash and regard it as terminally clueless.
> Disproving false claims about the Infinitely First Cause of Existence
> can not call the necessity of there being an Infinitely First Cause of
> Existence into question.
But when atheists talk about the First Cause, do they call it "God"?
These are two different things. For an atheist, assuming that "God" is
the right name for the First Cause is kind of like assuming that
"George W. Bush" is the name of the leader of the free world. There is
one concept that is called "God", and another that is called the
"Infinitely First Cause of Existence", and some say that they are one
and the same. Atheists do not say this.
--
Alex Clark
Roil mad Voldemort
Thom Madura
Primarily because they are not the same ideas.
The religious idea of a god is one that is always there - always around,
always knowing, loving, almighty, etc.
The atheist idea of a first cause does not even accept that the first
cause necessarily still exists - nor has any interest in what was
created. The big bang could just as well have been a big sneeze - in
which humans have little interest in what happens to the molecules after
they leave their bodies. In fact - what we see now could have been the
result of the total destruction of the first cause.
Louis Epstein
Atheists are in denial about this.
To be the Infinitely First Cause is to be God,
no matter what false claims about God the atheist
may be assuming to be true.
Louis Epstein
: Alex Clark wrote:
:> On Jan 12, 9:23 pm, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
:>> In alt.fan.harry-potter Trent Woodruff <afreti...@charter.net> wrote:
:>> :
:>> :
:>> : ...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
:>> : than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
:>> : gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
:>> : - Stephen Roberts
:>>
:>> I've seen this balderdash and regard it as terminally clueless.
:>> Disproving false claims about the Infinitely First Cause of Existence
:>> can not call the necessity of there being an Infinitely First Cause of
:>> Existence into question.
:>
:> But when atheists talk about the First Cause, do they call it "God"?
:> These are two different things. For an atheist, assuming that "God" is
:> the right name for the First Cause is kind of like assuming that
:> "George W. Bush" is the name of the leader of the free world. There is
:> one concept that is called "God", and another that is called the
:> "Infinitely First Cause of Existence", and some say that they are one
:> and the same. Atheists do not say this.
:> Alex Clark
:
:
: Primarily because they are not the same ideas.
:
: The religious idea of a god is one that is always there - always around,
: always knowing, loving, almighty, etc.
:
: The atheist idea of a first cause does not even accept that the first
: cause necessarily still exists - nor has any interest in what was
: created. The big bang could just as well have been a big sneeze - in
: which humans have little interest in what happens to the molecules after
: they leave their bodies. In fact - what we see now could have been the
: result of the total destruction of the first cause.
The atheist ducks the question of why anything exists...
not only physical particles but the laws that govern them.
That underlying reason may not write books or pick favorite
ethnic groups or start official fan clubs for itself...but
we couldn't be here unless it existed.
Alex Clark
oneself the truth of what one reads, which was there before, although one
did not know it. Hence one is inclined to love him who makes us feel it, for
he has not shown us his own riches, but ours. And thus this benefit renders
him pleasing to us, besides that such community of intellect as we have with
him necessarily inclines the heart to love.
15. Eloquence, which persuades by sweetness, not by authority; as a tyrant,
not as a king.
16. Eloquence is an art of saying things in such a way (1) that those to
whom we speak may listen to them without pain and with pleasure; (2) that
they feel themselves interested, so that self-love leads them more willingly
to reflection upon it.
It consists, then, in a correspondence which we seek to establish between
the head and the heart of those to whom we speak, on the one hand, and, on
the other, between the thoughts and the expressions which we employ. This
assumes that we have studied
jesshc
You misunderstand atheism.
jesshc
Louis Epstein wrote:
> Alex Clark <alexb...@pennswoods.net> wrote:
> : On Jan 12, 9:23 pm, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
> :> In alt.fan.harry-potter Trent Woodruff <afreti...@charter.net> wrote:
> :> :
> :> : ...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
> :> : than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
> :> : gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
> :> : - Stephen Roberts
> :>
> :> I've seen this balderdash and regard it as terminally clueless.
> :> Disproving false claims about the Infinitely First Cause of Existence
> :> can not call the necessity of there being an Infinitely First Cause of
> :> Existence into question.
> :
> : But when atheists talk about the First Cause, do they call it "God"?
> : These are two different things. For an atheist, assuming that "God" is
> : the right name for the First Cause is kind of like assuming that
> : "George W. Bush" is the name of the leader of the free world. There is
> : one concept that is called "God", and another that is called the
> : "Infinitely First Cause of Existence", and some say that they are one
> : and the same. Atheists do not say this.
>
> Atheists are in denial about this.
Only in the sense that atheists, along with some scientists, don't
assume a first cause is required.
> To be the Infinitely First Cause is to be God,
> no matter what false claims about God the atheist
> may be assuming to be true.
"The atheist" does not make assumptions about deities, nor does "the
atheist" make claims about deities. "The atheist" merely points out
that to claim everything requires a first cause except a deity is a
logical fallacy called "special pleading."
jesshc
It could also be that the Universe has always existed, we just can't
know anything about it before the Big Bang, and that there was no
"first cause".
jesshc
Louis Epstein wrote:
> In alt.fan.harry-potter Trent Woodruff <afre...@charter.net> wrote:
> :
> : ...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
> : than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
> : gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
> : - Stephen Roberts
>
> I've seen this balderdash and regard it as terminally clueless.
What quantitative or qualitative evidence lead you to determine only
your deity is real and all the others are false?
> Disproving false claims about the Infinitely First Cause of Existence
> can not call the necessity of there being an Infinitely First Cause of
> Existence into question.
If "God" doesn't require a first cause, why does the Universe?
> Saying Christmas presents don't come from Santa Claus,
> or Black Peter,or pink fairies in chariots of fire,
> is not an answer to where they DO come from...and
> their existence needs explaining.
Where Christmas presents come from is fairly well understood.
Claiming, "I don't understand how the Universe came into existence,
therefore God must have created it," is a logical fallacy called
"argumentum ad ignorantiam."
Thom Madura
Sorry Louis - but in this case you are in denial about this.
Look around. See what is and has happened in the world. See the loss in
natural disaster - and disasters caused by religion - or other humans.
If your all good god is watching over us and showing his unlimited love
- he must be asleep.
Some Atheists believe that the destruction of the first cause created
the Universe. Therefore - a god never existed (gods are eternal).
Drusilla
[delurking for a minute 'cause i'm _supposedly_ working]
You know that whenever an atheist says that we catholics simply roll
eyes? SCIENCE isn't innocent either. Look all the technology directed to
destroy rather than help. It's not religion, it's not science is how is
used and sadly, lately only the stupidest people have access to both of
them and the power to use it against everyone else.
[back to work]
Thom Madura
Science is not innocent either - but at least science can be proven to
exist. And I am not an atheist - I do not believe in religion.
Louis Epstein
Louis Epstein
:
:
No...this simply CAN NOT BE.
There has to be a REASON for existence and being that reason constitutes
being God!
"It just is" doesn't answer anything
and is pure evasion.
Louis Epstein
:
:
:> Alex Clark <alexb...@pennswoods.net> wrote:
:> : On Jan 12, 9:23 pm, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
:> :> In alt.fan.harry-potter Trent Woodruff <afreti...@charter.net> wrote:
:> :> :
:> :> : ...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
:> :> : than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
:> :> : gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
:> :> : - Stephen Roberts
:> :>
:> :> I've seen this balderdash and regard it as terminally clueless.
:> :> Disproving false claims about the Infinitely First Cause of Existence
:> :> can not call the necessity of there being an Infinitely First Cause of
:> :> Existence into question.
:> :
:> : But when atheists talk about the First Cause, do they call it "God"?
:> : These are two different things. For an atheist, assuming that "God" is
:> : the right name for the First Cause is kind of like assuming that
:> : "George W. Bush" is the name of the leader of the free world. There is
:> : one concept that is called "God", and another that is called the
:> : "Infinitely First Cause of Existence", and some say that they are one
:> : and the same. Atheists do not say this.
:>
:> Atheists are in denial about this.
:
: Only in the sense that atheists, along with some scientists, don't
: assume a first cause is required.
And are thus in error,
as nothing can be assumed before
the requirement of a first cause!
:> To be the Infinitely First Cause is to be God,
:> no matter what false claims about God the atheist
:> may be assuming to be true.
:
: "The atheist" does not make assumptions about deities, nor does "the
: atheist" make claims about deities. "The atheist" merely points out
: that to claim everything requires a first cause except a deity is a
: logical fallacy called "special pleading."
The atheist engages in evasion.
Louis Epstein
: Louis Epstein wrote:
:> Alex Clark <alexb...@pennswoods.net> wrote:
:> : On Jan 12, 9:23 pm, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
:> :> In alt.fan.harry-potter Trent Woodruff <afreti...@charter.net> wrote:
:> :> :
:> :> :
:> :> : ...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
:> :> : than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
:> :> : gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
:> :> : - Stephen Roberts
:> :>
:> :> I've seen this balderdash and regard it as terminally clueless.
:> :> Disproving false claims about the Infinitely First Cause of Existence
:> :> can not call the necessity of there being an Infinitely First Cause of
:> :> Existence into question.
:> :
:> : But when atheists talk about the First Cause, do they call it "God"?
:> : These are two different things. For an atheist, assuming that "God" is
:> : the right name for the First Cause is kind of like assuming that
:> : "George W. Bush" is the name of the leader of the free world. There is
:> : one concept that is called "God", and another that is called the
:> : "Infinitely First Cause of Existence", and some say that they are one
:> : and the same. Atheists do not say this.
:>
:> Atheists are in denial about this.
:> To be the Infinitely First Cause is to be God,
:> no matter what false claims about God the atheist
:> may be assuming to be true.
:
: Sorry Louis - but in this case you are in denial about this.
Hey,I thought I was in your killfile.
: Look around. See what is and has happened in the world. See the loss in
: natural disaster - and disasters caused by religion - or other humans.
: If your all good god is watching over us and showing his unlimited love
: - he must be asleep.
Why are you assuming I credit religions' brand-name-adulterant
varieties of god?....I only extol pure generic God.
: Some Atheists believe that the destruction of the first cause created
: the Universe. Therefore - a god never existed (gods are eternal).
The Infinite is indeed eternal.
And what atheists believe isn't necessarily true...as evidenced
by their mistaken beliefs about God.
:> -=-=-
Louis Epstein
:
:
:> In alt.fan.harry-potter Trent Woodruff <afre...@charter.net> wrote:
:> :
:> : ...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
:> : than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
:> : gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
:> : - Stephen Roberts
:>
:> I've seen this balderdash and regard it as terminally clueless.
:
: What quantitative or qualitative evidence lead you to determine only
: your deity is real and all the others are false?
There's only one Infinitely First Cause for everyone to have ideas about.
Lots of people spread particular misconceptions about it...in the case
of atheists,the misconception is that anything could exist if the IFC
didn't.
:> Disproving false claims about the Infinitely First Cause of Existence
:> can not call the necessity of there being an Infinitely First Cause of
:> Existence into question.
:
: If "God" doesn't require a first cause, why does the Universe?
There can't be a point within a sphere further from the surface
than the center...but the sphere can't exist except by reference
to that center point.
Being uniquely uncaused is a defining attribute of the Infinitely
First Cause (God).
:> Saying Christmas presents don't come from Santa Claus,
:> or Black Peter,or pink fairies in chariots of fire,
:> is not an answer to where they DO come from...and
:> their existence needs explaining.
:
: Where Christmas presents come from is fairly well understood.
: Claiming, "I don't understand how the Universe came into existence,
: therefore God must have created it," is a logical fallacy called
: "argumentum ad ignorantiam."
But I do understand that "God" is by definition the answer to
"What is the ultimate reason for all existence?"
Ron Hunter
Yet, it is as valid a theory as 'it just happened', given that we can't
really KNOW the answer. I can't find a negative aspect to belief in a
deity. As long as one doesn't try to impress his belief on another.
Alex Clark
> Thom Madura escribió:
>
>
>
> > Louis Epstein wrote:
That is not the fault of science. It is the fault of those businessmen
and politicians who misuse science and technology. Who warned us of
the dangers of nuclear technologies, pollution, global warming, etc.?
Scientists and engineers. And the people who try to silence these
warnings are politicians and businessmen. BTW, some of them are
politicians in the guise of preachers.
--
Alex Clark
Dad, vomit more roll (an anagram rejected by Tom Riddle)
Alex Clark
> But I do understand that "God" is by definition the answer to
> "What is the ultimate reason for all existence?"
No, you do not understand. What you refuse to understand, no matter
how often it is said to you, is that where that is even present in the
definition of the word /God/, it is not the main part of the
definition. It is only something that is attributed to a God in some
religions.
--
Alex Clark
Ma, vomit older lord (an anagram rejected by Tom Riddle)
Alex Clark
I don't know who posted this, but it wasn't me. I have now changed my
password.
Talking to your own "From" header, first sign of madness.
--
Alex Clark
ROM or ladled vomit (an anagram rejected by Tom Riddle)
Louis Epstein
: On Jan 15, 10:05 pm, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
:> But I do understand that "God" is by definition the answer to
:> "What is the ultimate reason for all existence?"
:
: No, you do not understand. What you refuse to understand, no matter
: how often it is said to you, is that where that is even present in
: the definition of the word /God/, it is not the main part of the
: definition. It is only something that is attributed to a God in some
: religions.
No,it is the FUNDAMENTAL definition of God,
regardless of the misconceptions taught by
religions.
God does not mean what religions pretend;
there is only one God and the descriptions
peddled by religions are all adulterated to
meet that religion's goals.
The generic product is the real stuff,
not any of the brand-name hybrids!
Disproving the adulterants' authenticity says
NOTHING to the REAL issue of the Infinitely First
Cause.
Ron Hunter
The dangers of nuclear technologies have been known for quite some time.
As for pollution, and the spectre of global warming, these are greatly
overpromoted by those who gain by panicing the public.
YES, the earth IS becoming warmer (as it always does at the end of an
Ice Age), but just how much if caused by human activity is difficult, if
not impossible, to quantify. In regard to pollution, there is nothing
on the planet that wasn't here before humans appeared here. We may
rearrange it somewhat, but if we disappeared, little trace of us would
remain in 1000 years, which is but a moment in the total timespan of the
earth's existence. I think much of the current environmental hysteria
is rooted in the belief that humans have great significance, which we
almost certainly don't.
Ron Hunter
> Alex Clark <alexb...@pennswoods.net> wrote:
> : On Jan 15, 10:05 pm, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
> :> But I do understand that "God" is by definition the answer to
> :> "What is the ultimate reason for all existence?"
> :
> : No, you do not understand. What you refuse to understand, no matter
> : how often it is said to you, is that where that is even present in
> : the definition of the word /God/, it is not the main part of the
> : definition. It is only something that is attributed to a God in some
> : religions.
>
> No,it is the FUNDAMENTAL definition of God,
> regardless of the misconceptions taught by
> religions.
>
> God does not mean what religions pretend;
> there is only one God and the descriptions
> peddled by religions are all adulterated to
> meet that religion's goals.
>
> The generic product is the real stuff,
> not any of the brand-name hybrids!
>
> Disproving the adulterants' authenticity says
> NOTHING to the REAL issue of the Infinitely First
> Cause.
>
Interesting. The person who eschews religion, is preaching. Grin.