Apparating To or From Hogwarts
Kenspigle
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
One of the things Hermions seems to have repeated about a dozen times is that
"you can't apparate to or from the Hogwarts grounds."
Does anyone else think that a key ploy element in 5, 6 or 7 may be somebody
apparating to or from the grounds? Just seems to me that the fact Hermions has
said it so many times is setting us up for it to occur.
Just thinking . . . .
Ken
doug
news:20030218180045...@mb-fj.aol.com:
I don't think that would happen.. if it is said that it is impossible, then
it is impossible.
--
Groups I own on Yahoo:
http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/inthehallsofmoria
http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/altfanharrypotterng_group
Skyrider
wrote:
>> Possible spoilers
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> One of the things Hermions seems to have repeated about a dozen times
>> is that "you can't apparate to or from the Hogwarts grounds."
>> Does anyone else think that a key ploy element in 5, 6 or 7 may be
>> somebody apparating to or from the grounds? Just seems to me that the
>> fact Hermions has said it so many times is setting us up for it to
>> occur.
>> Just thinking . . . .
>I don't think that would happen.. if it is said that it is impossible, then
>it is impossible.
unless you're a house elf......
Skyrider
--
Visit the Online Dictionary of Playground Slang,
and leave *your* favourites!
http://www.odps.org
yak
od...@cyberscriber.com says...
they don't apparate... they must use some other method...
Markku Uttula
> kens...@aol.com (Kenspigle) wrote in
> news:20030218180045...@mb-fj.aol.com:
>
>> Possible spoilers
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>> One of the things Hermions seems to have repeated about a dozen times
>> is that "you can't apparate to or from the Hogwarts grounds."
>
> impossible, then it is impossible.
Besides Hermione is not the only one to state this. I can't recall
whether it's Dumbledore or Snape in PoA that confirms this is in fact a
"fact".
--
Markku Uttula
URL: http://www.disconova.com/utu/ "Are you hot? Or at least cute?"
MAIL: markku...@disconova.com "If not, are you at least easy?"
Skyrider
>they don't apparate... they must use some other method...
And who said elves don't apparate?? All we know is what Hermione says
is written in "A History of Hogwarts" about wizards... but the writers
of that didn't know there was a Chamber of Secrets either so it's
hardly 100% reliable is it??
And as far as we muggles are concerned a wizard apparates and
disappears... an elf (possibly) does something else and
disappears...... no difference.
And a difference that makes no difference *is* no difference!!
Jon Gordner
"doug" <dougma...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9326AE0...@206.141.192.32...
Well, it's not that it is actually impossible. There is just some sort of
magical protection on it, and as we saw in GoF, magical protection can be
broken.....
yak
od...@cyberscriber.com says...
> >> unless you're a house elf......
>
> >they don't apparate... they must use some other method...
>
> And who said elves don't apparate?? All we know is what Hermione says
> is written in "A History of Hogwarts" about wizards... but the writers
> of that didn't know there was a Chamber of Secrets either so it's
> hardly 100% reliable is it??
>
> And as far as we muggles are concerned a wizard apparates and
> disappears... an elf (possibly) does something else and
> disappears...... no difference.
>
> And a difference that makes no difference *is* no difference!!
>
> Skyrider
>
>
let's say for instance that I kill you... I could use a gun, or stab
you, or poison you, or burn you, or any other of a million ways... same
outcome, different methods.
another example:
let's say I travel to maine... I could fly, hitchhike, drive, take a
train, take a bus... same outcome, different methods...
so what have we learned? the method of traveling known as "apparition"
does not work at hogwarts... other methods do... portkeys, whatever
method elves use, etc.
mmmkay?
I've never heard anything so asinine as "if it makes no difference then
there is no difference..."
Skyrider
>In article <m1t55vkqt3uinj03m...@4ax.com>,
>od...@cyberscriber.com says...
>> >> unless you're a house elf......
>> >they don't apparate... they must use some other method...
>> And who said elves don't apparate?? All we know is what Hermione says
>> is written in "A History of Hogwarts" about wizards... but the writers
>> of that didn't know there was a Chamber of Secrets either so it's
>> hardly 100% reliable is it??
>> And as far as we muggles are concerned a wizard apparates and
>> disappears... an elf (possibly) does something else and
>> disappears...... no difference.
>> And a difference that makes no difference *is* no difference!!
>let's say for instance that I kill you... I could use a gun, or stab
>you, or poison you, or burn you, or any other of a million ways... same
>outcome, different methods.
exactly.. I'm still 'dead', still 'murdered'
>another example:
>let's say I travel to maine... I could fly, hitchhike, drive, take a
>train, take a bus... same outcome, different methods...
yup.. still 'travel'
>so what have we learned? the method of traveling known as "apparition"
>does not work at hogwarts... other methods do... portkeys, whatever
>method elves use, etc.
Not at all..... what we learned that elves can apparate whilst human
wizards apparently cannot.
Define 'apparate' for me in a way that distinguishes it from what
we've seen an elf do!
>mmmkay?
>I've never heard anything so asinine as "if it makes no difference then
>there is no difference..."
I'm really sorry you felt you had to humiliate yourself by displaying
your lack of english language education however it is really *not* my
fault.
"A difference that makes no difference *is* no difference." is a
standard phrase to explain that where an outcome is observed the means
of arriving at that outcome are immaterial if the end results are
identical. For reference please read for example
http://answers.org/CultsAndReligions/Campbell.html
The example you provided but clearly didn't understand yourself was
that murder - murder regardless of the means the murder was carried
out.
Travel = travel regardless of the means the distance was covered.
committed.
Similarly the way elves disappear and the way wizards disappear is -
to the observer - the same thing. That there might be a difference in
the method is immaterial the end result is the same!
as·i·nine (as'?-nin') adj.
Utterly stupid or silly: asinine behavior.
Of, relating to, or resembling an ass.
I think we can see which one of us is the ass..... care to bray some
more for us??
rainbow
Markku Uttula a pris la plume pour dire : /took the quill to say :
> doug wrote:
>> kens...@aol.com (Kenspigle) wrote in
>> news:20030218180045...@mb-fj.aol.com:
>>
>>> Possible spoilers
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> One of the things Hermions seems to have repeated about a dozen
>>> times is that "you can't apparate to or from the Hogwarts grounds."
>>
>> I don't think that would happen.. if it is said that it is
>> impossible, then it is impossible.
>
> Besides Hermione is not the only one to state this. I can't recall
> whether it's Dumbledore or Snape in PoA that confirms this is in fact
> a "fact".
It's Snape, when someone said that Sirius may have disapparate.
Toon
No, I think it's setting up to look like someone does, only to wow us
and shock us with some new trick.
Toon
wrote:
>Define 'apparate' for me in a way that distinguishes it from what
>we've seen an elf do!
>
Apparate - to disappear and reappear elsewhere cleanly, as if by
opening little molecule sized wormholes that suck every molecule and
bond through them. No wand or hand commands needed.
Dobby disappears with smoke, and by snapping his fingers, hence not
cleanly, and using a different form of magic.
Fleeced
"Kenspigle" <kens...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030218180045...@mb-fj.aol.com...
> Possible spoilers
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
> One of the things Hermions seems to have repeated about a dozen
> times is that "you can't apparate to or from the Hogwarts grounds."
Anything's possible, though I just considered this as more
of a convenience thing.... The story had to establish that
you couldn't apparate to create mystery (eg, with Skeeter)
and to justify the use of a Portkey.
Fleeced
Fleeced
"Skyrider" <od...@cyberscriber.com> wrote in message
news:m1t55vkqt3uinj03m...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:05:46 GMT, yak <sp...@hormel.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <llg55v0vrnpp98elc...@4ax.com>,
> >od...@cyberscriber.com says...
> >> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:03:41 GMT, doug <dougma...@sbcglobal.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> >kens...@aol.com (Kenspigle) wrote in
> >> >news:20030218180045...@mb-fj.aol.com:
> >>
> >> >> Possible spoilers
> >> >>
> >> >> *
> >> >>
> >> >> *
> >> >>
> >> >> *
> >> >>
> >> >> *
> >> >>
> >> >> *
> >> >>
> >> >> *
> >> >>
> >> >> *
> >> >>
> >> >> *
> >> >>
> >> >> *
> >> >>
> >> >> *
> >> >>
> >> >> *
> >> >>
>
> disappears... an elf (possibly) does something else and
> disappears...... no difference.
>
> And a difference that makes no difference *is* no difference!!
True... the use of a portkey is essentially the same... same
effect anyway. As I said in another post - I think the "you
can't apparate" rule was created to add a bit of mystery...
it left you wondering how the same effect might be
accomplished.
The fact that portkeys were used at the beginning of the book
made it obvious what that something else was. OK - obvious
in hindsight (I wasn't expecting it, but I should have been).
I'm sure there are probably other magics that have the same
effect (the food doesn't apparate on the table, but it
still appears from somewhere else).
Fleeced
Voldemort
How many times do they have to say it - You can't apparate. Not if's or
but's about it!
I think that the kids are going to get into trouble of trying to apparate
and accidently getting repelled by the school or something like that.
Skyrider
Smoke?? Who said there was smoke when an elf apparates??
If there'd been smoke why didn;t Dumbledore et al notice when carrying
Colin in after being frozen by the basilisk??
And how do we know that wizards don't snap the fingers or something?
Skyrider
wrote:
I suppose in another situation we might call it teleporting :)
The Dude
i don't think anyone is ever going to apparate or disapparate on
Hogwarts grounds. i think the reason hermione states this so often is
because, with all the strange things that have been going on at
Hogwarts over the last 4 years, some people (harry, ron, the readers)
might hypothesise that certain things could be explained by wizards or
witches apparating or disapparating. also it would lose dramatic
effect if voldemort, sirius in PoA, rita skeeter in GoF or any of
harry's other enemies could just apparate into the gryffindor boys
dormitory and then disapparate out again. this is clearly one of the
things which protects harry at hogwarts.
ed
Kagome
Yes, in fact it's a theory that I thought too, and I plan to use it
for one of my fictions ^^
I think you're right, if WIZARDS don't apparete at Hogwarts it doesn't
mean that OTHER CREATURES can't apparate there...
there are plenty of magic creatures out there...
--
Kagome
Beth Baxter
> [snip]
>
> I suppose in another situation we might call it teleporting :)
>
> Skyrider
Or jaunting.
Oh dear. Showing my age again ....
Beth Baxter
Ron D
Does it show my age too when I realized exactly what book you were talking about as soon as I read
"jaunting"?
Ron D.
Markku Uttula
>> I suppose in another situation we might call it teleporting :)
>
Nice, haven't heard that in quite a long while :)
Jano
dice...
> > Besides Hermione is not the only one to state this. I can't recall
> > whether it's Dumbledore or Snape in PoA that confirms this is in fact
> > a "fact".
>
> It's Snape, when someone said that Sirius may have disapparate.
>
And the fake Moody seems to agree with her.
--
-------------------------
Jano
402450[at]cepsz.unizar.es
-------------------------
doug
news:MPG.18bdf54d9...@News.CIS.DFN.DE:
> En el mensaje <b2vca4$kfq$1...@news.brutele.be>,
> rain...@netcourrier.com dice...
>
>> > Besides Hermione is not the only one to state this. I can't
>> > recall whether it's Dumbledore or Snape in PoA that confirms
>> > this is in fact a "fact".
>>
>> It's Snape, when someone said that Sirius may have disapparate.
>>
>
> And the fake Moody seems to agree with her.
>
Her?? You mean Snape, right? If so, you have the wrong sex.
--
Harry: Voldemort killed my parents, he was nothing more than a
murderer.
Lucius Malfoy: Hmm, you must be very brave to mention his name....or
very foolish.
Lucius Malfoy: [sarcastically] Let's just hope that Mr. Potter will
always be around to save the day.
Harry: Don't worry, I will be.
Jano
@sbcglobal.net dice...
> Jano <402...@cepsz.unizar.es> wrote in
> news:MPG.18bdf54d9...@News.CIS.DFN.DE:
>
> > En el mensaje <b2vca4$kfq$1...@news.brutele.be>,
> > rain...@netcourrier.com dice...
> >
> >> > Besides Hermione is not the only one to state this. I can't
> >> > recall whether it's Dumbledore or Snape in PoA that confirms
> >> > this is in fact a "fact".
> >>
> >> It's Snape, when someone said that Sirius may have disapparate.
> >>
> >
> > And the fake Moody seems to agree with her.
> >
>
> Her?? You mean Snape, right? If so, you have the wrong sex.
I'm refering to when Harry, Hermione, Ron and Moody are discussing about
something, she reminds Harry that no one can apparate in Hogwarts, and
Moody says that she too could be a good Auror or something like that...
and Ron feels the urge to get that praise too, and says something about
a broomstick.
John VanSickle
There is an important distinction to be made. The *characters* are
saying that it is impossible to apparate to/from Hogwarts.
Characters can be wrong. In PoA, *everyone* was wrong about Sirius
('cept the Death Eaters, who knew better but weren't interested in
clearing him).
Regards,
John
dougmailmke03
news:MPG.18be2114d...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Ok, thank you for the clarification. :-)
200...@wongfaye.com
then polyjuice your way into the school from the forest or hogsmead
is floo powder apperation couldnt you escape from hogwarts through the fireplaces
maybe even have poo powder that lets you flush yourself to another toilet
of course it would be really bad to end up at a local petrol station loo
Toon
wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 03:42:59 -0500, Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:02:24 +1100, Skyrider <od...@cyberscriber.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>Define 'apparate' for me in a way that distinguishes it from what
>>>we've seen an elf do!
>
>>Apparate - to disappear and reappear elsewhere cleanly, as if by
>>opening little molecule sized wormholes that suck every molecule and
>>bond through them. No wand or hand commands needed.
>>Dobby disappears with smoke, and by snapping his fingers, hence not
>>cleanly, and using a different form of magic.
>
>Smoke?? Who said there was smoke when an elf apparates??
>
>If there'd been smoke why didn;t Dumbledore et al notice when carrying
>Colin in after being frozen by the basilisk??
The movie anyway. Book never really makes clear what happens.
>And how do we know that wizards don't snap the fingers or something?
>
I think it'd be mentioned if it was done. Like Animagus. They just
do it. Besides, if you think about it logically, elf magic is not
wizard magic (hence no elfish students.) So therefore, elves would
have a different way to do the same thing, so elves wouldn't apparate,
they'd do something else.
Skyrider
aggghh..... it doesn't matter *what* they do to apparate... it's still
apparating.....
....in a similar vein to what I explained in on of the other threads
on the subject.....
......you can go to Hogwarts by car... you can go by train... you
still travel.
.....you can disappear with a pop or a loud crack... you still
apparate!
it's the action that counts not the means of instigating it.
Troels Forchhammer
>
<snip>
> Define 'apparate' for me in a way that distinguishes it from
> what we've seen an elf do!
Apparate. vb. The use of the the Wizards spell 'Ego Appareo' (q.v.). This
spell requires some very delicate and controlled wand movements and
apparating is therefore controlled by the Ministry of Magic.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
--
+++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe
And Reboot +++
-- (Terry Pratchett, Hogfather)
Troels Forchhammer
>
> And a difference that makes no difference *is* no difference!!
In this particular case, however, the difference apparently does
make a difference and therefore it _is_ a difference - as the
results when on the Hogwarts grounds are different (according to
both Hermione and Snape) ;-)
Ron D
On 20-Feb-2003, Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
> Skyrider wrote:
> >
> > And a difference that makes no difference *is* no difference!!
>
> In this particular case, however, the difference apparently does
> make a difference and therefore it _is_ a difference - as the
> results when on the Hogwarts grounds are different (according to
> both Hermione and Snape) ;-)
>
> --
> Troels Forchhammer
I think the problem here is that we haven't been told enough about the difference between Wizard
Magic and house-elf magic.
Obviously, there is a difference, but what?
First-house-elfs (and other such beings) are not allowed to use wands. But they get along just fine
without them.
Second-house-elfs can do regular wizard-type magic (re: Harry getting a warning for the use of the
floating charm) But are they capable of magic that is different then what Wizards use? Harry didn't
get any kind of warnings about Dobby's Apparating at the Dursley's. Did Dobby deliberatly use magic
that he knew the Ministry could detect rather then elf-magic for the floating charm?
Third-House-elfs are not weak. Dobby had Lucius backing off from Harry.
Could the reason that they can Apparate at Hogwarts be because they can naturally cover themselves
in such a way that the wards can not detect them, in a manner that can not be duplicated by a
Wizard? Possibly because they are a more magical creature then a Wizard is?
Ron D.
Dennis Maggard
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
>Skyrider wrote:
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> Define 'apparate' for me in a way that distinguishes it from
>> what we've seen an elf do!
>
>Apparate. vb. The use of the the Wizards spell 'Ego Appareo' (q.v.). This
>spell requires some very delicate and controlled wand movements and
>apparating is therefore controlled by the Ministry of Magic.
What are you quoting, Troels? I can't remember it ever being made
clear that a wand is necessary to dis/apparate. And it does seem that
house elves can do it at Hogwarts though wand-wavers can't. Which is
not unreasonable since it would be useful for the house elves to do it
in performing their work and they would not be thought a potential
danger to anyone. It does, however, suggest that there is something
fundamentally different about the way house elves dis/apparate.
Dennis
Philip Lewis
>clear that a wand is necessary to dis/apparate. And it does seem that
>house elves can do it at Hogwarts though wand-wavers can't. Which is
himself into a gnat... ;)
--
be safe.
flip
^___^ Just on the border of your waking mind, There lies... Another time
\^.^/ Where darkness & light - are one. And as you tread the halls of sanity,
==u== You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. ELO - Twilight Prologue
Klaus Winkler
>On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:03:41 GMT in alt.fan.harry-potter,
>doug <dougma...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>> Possible spoilers
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>
>>I don't think that would happen.. if it is said that it is impossible, then
>>it is impossible.
>
>"Impossible" hardly matters when your average death eater can just
>turn some random object into a portkey to accomplish the same thing.
Can he?
I tend to believe one of the reasons Barty jr. had to use the GoF as
the portkey is the fact, that ordinary portkeys don't work at
Hogwarts.
yak
od...@cyberscriber.com says...
no no no... apparating is the method, not the result. now I understand
why you are being so argumentative... apparition = car... elf method =
train...
travel is the result, not apparition
Troels Forchhammer
>
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
>>
>> Apparate. vb. The use of the the Wizards spell 'Ego Appareo' (q.v.).
>> This spell requires some very delicate and controlled wand movements
>> and apparating is therefore controlled by the Ministry of Magic.
>
> What are you quoting, Troels?
Sorry - it's my own ;-)
I took up the challenge (to define 'apparate' in a way that makes it
different from other kinds of teleportation) and produced something
that is, IMO, a probable definition.
> I can't remember it ever being made clear that a wand is necessary
> to dis/apparate.
It isn't.
Again I extrapolated from the known facts - dis/apparating is so
far only mentioned in connection with wizards, it appears to me to
be a spell, and it is apparently quite difficult to do, requiring
great precision, and as I have come to believe that focus and
precision with spells is achieved with a wand, I can't believe that
a wizard is able to disapparate and apparate without using a wand.
> And it does seem that house elves can do it at Hogwarts though
> wand-wavers can't. Which is not unreasonable since it would be
> useful for the house elves to do it in performing their work and
> they would not be thought a potential danger to anyone. It does,
> however, suggest that there is something fundamentally different
> about the way house elves dis/apparate.
This was the starting point for my definition ;-)
I indirectly suggested that the difference is that one is a spell
that requires a wand while the other is an innate ability - what
is prevented on the Hogwarts grounds is the spell, not the effect.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
--
"The Road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
And I must follow, if I can"
- Bilbo's walking-song, 'LotR' (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Troels Forchhammer
>
> I think the problem here is that we haven't been told enough
> about the difference between Wizard Magic and house-elf magic.
Exactly!
The only thing we do know is that there is a difference.
> Obviously, there is a difference, but what?
>
> First-house-elfs (and other such beings) are not allowed
> to use wands. But they get along just fine without them.
>
> Second-house-elfs can do regular wizard-type magic (re:
> Harry getting a warning for the use of the floating charm)
I am more and more considering the possibility of this being
misleading. The letter says that the Ministry has 'received
intelligence that a Hover Charm was used ...' - I don't
think they detected it magically, rather I believe that
someone reported it; either Dobby himself (to land Harry in
sufficient trouble to keep him from Hogwarts) or someone else
observing the effects only (not knowing the source).
Other evidence in the books suggests that House Elf magic is
different from Wizard magic, and the above is one way to
reconcile the data ;-)
It's an intriguing subject, alas I don't think we have
enough information to really solve it.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
--
"She complicates this whole business, and I don't like complications.
I like nice, simple situations and nice, easy solutions."
"Good and Evil?" Durnik suggested.
"That's a difficult one, Durnik. I prefer 'them and us.' That clears
away all the excess baggage and allows you to get right down to cases."
Troels Forchhammer
>
15
14
13
12
11
Spoilers for GoF !!
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
>
> I tend to believe one of the reasons Barty jr. had to use the GoF
> as the portkey is the fact, that ordinary portkeys don't work at
> Hogwarts.
That would seem to be the most likely explanation of why the V-team
went through all that trouble of helping Harry to win the tournament
- at least I have not yet seen a better explanation.
Minor nit: It was the Triwizard Cup that was used - not the Goblet of
Fire (which was only used for selecting the champions).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
--
Elan síla lúmenn' omentielvo
Trond Michelsen
> 15
> 14
> 13
> 12
> 11
> Spoilers for GoF !!
> 10
> 9
> 8
> 7
> 6
> 5
> 4
> 3
> 2
> 1
> 0
> >
>> I tend to believe one of the reasons Barty jr. had to use the GoF
>> as the portkey is the fact, that ordinary portkeys don't work at
>> Hogwarts.
> That would seem to be the most likely explanation of why the V-team
> went through all that trouble of helping Harry to win the tournament
> - at least I have not yet seen a better explanation.
Another theory is that Voldemort didn't want anybody to suspect that
Harry had, in fact, been kidnapped.
Having Harry just disappearing from within the maze, is a perfect way
of embarassing the Ministry and Dumbledore, and at the same time hide
his resurrection. People would of course start to wonder what had
happened, but it would be more logical to blame the organizers of the
tournament (e.g. claiming that they misprogrammed the portkey), than
to think that Voldemort had returned.
Of course, if Voldemort starts killing muggles left and right from
page 1 in OoP, this theory is pretty much shot down. However, I
believe that Voldemort will operate in secrecy throughout most of
OoP.
--
tm
Troels Forchhammer
>
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> writes:
>>
>> 15
>> 14
>> 13
>> 12
>> 11
>> Spoilers for GoF !!
>> 10
>> 9
>> 8
>> 7
>> 6
>> 5
>> 4
>> 3
>> 2
>> 1
>> 0
>>
[Why use the Triwizard Cup and not just any old Portkey]
> Another theory is that Voldemort didn't want anybody to suspect that
> Harry had, in fact, been kidnapped.
I don't think so - Dumbledore would have known anyway, and even Fudge
would probably be more alarmed by Harry disappearing from the maze
outright than he was by the (in his eyes) fanciful story told by the
returning Harry.
Of course only Dumbledore would suspect Voldemort, but the Ministry
would probably be in a state of alarm as wizards were apparating all
over the country trying to find Harry.
> However, I believe that Voldemort will operate in secrecy
> throughout most of OoP.
So do I, but that doesn't mean I believe the need for secrecy was
the motive. Harry just disappearing from Hogwarts would be a
better way to ensure secrecy, IMO. If no one knew exactly where he
had been last or when, then the possibilities start to grow with
an alarming rate - and if his Firebolt was hidden away at the same
time it might take even longer before the alarm went off (wizards
would still be searching for him, but with a little less urgency
as it would be possible that he had left Hogwarts by his own
volition - that is not a possibility when he disappears from the
Maze).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
--
"One who cannot cast away a treasure at need is in fetters."
- Aragorn "Strider", 'LotR' (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Ron D
On 20-Feb-2003, Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
> Path:
> sccrnsc03!sccrnsc02!attbi_slave02!attbi_slave01!attbi_slave51!attbi_master52!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!204.127.161.8!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!colt.net!news.tele.dk!not-for-mail
> Message-ID: <3E554FED...@ThisIsFake.dk>
> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:00:13 +0100
> From: Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk>
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-CCK-MCD (WinNT; U)
> X-Accept-Language: en
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: alt.fan.harry-potter
> Subject: Re: Apparating To or From Hogwarts
> References: <20030218180045...@mb-fj.aol.com> <Xns9326AE0...@206.141.192.32>
> <llg55v0vrnpp98elc...@4ax.com> <MPG.18bc8634f...@news.easynews.com>
> <m1t55vkqt3uinj03m...@4ax.com> <3E54BE17...@ThisIsFake.dk>
> <7045a.187093$HN5.8...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 41
> Organization: TDC Internet
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.196.143.130
> X-Trace: 1045778378 dtext01.news.tele.dk 158 80.196.143.130
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@post.tele.dk
> Xref: attbi_master52 alt.fan.harry-potter:101840
> X-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:59:39 GMT (sccrnsc03)
>
> Ron D wrote:
> >
> > I think the problem here is that we haven't been told enough
> > about the difference between Wizard Magic and house-elf magic.
>
> Exactly!
> The only thing we do know is that there is a difference.
>
> > Obviously, there is a difference, but what?
> >
> > First-house-elfs (and other such beings) are not allowed
> > to use wands. But they get along just fine without them.
> >
> > Second-house-elfs can do regular wizard-type magic (re:
> > Harry getting a warning for the use of the floating charm)
>
> I am more and more considering the possibility of this being
> misleading. The letter says that the Ministry has 'received
> intelligence that a Hover Charm was used ...' - I don't
> think they detected it magically, rather I believe that
> someone reported it; either Dobby himself (to land Harry in
> sufficient trouble to keep him from Hogwarts) or someone else
> observing the effects only (not knowing the source).
>
Forgot that part. You're right maybe Dobby did report it himself.
> Other evidence in the books suggests that House Elf magic is
> different from Wizard magic, and the above is one way to
> reconcile the data ;-)
>
> It's an intriguing subject, alas I don't think we have
> enough information to really solve it.
>
> --
> Troels Forchhammer
> Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
>
Yes, I had realized that we don't have enough data, hopefully we'll get more. I'd really like that,
especially to be able to compare all magical creatures to the power of Wizards/Witches, especially
Goblins, house-elves and Dragons (which I believe were stated as being the strongest and possibly
the oldest as a species)
Ron D.
Ron D
On 20-Feb-2003, "Ron D" <rwd...@internetcds.com> wrote:
<snip old header>
You know, I could have sworn I cut all that old header junk off before I posted this.
Ron D.
ReDDCeLL
port key in the first place. That was the suprise of the whole thing,
the tournament should of just ended instead they were both portkeyed
away. Scary thought that anything really in the wizarding world could
be a portkey. Wonder if you can make someone's wand a portkey????
-redd
Kenspigle
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
House elves appear to bre "beings" - that is, creaetures that have "sufficient
intelligence to understand the laws of the magical community and to bear a part
of the responsibility in shaping those laws." (Grogan Strump's 1811
edfinition, found at page xii of Fantastic Beasts). Dobby, for example, clearly
is intelligent, and clearly understands the rules of the wizard world,
including those regarding house elf servitude and the giving of clothing.
Also, elves are not listed as a beast in FB.
As for elvish magic being different from wixzard amgic, I do not know of any
textual references to prove that there is such a difference - or that there is
not. However, in FB, Rowling does point out that at least some creatures
(fairies, for example) have their own "brand of magic" (the fairy's is a "weak
brandof magic that it may use to deter predators". See page 17 of FB. So, I
suppose it is quite possible that elves may have a different brand of magic
from wizards. However, if that is the case, why is it forbidden for elves to
use wands (G of F). If they are capable of using wqands, is it likely that
their magic is similar - if not the same as - wizard magic?
Second topic: why change Triwiz cup to portkey, when fake Moody could have done
something to Harry earlier in the school year - maybe turned something in his
office into protkey and had HP touch it? I think it was intendede to allow
fake Moody to remain at Hogwarts even after HP was dead and gone. Having fake
Moody around at Hogwarts would have helped Voldemort out a lot, I would imagine
- so why not keep him there even after sending Harry off? Just one theory...
Sure wish there was a set of rules for HP's world - or for our world, for that
matter....
Regards -
Ken
Skyrider
>no no no... apparating is the method, not the result. now I understand
>why you are being so argumentative... apparition = car... elf method =
>train...
>travel is the result, not apparition
the *action* is apparating...... the result is disappearance........
apparate/appearence. same root....
Skyrider
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
>Dennis Maggard wrote:
>> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
>>> Apparate. vb. The use of the the Wizards spell 'Ego Appareo' (q.v.).
>>> This spell requires some very delicate and controlled wand movements
>>> and apparating is therefore controlled by the Ministry of Magic.
>> What are you quoting, Troels?
>Sorry - it's my own ;-)
>I took up the challenge (to define 'apparate' in a way that makes it
>different from other kinds of teleportation) and produced something
>that is, IMO, a probable definition.
>> I can't remember it ever being made clear that a wand is necessary
>> to dis/apparate.
>It isn't.
>Again I extrapolated from the known facts - dis/apparating is so
>far only mentioned in connection with wizards, it appears to me to
>be a spell, and it is apparently quite difficult to do, requiring
>great precision, and as I have come to believe that focus and
>precision with spells is achieved with a wand, I can't believe that
>a wizard is able to disapparate and apparate without using a wand.
Dumbledore seems to believe it.... there was no mention of wand when
he arrived to deposit Harry with the Dursleys...... nor was there a
mention of a wand in any of the discussions of apparating... and no
mention of a wand was made even when Percy appeared.....!
>> And it does seem that house elves can do it at Hogwarts though
>> wand-wavers can't. Which is not unreasonable since it would be
>> useful for the house elves to do it in performing their work and
>> they would not be thought a potential danger to anyone. It does,
>> however, suggest that there is something fundamentally different
>> about the way house elves dis/apparate.
>This was the starting point for my definition ;-)
>I indirectly suggested that the difference is that one is a spell
>that requires a wand while the other is an innate ability - what
>is prevented on the Hogwarts grounds is the spell, not the effect.
Skyrider
Skyrider
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
>Ron D wrote:
>>
>> I think the problem here is that we haven't been told enough
>> about the difference between Wizard Magic and house-elf magic.
>
>Exactly!
>The only thing we do know is that there is a difference.
>
>> Obviously, there is a difference, but what?
>>
>> First-house-elfs (and other such beings) are not allowed
>> to use wands. But they get along just fine without them.
>>
>> Second-house-elfs can do regular wizard-type magic (re:
>> Harry getting a warning for the use of the floating charm)
>
>I am more and more considering the possibility of this being
>misleading. The letter says that the Ministry has 'received
>intelligence that a Hover Charm was used ...' - I don't
>think they detected it magically, rather I believe that
>someone reported it; either Dobby himself (to land Harry in
>sufficient trouble to keep him from Hogwarts) or someone else
>observing the effects only (not knowing the source).
>
>Other evidence in the books suggests that House Elf magic is
>different from Wizard magic, and the above is one way to
>reconcile the data ;-)
>
>It's an intriguing subject, alas I don't think we have
>enough information to really solve it.
hadn't occurred to me that Dobby may have been the reason for the
appearance of the note.....
Skyrider
>> >> I tend to believe one of the reasons Barty jr. had to use the GoF
>> >> as the portkey is the fact, that ordinary portkeys don't work at
>> >> Hogwarts.
>> > That would seem to be the most likely explanation of why the V-team
>> > went through all that trouble of helping Harry to win the tournament
>> > - at least I have not yet seen a better explanation.
>> Another theory is that Voldemort didn't want anybody to suspect that
>> Harry had, in fact, been kidnapped.
>> Having Harry just disappearing from within the maze, is a perfect way
>> of embarassing the Ministry and Dumbledore, and at the same time hide
>> his resurrection. People would of course start to wonder what had
>> happened, but it would be more logical to blame the organizers of the
>> tournament (e.g. claiming that they misprogrammed the portkey), than
>> to think that Voldemort had returned.
>> Of course, if Voldemort starts killing muggles left and right from
>> page 1 in OoP, this theory is pretty much shot down. However, I
>> believe that Voldemort will operate in secrecy throughout most of
>> OoP.
>The trophy goblet in the middle of the maze wasnt intended to be a
>port key in the first place. That was the suprise of the whole thing,
>the tournament should of just ended instead they were both portkeyed
>away. Scary thought that anything really in the wizarding world could
>be a portkey. Wonder if you can make someone's wand a portkey????
Of course the trophy in the middle was a port key?? Why wouldn't it
be?? If it was an ordinary trophy the champion would have had to fight
their way *out* of the maze as well... and weighed down by the trophy!
Skyrider
maybe they aren;t allowed to use wands because they are already more
powerful than wizards and the wands would make them unstoppable.......
which raises the additional question of why they work willingly for an
inferior species??
Can you imagine us willingly kow-towing to gorillas?? (George Bush
excepted)
>Second topic: why change Triwiz cup to portkey, when fake Moody could have done
>something to Harry earlier in the school year - maybe turned something in his
>office into protkey and had HP touch it? I think it was intendede to allow
>fake Moody to remain at Hogwarts even after HP was dead and gone. Having fake
>Moody around at Hogwarts would have helped Voldemort out a lot, I would imagine
>- so why not keep him there even after sending Harry off? Just one theory...
we'll find out...... anyway.. the trophy was designed as a portkey so
maybe it just made it all look a little less implausible that it
should malfunction somehow to delay the realization that the champions
had vanished......?
>Sure wish there was a set of rules for HP's world - or for our world, for that
>matter....
:)
Toon
wrote:
>
>aggghh..... it doesn't matter *what* they do to apparate... it's still
>apparating.....
No it's not.
>....in a similar vein to what I explained in on of the other threads
>on the subject.....
>
>......you can go to Hogwarts by car... you can go by train... you
>still travel.
Yes but the means are different.
>.....you can disappear with a pop or a loud crack... you still
>apparate!
Or you can apparate, or do what elves do. Two entirely different
things. Both are forms of teleportation. You're calling trucks,
buses, and vans cars.
>it's the action that counts not the means of instigating it.
But apparating is the means, not the action. You're confusing the
two. It's like levitating vs a broom. Both get you to fly (albeit 5
feet off the ground for the former), but you don't say both are
levitating. Both are magic, too. Apparating/house elf travel are
teleportation. Not apparating.
Besides, you can't apparate to/from Hogwarts. Dobbie appears to
apparate to/from Hogwarts. Erego, Dobby did not apparate, but did
something else.
Toon
>
>
>no no no... apparating is the method, not the result. now I understand
>why you are being so argumentative... apparition = car... elf method =
>train...
>
>travel is the result, not apparition
Exactly. besides, you can't apparate to/from Hogwarts. Dobbie
appears to apparate to/from Hogwarts. Erego, Dobbie does something
like apparating, but doesn't apparate. Hence the movie's finger
snap/smoke, to represent the different magic. Elf magic has to be
different from human magic, or else you'd see elves learning at
Hogwarts.
tryx
"Toon" <to...@toon.com> wrote in message
news:2fj75vk59dknebujq...@4ax.com...
>>>anyway, can YOU image an elf at school???
They' prob. have to slither around since they don't have backbones
Thomas Madura
Skyrider wrote:
> the *action* is apparating...... the result is disappearance........
> apparate/appearence. same root....
>
I think the problem here is that the magic is against apparating by
wizards and witches - and elves are not affected by it. Also, it appears
that the elves apparate within hogwarts - but there is no indication
that they can do so from OUTSIDE the grounds to the inside. We have no
way of knowing how Doby got to Harry in COS or if he went diretly to or
from the Malfoy's or not.
Skyrider
>On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 21:01:57 +1100, Skyrider <od...@cyberscriber.com>
>wrote:
>>aggghh..... it doesn't matter *what* they do to apparate... it's still
>>apparating.....
>No it's not.
>>....in a similar vein to what I explained in on of the other threads
>>on the subject.....
>>......you can go to Hogwarts by car... you can go by train... you
>>still travel.
>Yes but the means are different.
the means isn't important. it's the result... the result is that you
disappear.
>>.....you can disappear with a pop or a loud crack... you still
>>apparate!
>Or you can apparate, or do what elves do. Two entirely different
>things. Both are forms of teleportation. You're calling trucks,
>buses, and vans cars.
no..... I'm saying there are many modes of transport.. but regardless
of what the mode is... they are still transporting.
>>it's the action that counts not the means of instigating it.
>But apparating is the means, not the action. You're confusing the
>two. It's like levitating vs a broom. Both get you to fly (albeit 5
>feet off the ground for the former), but you don't say both are
>levitating. Both are magic, too. Apparating/house elf travel are
>teleportation. Not apparating.
they are entirely different things. For one you need an obvious
discrete instrument which is doing the levitating. for the other it's
'something else'. Now *if* that 'something else' was for example magic
clothes... then yes.. they'd be the same thing!
>Besides, you can't apparate to/from Hogwarts. Dobbie appears to
>apparate to/from Hogwarts. Erego, Dobby did not apparate, but did
>something else.
Where does it say in *any* of the books that elves can't apparate??
Where does it say there's any distinction between what elves do and
what humans do.
We've seen/heard Dobby do in practice what human wizards appear do
when they apparate - and do it in what appears to be exactly the same
manner. Until you can demonstrate in any way shape or form it *isn't*
possible for them do what we've been told they *can* do.. I'll believe
what it says in the book... i.e. that elves can apparate within
Hogwarts
And at the end of the day..... we don't *know* that they can't. All we
know is that wizards *believe* apparating isn't possible...... and
just maybe they just don't know *elves* can!!
Skyrider
ok....... so what your saying is that a hens egg and an ostrich egg
are not actually both eggs because they come from different
creatures?? An egg is an egg regardless of which bird it comes from.
Magical disappearance from one place and reappearance in another is
apparating regardless which sort of creature does it.
I go back to my earlier statement.. a difference that makes no
difference *is* no difference. Dobby apparates because we have seen
him do what wizards do and until we know different we have to accept
that he is doing just that!
Troels Forchhammer
>
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
>>
>> I can't believe that a wizard is able to disapparate and
>> apparate without using a wand.
>
> Dumbledore seems to believe it.... there was no mention of wand when
> he arrived to deposit Harry with the Dursleys...... nor was there a
> mention of a wand in any of the discussions of apparating... and no
> mention of a wand was made even when Percy appeared.....!
There is no mention - which doesn't mean anything.
The mentioning of the wand when a wizards casts a spell is not among
those things that are necessary to mention - like going to the loo
(I strongly suspect that Harry does indeed have to relieve himself).
The closest we can get is when Bagman Disapparated with a small pop -
and without another word in GoF-9 'The Dark Mark'. Are we to believe
that disapparating and apparating is done both without incantation and
without wand?
Sorry, but I can't go there!
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
--
Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true.
Niels Bohr, to a young physicist
Dennis Maggard
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
>Dennis Maggard wrote:
>>
>> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Apparate. vb. The use of the the Wizards spell 'Ego Appareo' (q.v.).
>>> This spell requires some very delicate and controlled wand movements
>>> and apparating is therefore controlled by the Ministry of Magic.
>>
>> What are you quoting, Troels?
>
>Sorry - it's my own ;-)
>I took up the challenge (to define 'apparate' in a way that makes it
>different from other kinds of teleportation) and produced something
>that is, IMO, a probable definition.
Thanks, Troels, now I understand. Thought I had overlooked something!
>> I can't remember it ever being made clear that a wand is necessary
>> to dis/apparate.
>
>It isn't.
>Again I extrapolated from the known facts - dis/apparating is so
>far only mentioned in connection with wizards, it appears to me to
>be a spell, and it is apparently quite difficult to do, requiring
>great precision, and as I have come to believe that focus and
>precision with spells is achieved with a wand, I can't believe that
>a wizard is able to disapparate and apparate without using a wand.
>
>> And it does seem that house elves can do it at Hogwarts though
>> wand-wavers can't. Which is not unreasonable since it would be
>> useful for the house elves to do it in performing their work and
>> they would not be thought a potential danger to anyone. It does,
>> however, suggest that there is something fundamentally different
>> about the way house elves dis/apparate.
>
>This was the starting point for my definition ;-)
>I indirectly suggested that the difference is that one is a spell
>that requires a wand while the other is an innate ability - what
>is prevented on the Hogwarts grounds is the spell, not the effect.
While I'm not sure wand-waving is necessarily part of the
dis/apparating process for a witch or wizard, I do believe it is
implied by JKR that wizard magic is fundamentally different from
house elf magic, and as such, it is perfectly reasonable that charms
against the one have no effect on the other and reasonable enough
to give the two processes different names -- if only to keep from
making a liar out of Hermione and everyone else who keeps saying
you can't dis/apparate at Hogwarts.
Dennis
Philip Lewis
>toon wrote:
>>Besides, you can't apparate to/from Hogwarts. Dobbie appears to
>>apparate to/from Hogwarts. Erego, Dobby did not apparate, but did
>>something else.
>Where does it say in *any* of the books that elves can't apparate??
it's basic deduction. If action "X" cannot happen, yet it appears to
have happened, then some action "Y" must have happened that looks very
much like "X". Think "Penn and Teller" magic. We know that you
cannot catch a bullet with your teeth, yet, it appears as though they
do.... so obviously they are doing something that appears to be
catching a bullet, but isn't.
>Where does it say there's any distinction between what elves do and
>what humans do.
From Chamber of Secrets, chapter three i think:
CS: "Well," said Fred, "put it this way - house-elves have got powerful
CS: magic of their own, but they can't usually use it without their master's
CS: permission.
>What it says in the book... i.e. that elves can apparate within
it doesn't say that, it demonstrates that dobby can disappear.
I think we are at an impass.
First we have some semantical differences, and a whole lot of speculation.
Does Apparate mean to teleport via magic, or does it mean to cast the spell
"apparate"? We don't know.
Is Elf magic different from Wizard magic? (I think the above quoted passage
pretty much says it is different, otherwise, we don't know)
Is the "protection" of non apparation at hogwarts a barrier at the
edge of hogwarts such that inter hog apparation is possible? we don't
know.
Has there been a special house elf exemption clause for the app ban at
hogwarts? we don't know.
Do they need one? (ie is their form aof teleportation different)
etc....
All we have to work on is what we've observed in the books (dobby
disappearing) and what we've heard (apparation is not possible at
hogwarts, and we have heard of no exceptions).
Assuming the latter, the former must not be apparition, but something
that looks like it.
Trond Michelsen
> The trophy goblet in the middle of the maze wasnt intended to be a
> port key in the first place. That was the suprise of the whole thing,
> the tournament should of just ended instead they were both portkeyed
That's one of the theories. Another is that it was a portkey all
along, designed to transport the first person to touch it outside the
maze, so that it would be obvious who got to it first.
> away. Scary thought that anything really in the wizarding world could
> be a portkey. Wonder if you can make someone's wand a portkey????
As long as it is a solid object, why shouldn't it?
--
tm
yak
od...@cyberscriber.com says...
> >> ......you can go to Hogwarts by car... you can go by train... you
> >> still travel.
>
> >> .....you can disappear with a pop or a loud crack... you still
> >> apparate!
>
> >> it's the action that counts not the means of instigating it.
>
> >no no no... apparating is the method, not the result. now I understand
> >why you are being so argumentative... apparition = car... elf method =
> >train...
>
> >travel is the result, not apparition
>
> the *action* is apparating...... the result is disappearance........
> apparate/appearence. same root....
>
>
could you just admit that you are wrong about this and let it drop?
please?
I use my "walking shoes" to go walking. the mere fact that they are
called walking shoes doesn't mean anything, it's justs what someone
called them
some old wizard: "hey look, I can disappear and then reappear... I think
I'll call it 'apparition'"
........
actually, you know what?
I'm tired of this thread... this is the end
yak
od...@cyberscriber.com says...
this only reason this thread drags on is skyrider's crap, he must have
some sort of complex about apples=oranges and noone will sway him
otherwise
I've seen at least 5 people reply saying the same thing to no effect.
just like to call them as I see them
Philip Lewis
>Skyrider <od...@cyberscriber.com> writes:
>>Where does it say in *any* of the books that elves can't apparate??
BTW... it doesn't say that elves cannot apparate.... sorry.... all we
know is that dobby does something that makes it appear as though he's
apparated.
Skyrider
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
>Skyrider wrote:
>>
>> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>> I can't believe that a wizard is able to disapparate and
>>> apparate without using a wand.
>>
>> Dumbledore seems to believe it.... there was no mention of wand when
>> he arrived to deposit Harry with the Dursleys...... nor was there a
>> mention of a wand in any of the discussions of apparating... and no
>> mention of a wand was made even when Percy appeared.....!
>
>There is no mention - which doesn't mean anything.
>The mentioning of the wand when a wizards casts a spell is not among
>those things that are necessary to mention - like going to the loo
>(I strongly suspect that Harry does indeed have to relieve himself).
>
>The closest we can get is when Bagman Disapparated with a small pop -
>and without another word in GoF-9 'The Dark Mark'. Are we to believe
>that disapparating and apparating is done both without incantation and
>without wand?
>
>Sorry, but I can't go there!
Why not? Dumbledore seems to cerate and remove things without any
ceremony... sometimes a wave of the hand.. sometimes nothing!
Bojan Bugarin
following:
> On 21 Feb 2003 03:31:09 GMT, kens...@aol.com (Kenspigle) wrote:
>
> >A couple of additional thoughts re house elf magic and the Triwizard cup
> >
> >s
> >
> >p
> >
> >o
> >
> >i
> >
> >l
> >
> >e
> >
> >r
> >
> >s
> >p
> >
> >a
> >
> >c
> >
> >e
<snip>
> However, if that is the case, why is it forbidden for elves to
> >use wands (G of F).
Well, not only for HEs. Wands are forbidden for all non-human
creatures.
> maybe they aren;t allowed to use wands because they are already more
> powerful than wizards and the wands would make them unstoppable.......
Probably.
> which raises the additional question of why they work willingly for an
> inferior species??
I sure hope we will find out in the next 3 books.
--
Bojan Bugarin
"Oops! I did it again. I ate the tickets."
- The Hen in my school play
Kish
> Elf magic has to be
> different from human magic, or else you'd see elves learning at
> Hogwarts.
What, it would surprise you if Book 5 featured Hermione demanding
house-elves get admitted to classes?
Skyrider
>In article <h2ib5vgr8tjmj6jon...@4ax.com>,
>od...@cyberscriber.com says...
>> >> ......you can go to Hogwarts by car... you can go by train... you
>> >> still travel.
>> >> .....you can disappear with a pop or a loud crack... you still
>> >> apparate!
>> >> it's the action that counts not the means of instigating it.
>> >no no no... apparating is the method, not the result. now I understand
>> >why you are being so argumentative... apparition = car... elf method =
>> >train...
>> >travel is the result, not apparition
>> the *action* is apparating...... the result is disappearance........
>> apparate/appearence. same root....
>could you just admit that you are wrong about this and let it drop?
>please?
why on earth should I say I'm wrong when I'm not??
>I use my "walking shoes" to go walking. the mere fact that they are
>called walking shoes doesn't mean anything, it's justs what someone
>called them
So?
>some old wizard: "hey look, I can disappear and then reappear... I think
>I'll call it 'apparition'"
exactly.. and it's just the same when an elf does it.
>actually, you know what?
>I'm tired of this thread... this is the end
aha... finally realised you're wrong eh??
good :)
Skyrider
you refuse to follow logic and keep repeating the same rubbish...
... if a thing looks like an apple, and tastes like and apple, and
behaves like an apple... it's an apple. Likewise apparating.
It's so clear you obviously can't see it!
Skyrider
wrote:
>Philip Lewis <fl...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>Skyrider <od...@cyberscriber.com> writes:
>>>Where does it say in *any* of the books that elves can't apparate??
>
>BTW... it doesn't say that elves cannot apparate.... sorry.... all we
>know is that dobby does something that makes it appear as though he's
>apparated.
there ya go.....!! Call it what you like... it's still apparating.
Toon
wrote:
Uh, whatever you say. Guess JK has thrown in a red herring with the
constant no apparating at Hogwarts line. I can't wait to see
Hermione's reaction to being mislead by one of her precious books.
PS Apparating is the hen/ostrich. Teleportation is the egg.
Toon
wrote:
>
>I go back to my earlier statement.. a difference that makes no
>difference *is* no difference. Dobby apparates because we have seen
>him do what wizards do and until we know different we have to accept
>that he is doing just that!
>
>Skyrider
Except 4 + 1 is a difference from 3+2, but that makes no difference
because you still get 5.
Toon
Nope. But that's different. Hermione would insist on a Elf Magic
course, just to be politically correct, yet no desire to learn it
(though knowing her, she would want to learn it.)
Toon
wrote:
>Where does it say in *any* of the books that elves can't apparate??
Though by a different sound, it would imply a different magic. If
elves can apparate, they'd make the same exact sound as humans do.
Maybe more higher pitched. But not a cracking vs a pop.
But fine. I ask you then: Where does it say that they can apparate?
>Where does it say there's any distinction between what elves do and
>what humans do.
The sounds when people/elves teleport.
>We've seen/heard Dobby do in practice what human wizards appear do
>when they apparate - and do it in what appears to be exactly the same
>manner. Until you can demonstrate in any way shape or form it *isn't*
>possible for them do what we've been told they *can* do.. I'll believe
>what it says in the book... i.e. that elves can apparate within
>Hogwarts
Nope. We hear two different sounds. Check previous threads for that
little tidbit.
>And at the end of the day..... we don't *know* that they can't. All we
>know is that wizards *believe* apparating isn't possible...... and
>just maybe they just don't know *elves* can!!
Right. So harry is the first person to ever see an elf apparate in
Hogwarts. And surely Dumbledore would miss this.
But hey, believe Elves can break the rules. If it makes you happy.
Why continue arguing? I'm happy believing what the books say. You
can't apparate at Hogwarts.
Toon
wrote:
>
>you refuse to follow logic and keep repeating the same rubbish...
>
>... if a thing looks like an apple, and tastes like and apple, and
>behaves like an apple... it's an apple. Likewise apparating.
Not really. You can smell an apple. You can taste an apple. But you
CAN be eating a pear. Try it. Hold a piece of apple under your nose,
and eat the pear. Set your watch alarm for five minutes, so it'll
beep and break you from your dumbfounded staring off into space, at
the magical switching of the apple/pear.
And there's a butterfly that looks like a Monarch butterfly, acts like
it, but isn't a Monarch butterfly (somebody must remember it's name.)
>It's so clear you obviously can't see it!
Like you and the fact that Dobbie doesn't apparate.
By your logic, since Sirius is known as a fact to have wanted Harry
dead, and is heard to be saying He's at Hogwarts, and shows up in
Harry's Dorm, and grabs Ron as bait, he must be after Harry. And poor
Peter Pettigrew was framed for framing Sirius.
And since Scabbers looks like a rat, acts like a rat, he must be a
rat. So therefore, in Book 7, we'll learn Sirius transfigures
Scabbers into the late great Peter Pettigrew, and used some mind
control spell which id voiceless, to trick everyone into think he's
innocent. He'll betray Harry at the end.
And IRL, scientists have seen stars that were older than they believed
the universe to be. They saw objects moving faster than the speed of
light (which is slowing down over the eons.) So, I guess stars
existed before the universe did, and we can travel faster than the
speed of light without warp drives or such. (Yay)
Like I said, believe Dobbie can apparate. The rest of us will believe
what the books say, and that you can apparate at Hogwarts, so Dobbie
teleports through nonapparition means (hence JK allowing the
snap/smoke of COS< which won't bee seen with humans in GOF movie(s)).
Thomas Madura
AS I tried to point out = maybe it is witches and wizards that cannot
apparate at Hogwarts - and elves are not affected because they must be
able to go from room to room to clean and prepare meals. Since there is
no indication that anyone managed to apparate into hogwarts from the
outside )We don't know how Doby got there - do we?) - it is possible
that elves cannot apparate from outside in - but can move around freely
inside the place. That would make sense, based on their duties.
Earwax
<Thom-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>AS I tried to point out = maybe it is witches and wizards that cannot
>apparate at Hogwarts - and elves are not affected because they must be
>able to go from room to room to clean and prepare meals. Since there is
>no indication that anyone managed to apparate into hogwarts from the
>outside )We don't know how Doby got there - do we?) - it is possible
>that elves cannot apparate from outside in - but can move around freely
>inside the place. That would make sense, based on their duties.
So the hypothetical conversation goes like this?
Snape: Everyone knows you can't apparate into or out of Hogwarts.
observant reader: Well, then, what about the house elves?
Snape: Oh, them, they don't count, first, they're *only* house elves,
second, they have to apparate in order to perform their duties.
Hermione: I guess it's time to dust off that box of SPEW badges.
-- but I still prefer the version that goes like this
Snape: Stupid Muggle, house elves don't apparate, they elf-vaporate.
Troels Forchhammer
>
> Except 4 + 1 is a difference from 3+2, but that makes no difference
> because you still get 5.
Don't mix math into it. There is no difference at all between 4+1
and 3+2 (only when you start putting units to it, but that's not
really math: 3 oranges and 2 bananas are 5 fruits - the same are
4 apples and 1 peach).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
--
"The Road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
And I must follow, if I can"
- Bilbo's walking-song, 'LotR' (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Dragon Friend
news:6okf5vkl3affn5u62...@4ax.com
ROFL... those are good conversations, but then we know that Skyrider knows
better than both Severus Snape and Hermione ;-)
Dragon Friend
--
"Humanity... so noble, always willing to sacrifice... the other
fellow." ~~ Max von Sydow in NEEDFUL THINGS. "...perhaps all the
dragons of our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us once
beautiful and brave..." By Rainer Maria Rilke Check out these websites
http://www.maxvonsydow.net http://www.maxvonsydow.da.ru
Kal Alexander
> Toon wrote:
>>
>> Except 4 + 1 is a difference from 3+2, but that makes no
difference
>> because you still get 5.
>
> Don't mix math into it. There is no difference at all between
4+1
> and 3+2 (only when you start putting units to it, but that's
not
> really math: 3 oranges and 2 bananas are 5 fruits - the same
are
> 4 apples and 1 peach).
>
> --
> Troels Forchhammer
> Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
I think it all depends on how the prevention charms work. If you
are prevented from having oranges and bananas in your fruit bowl,
but not apples and peaches, then there would be a difference
between the two. While elves and wizards both apparate, the base
magic used may be totally different. And if it is different,
maybe the charms against wizard magic don't effect elf magic.
Unfortunately, this isn't a case where the answer is there and we
just have to figure it out. In this case, we just don't have
enough information from the author to determine who is right and
wrong.
--
Later
Kal
---
Homeland Security will be monitoring our
internet. Don't worry, you won't notice a
thing. For more info:
http://users.chartertn.net/tonytemplin/FBI_eyes/
yak
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:55:31 -0500, Philip Lewis <fl...@andrew.cmu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Philip Lewis <fl...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> >>Skyrider <od...@cyberscriber.com> writes:
> >>>Where does it say in *any* of the books that elves can't apparate??
> >
> >BTW... it doesn't say that elves cannot apparate.... sorry.... all we
> >know is that dobby does something that makes it appear as though he's
> >apparated.
>
> there ya go.....!! Call it what you like... it's still apparating.
>
> Skyrider
>
>
yea, it's true, you are a raving moron
APPARITION IS THE SPELL WIZARDS USE TO TRAVEL INSTANTANEOUSLY, ELVES
HAVE POWERFUL MAGIC OF THEIR OWN MEANING THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO GO TO THE
WIZARD APPARITION LEARNING CENTER AND TAKE THE TEST...
please understand, troll, you are wrong
Kish
be that house-elves can blink about inside Hogwarts, but not from
outside to inside or vice versa.
Because if not, if it turns out house-elves can blink into Hogwarts at
will (by apparating or by any other method), it means the spells
preventing wizards from apparating are of quite limited usefulness.
"Here, Dobby. I need something done in Hogwarts that that muggle-loving
fool can't know about. I can't apparate there, but fortunately you can
blink in so easily that it hardly matters I won't be there personally."
Skyrider
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
>Toon wrote:
>> Except 4 + 1 is a difference from 3+2, but that makes no difference
>> because you still get 5.
>Don't mix math into it. There is no difference at all between 4+1
>and 3+2 (only when you start putting units to it, but that's not
>really math: 3 oranges and 2 bananas are 5 fruits - the same are
>4 apples and 1 peach).
I gave up bothering. Some people argue from a position behind a closed
mind.
Occasionally they need reminding this is fiction and JKR can say one
thing yet do another...... maybe she'll explain in the next book why a
house elf can apparently apparate whilst wizards cannot.
In the meantime I have a book to get ready for the publishers by the
end of July and I'm doing everything but.... :))
Skyrider
>Skyrider said...
>> On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:55:31 -0500, Philip Lewis <fl...@andrew.cmu.edu>
>> wrote:
>> >Philip Lewis <fl...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>> >>Skyrider <od...@cyberscriber.com> writes:
>> >>>Where does it say in *any* of the books that elves can't apparate??
>> >BTW... it doesn't say that elves cannot apparate.... sorry.... all we
>> >know is that dobby does something that makes it appear as though he's
>> >apparated.
>> there ya go.....!! Call it what you like... it's still apparating.
>yea, it's true, you are a raving moron
>APPARITION IS THE SPELL WIZARDS USE TO TRAVEL INSTANTANEOUSLY, ELVES
>HAVE POWERFUL MAGIC OF THEIR OWN MEANING THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO GO TO THE
>WIZARD APPARITION LEARNING CENTER AND TAKE THE TEST...
oh dear...... you really *are* devoid of clue aren't you??
>please understand, troll, you are wrong
What I understand is that you have not the slightest idea what you are
talking about and I have a book to edit prior to publication and have
no time to argue with the ignorant!!
Toon
Troels Forchhammer
>
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
>>
>> and 3+2 (only when you start putting units to it, but that's not
>> really math: 3 oranges and 2 bananas are 5 fruits - the same are
>> 4 apples and 1 peach).
>
> I gave up bothering. Some people argue from a position behind a
> closed mind.
>
> Occasionally they need reminding this is fiction and JKR can say
> one thing yet do another...... maybe she'll explain in the next
> book why a house elf can apparently apparate whilst wizards cannot.
It might be easier to just lump everything together as teleportation,
and then wonder why wizards can't, but House Elves and Phoenixes
apparently can. Leave decision of whether Apparation is identical
with teleportation or a subset thereof till later.
That way we can get down to basics instead of exchanging flames
because someone's interpretation differs from our own.
In my opinion it is a reasonable guess that the difference lies in
the method applied to achieve the result - the wizards utilize a
spell of some kind (I believe it requires a wand and an incantation,
but that is unnecessary for the other argument), while the House Elves
use their own special magic - perhaps this effect is even a natural
ability for the House Elves, much as picking one's nose is a natural
ability for humans ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
--
"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."
Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague
R. Tursi
> that murder - murder regardless of the means the murder was carried
> out.
>
> Travel = travel regardless of the means the distance was covered.
> committed.
>
> Similarly the way elves disappear and the way wizards disappear is -
> to the observer - the same thing. That there might be a difference in
> the method is immaterial the end result is the same!
You missed yak's point entirely. Sure, Traveling is traveling. But if
there is no train that runs from point A to point B, then you CAN'T
take a train to get from point A to point B - you have to use some
other method. It's common sense.
If there are wards that make it impossible to appariate inside
Hogwarts grounds, then you CAN'T Appariate there. It's as simple as
that.
Obviously since it's been stated about a gazillion times that you
can't appariate on Hogwarts grounds, then what the house elves do is
something completely different. Just because you can't see a
difference doesn't mean there is none.
Pick some muggle thing -like a computer for example. Can you expect
the average Wizard to be able to tell the difference between say - a
Macintosh and a PC? Of course not. It's as foreign to them as
appariation (and the way Elves travel) is to us. Does this mean that
Macs and PCs are the same thing? No. They serve the same function, but
they are not the same.
-Roe
Skyrider
>> The example you provided but clearly didn't understand yourself was
>> that murder - murder regardless of the means the murder was carried
>> out.
>> Travel = travel regardless of the means the distance was covered.
>> committed.
>> Similarly the way elves disappear and the way wizards disappear is -
>> to the observer - the same thing. That there might be a difference in
>> the method is immaterial the end result is the same!
>You missed yak's point entirely. Sure, Traveling is traveling. But if
>there is no train that runs from point A to point B, then you CAN'T
>take a train to get from point A to point B - you have to use some
>other method. It's common sense.
..... and yet again you miss the point..... walking... going by
train..... are entirely different yes...... *but* in both instances
you *travel*!!
>If there are wards that make it impossible to appariate inside
>Hogwarts grounds, then you CAN'T Appariate there. It's as simple as
>that.
.... and yet the elves do it... odd isn't it.....
>Obviously since it's been stated about a gazillion times that you
>can't appariate on Hogwarts grounds, then what the house elves do is
>something completely different. Just because you can't see a
>difference doesn't mean there is none.
I must have missed something important in the scripts.. I do *not*
remember anywhere someone saying elves can't apparate... ??
>Pick some muggle thing -like a computer for example. Can you expect
>the average Wizard to be able to tell the difference between say - a
>Macintosh and a PC? Of course not. It's as foreign to them as
>appariation (and the way Elves travel) is to us. Does this mean that
>Macs and PCs are the same thing? No. They serve the same function, but
>they are not the same.
Unfortunately of course they *are*... they're both personal computers.
Troels Forchhammer
>
> ..... and yet again you miss the point..... walking... going by
> train..... are entirely different yes...... *but* in both instances
> you *travel*!!
We have then to find any evidence to suggest whether apparating
is to be likened to 'walking' or 'travelling' in the above
analogy.
I cannot remember any instance that would decide the issue - we
all agree that wizards apparate, but I can't remember 'apparating'
mentioned for anyone else.
If this is the case you position would then be equivalent to the
claim that JKR had consistently used 'travelling' for 'walking'
(and cleverly avoided the issue when talking about cars and trains).
My memory is, however, not infallible (as has frequently been
demonstrated) and I would therefore love to be corrected on this ...
(we might of course short-circuit this discussion and just choose
to speak of 'journeying' instead - i.e. 'teleportation' ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
--
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Hogfather)
yak
have a nice day, troll
Skyrider
>Skyrider said...
>> On 23 Feb 2003 22:41:02 -0800, roet...@hotmail.com (R. Tursi) wrote:
<snip>
>have a nice day, troll
what a saddo.
Kal Alexander
Do you say toe-may-toe, or do you say toe-mah-toe?
:-) (Just trying to lighten it up.)
Earwax
wrote:
>Well, if we are going to stop this, then I have one question.
>
>Do you say toe-may-toe, or do you say toe-mah-toe?
>
ta-may-ter
KT
It's ta-may-der.
--
Have a Nice Night,
KT
Harry and Hermione Forever!
R. Tursi
> >there is no train that runs from point A to point B, then you CAN'T
> >take a train to get from point A to point B - you have to use some
> >other method. It's common sense.
>
> ..... and yet again you miss the point..... walking... going by
> train..... are entirely different yes...... *but* in both instances
> you *travel*!!
>
*bags head on desk*
My point(please try not to miss it this time): You can walk to
Hogwarts, you can fly a broomstick to Hogwarts, you can travel to
Hogwarts in all sorts of ways, but you CAN'T appariate there.
You seem to have this strange idea that since one can travel to
Hogwarts, and since appariation is considered a mode of travel, than
naturally one can appariate to Hogwarts. Your reasoning makes no sense
whatsoever.
> I must have missed something important in the scripts.. I do *not*
> remember anywhere someone saying elves can't apparate... ??
>
You also must have missed the important parts in the scripts where its
stated that you can't appariate on Hogwarts grounds. And though I'm
not nessesarily saying they can't(outside Hogwarts), nowhere does it
say elves CAN appariate either.
> >Pick some muggle thing -like a computer for example. Can you expect
> >the average Wizard to be able to tell the difference between say - a
> >Macintosh and a PC? Of course not. It's as foreign to them as
> >appariation (and the way Elves travel) is to us. Does this mean that
> >Macs and PCs are the same thing? No. They serve the same function, but
> >they are not the same.
>
> Unfortunately of course they *are*... they're both personal computers.
Macs and PCs are both personal computers. And, as you love to state,
walking and appariating are both methods of travel. That doesn't make
them the same.
-Roe
Skyrider
toe- may-ter
ter-mite-er
Skyrider
>> >You missed yak's point entirely. Sure, Traveling is traveling. But if
>> >there is no train that runs from point A to point B, then you CAN'T
>> >take a train to get from point A to point B - you have to use some
>> >other method. It's common sense.
>>
>> ..... and yet again you miss the point..... walking... going by
>> train..... are entirely different yes...... *but* in both instances
>> you *travel*!!
>>
>
>*bags head on desk*
>My point(please try not to miss it this time): You can walk to
>Hogwarts, you can fly a broomstick to Hogwarts, you can travel to
>Hogwarts in all sorts of ways, but you CAN'T appariate there.
>
>You seem to have this strange idea that since one can travel to
>Hogwarts, and since appariation is considered a mode of travel, than
>naturally one can appariate to Hogwarts. Your reasoning makes no sense
>whatsoever.
so.... a wizard disappears with a pop and its called apparating....
and elf disappears with a crack (i.e. a louder pop) and it's *not*
called apparating........
Your reasoning makes no sense whatsoever.
>> I must have missed something important in the scripts.. I do *not*
>> remember anywhere someone saying elves can't apparate... ??
>You also must have missed the important parts in the scripts where its
>stated that you can't appariate on Hogwarts grounds. And though I'm
>not nessesarily saying they can't(outside Hogwarts), nowhere does it
>say elves CAN appariate either.
and yet they clearly *do*.....!!
>> >Pick some muggle thing -like a computer for example. Can you expect
>> >the average Wizard to be able to tell the difference between say - a
>> >Macintosh and a PC? Of course not. It's as foreign to them as
>> >appariation (and the way Elves travel) is to us. Does this mean that
>> >Macs and PCs are the same thing? No. They serve the same function, but
>> >they are not the same.
>> Unfortunately of course they *are*... they're both personal computers.
> Macs and PCs are both personal computers. And, as you love to state,
>walking and appariating are both methods of travel. That doesn't make
>them the same.
...... of course they are the same - they are both means of travel.
Elves and wizards may apparate differently... but they still
apparate... and elves can do it inside Hogwarts.
Kal Alexander
So, would it then be pa-tay-ter?
Kal Alexander
> Earwax wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:24:53 GMT, "Kal Alexander"
<ke...@qwest.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, if we are going to stop this, then I have one question.
>>>
>>> Do you say toe-may-toe, or do you say toe-mah-toe?
>>>
>>
>> ta-may-ter
>
> It's ta-may-der.
Ta-mah-der. Hmmm. Nope. You're right, the middle has gotta be
may, not mah. The end I think would start as ter, then as the
ale flowed would turn into der.
:-)