WordWolf

Oops. Ok, hang on....

God knows what he's doing. I'm confident He's worked something out.

Wow. Norman Borlaug is made of win.

Anyone got a link to the discussions about vpw's attempts to make it into a private police force, complete with police insignias and stuff? I saw PHOTOS....

The Fidelius Charm means ONLY THE SECRET-KEEPER can tell-and no one else. One Secret-Keeper means ONE person can tell- by speaking or by writing a note as in Book 5 when Harry arrives at 12 Grimmauld Place. Her website specifies that once a Secret-Keeper dies, there's ZERO Secret-Keepers. NOBODY else can learn. (Unless, say, an old note was found.) The book specifies that now there's OVER A DOZEN Secret-Keepers, and ALL of them can tell. The status of the secret is now fluid, and not fixed, and will not "remain as it was at the moment of their death." New people CAN learn-and as we saw, DID learn. Right. But they had a LONG time where Harry, Ron, Hermione were hanging out IN 12 Grimmauld Place, and they STILL thought Snape was a traitor, but they STILL were living there. If so, they should NOT have felt secure-they should have expected an ALL-OUT ATTACK like the "Seven Potters" chapter. If they felt secure-they should have concluded Snape wasn't a traitor. How comfy could you be, setting up to live in a place you expect should be flattened in a mortar attack without warning?

The explanation of James' and Lily's jobs, and how they thwarted Voldy 3x. The explanation of the Veil/Arch. The explanation of Sirius' supposed death-which was promised. The door that NEVER opens in the Dept of Mysteries. For starters. AFAIK, all of these (except the last) were all promised. She also mentioned that Book 7 was going to go MORE into why some people become ghosts and others don't. I worked that one out in detail when we knew Snape & DD argued in the middle of Book 6. DD's death was predictable- and predicted. I expected him to die early in Book 7, but wasn't shocked it was sooner. She kept foreshadowing it. Besides, she herself said to Emerson of Mugglenet.... "Yeah, well, I think if you take a step back, in the genre of writing that I'm working in, almost always the hero must go on alone. That's the way it is. We all know that, so the question is when and how, isn't it? If you know anything about the construction of that kind of plot." "The wise old wizard with the beard always dies." "Well, that's basically what I'm saying, yes. " When we saw the portrait of him in the headmaster's office, that was the "stick a fork in him" moment. Her website says: "Section: F.A.Q. When the Marauder's Map is insulting Snape, how did Prongs write his insult as he's dead? Wizards have ways of making sure their voices are heard after their death - think of Bertha Jorkins rising out of the Pensieve in 'Goblet of Fire', the Sorting Hat continuing to spout the wisdom of the Founders hundreds of years after their deaths, the ghosts walking around Hogwarts, the portraits of dead headmasters and mistresses in Dumbledore's office, not to mention Mrs. Black's portrait in number twelve, Grimmauld Place... there are other examples, too, of which the Marauder's Map is merely one. It is not really Prongs writing the insult to Snape, it is as though he left a magical recording of his voice within the map. " And Sunday,Aug 5,2004, at the Edinburgh Book Festival, she said "Q: All the paintings we have seen at Hogwarts are of dead people. They seem to be living through their portraits. How is this so? If there was a painting of Harry's parents, would he be able to obtain advice from them? JKR: That is a very good question. They are all of dead people; they are not as fully realised as ghosts, as you have probably noticed. The place where you see them really talk is in Dumbledore's office, primarily; the idea is that the previous headmasters and headmistresses leave behind a faint imprint of themselves. They leave their aura, almost, in the office and they can give some counsel to the present occupant, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat catchphrases, almost." And, since some people needed her to say it outright, during "An Evening with Harry, Carrie and Garp", (Aug 1, 2006) JKR said the following: "I need to be a little more explicit and say that Dumbledore is definitely dead. And I do know - I do know that there is an entire website out there that says - that's name is DumbledoreIsNotDead.com so umm, I'd imagine they're not pretty happy right now. But I think I need - you need - all of you need to move through the five stages of grief , and I'm just helping you get past denial." Now with Sirius, JKR made an elaborate effort to DUCK THE QUESTION every time it came up. (I looked most carefully at her interviews, website, etc, and watched it happen.) Contrasted with the above, and note that no body was ever recovered (which, actually, was a rule consistent with the rest of the series) and so on, it was obvious JKR deliberately wanted to be AMBIGUOUS about his "death". That means either: A) He's alive and she wants us to believe he's dead or B) He's dead and she wants us to believe he's alive. etc. Sure. Want to start with "how was The Prophecy actually fulfilled?" After all, JKR's own website says "Both Madam Trelawney and I worded the prophecy extremely carefully and that is all I have to say on the subject!" Why, then, is it IRRELEVANT to the actual climax of the series? The Prophecy states: ""The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches... born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives... the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies..." The part I'm especially concerned with is "and either must die at the hand of the other" (not "and either must die AT HIS OWN HAND") ========== Oh, and for fun, here's the first thing that bothered me in Book 7. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_poll.cfm "Result of F.A.Q. Poll (SPOILER WARNING) What happens to a secret when the Secret-Keeper dies? I was surprised that this question won, because it is not the one that I'd have voted for… but hey, if this is what you want to know, this is what you want to know! When a Secret-Keeper dies, their secret dies with them, or, to put it another way, the status of their secret will remain as it was at the moment of their death. Everybody in whom they confided will continue to know the hidden information, but nobody else." Book 7, page 90, US edition. "...after the death of Dumbledore, their Secret-Keeper, each of the people to whom Dumbledore had confided Grimmauld Place's location had become a Secret-Keeper in turn." Besides the fact that this contradicted what she herself said while writing Book 7, the characters were oblivious to what it meant. Either they should have been convinced Snape was a Death Eater, or Snape was working against Voldemort. If they were convinced Snape was a Death Eater, page 91 and following should have reflected the obvious conclusions: "Since I'm convinced Snape's working for Voldemoldy, and tells him everything important, obviously he's ALREADY told him all about 12 Grimmauld Place. Therefore, Death Eaters are on their way now and I have to pack." If the non-arrival of Death Eaters made it obvious Snape was ABLE to give away the location and DIDN'T, the rest of the book should have reflected the obvious conclusions: "Since Death Eaters haven't already arrived, Snape's sitting on the Secret he's Keeping, and therefore he's not REALLY working for the Volderoni."

I disagree. It was an acceptable read, but I was expecting a lot better. For one thing, the middle dragged, and we had a few chapters of "and nothing much happened to our heroes." I've seen that twice before, and hated it both times. (Once in "Return of the King", once in "the Great Hunt.") It's forgiveable, but annoying. For another, JKR had promised to include several things, and they're nowhere to be seen. That includes a number of elements introduced in Book 5 ("Why is Book 5 so big?" "I had to include a lot of things I'll be using later..." -paraphrased) And I found the ending didn't sound like it makes sense on paper. I'll need to recheck to see if it does. I don't mind character death, but a number of them just seemed thrown in to rack up the body count. I've been objecting to that in stories for years now, and JKR doesn't get a free pass on that. I DID find the "Aliens" semi-quote amusing, but I imagine some parents won't find it so. And when someone has a few weeks to do nothing BUT make up a plan, (infiltrate the MoM), I expect them to have worked out the most obvious aspects like "entrance", and especially "exit", and "what to do if the obvious things don't work right". For some clever kids that had nothing BUT time to think and plan, they sure made some easy-to-avoid mistakes. Then again, it's not like they were properly prepared for this- DD's plans fell FAR short of giving them all the information they needed. I considered it a passable read- but a lot of "this will make sense later, I promise!" stuff...never did. I have the distinct impression-based on a partial list of what was promised and never included- that JKR never made a list of the things she had to include to bring the series to a successful close, and just winged it and went from memory. Me, I had a partial list memorized, and it was mostly left out. There were some good scenes, but as a whole, I found it inadequate to the task of ending the series.

Well, when it comes to a matter of "this is what he did", and informing others (few of us don't want a fuller understanding, if not all the explicit details), I see profit in it. When one wonders if twi under lcm was actually bad, I think the truth rings pretty clear. Plus, some people like to try to rewrite history, and pretend great evils done by vpw personally and lcm personally never happened. Under those conditions, I see a point to discussion. When it comes down to just posting insults and things, well, personally, I don't see any point in it. It informs no one, and brings no benefit to him or the reader. However, I can understand what I think of as a normal human urge to vent, and pay back a little for all the harmful words lcm spewed out at us or about us. I don't usually partake of it, but I understand. As to what we KNOW, we knew he was dropped by twi officially, and he was living in a small home owned by twi and with a doctor. (It's been speculated he was placed there so the doctor could keep an eye on him.) We knew he's worked as a personal trainer, and at UPS. I think he's working at both currently, but I really don't care. I wish I'd seen signs he had some understanding that he wrought hurt in other people's lives, but all reports show he's sorry he was caught, and removed from a cushy job.

Thanks for answering. Across the various pages, I lost track of WHICH posts were yours, so I had read them, but hadn't kept track that they were yours.

I'd appreciate a bit more on that as well...

Not to mention "You have heard rumours that there are problems. There are no problems. If you question this, you will get in trouble. If you tell personal testimony supporting this, you will get in trouble. If you look up personal testimony supporting this, you will get in trouble." Sounds a LOT like twi when lcm was in court, and anyone looking up the details online was marked and avoided. Professor Sybill P. Trelawney had given them 15 years of her life, and was being kicked out without preamble. In fact, the bum's rush was attempted, you may recall. Now THAT sounds familiar as well.

My thinking runs differently than yours on this incident. I shall elaborate. First of all, I shall agree with you on one particular: the driver of the vehicle is responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle he is operating. Therefore, the driver, in this case, is at least partly to blame. Now, let's look at the conditions BEFORE the driver enters the picture. A) twi REQUIRES the LEAD trip. The participants agreed to be in the corps, and did not choose to quit rather than face LEAD. They were adults and that was their choice. B) twi REQUIRES the specifics they lay out be followed. The participants were adults, and did not choose to quit rather than face LEAD. C) twi provides-for the transport of humans- one truck with a homemade hitch, and any SENSIBLE source on traffic safety would tell you that the hitch is unsuitable for human transport, since there is ZERO protection of the passengers WHATSOEVER. There are no SEATS, no SEATBELTS, no AIRBAGS, not even things to hold onto. The structure is not designed to minimize injuries should there be an accident. Even an outdated schoolbus provides MUCH better protection- with supported seats, things to hold onto, and a frame that will take impacts if needed. (They're SUPPOSED to have seatbelts, which can be added of course.) So, to begin with, this is an unsafe vehicle to operate under even IDEAL conditions. (It's also illegal.) The sensible-and safe-thing to do is for the driver to refuse to transport people under these conditions. Therefore, the driver is partly to blame for agreeing to drive this deathtrap. Furthermore, the people who agreed to climb into the coffin on wheels are adults, and partly to blame for agreeing to ride in a deathtrap. D) twi required that their artificial timeframe-determined solely by them- be followed regardless of any extenuating circumstances, like inclement weather or road closings. The twi-mandated time REQUIRED unsafe speed be used with this vehicle- even if the vehicle was safe. (As most drivers know, you can maintain more control of the vehicle by REDUCING SPEED- which means you relinquish some control and increase risk with a vehicle of this type by INCREASING SPEED, which was required.) The driver, knowing this speed was unsafe, agreed to drive at it. That was his fault. E) the weather, as the weather reports predicted, included HEAVY WINDS. That's not good for ANY vehicle, and for a hitch, that's doubly so. twi required travel at speed regardless of the weather. The driver, knowing this weather was unsafe, agreed to drive in it. That was his fault. F) twi required that evaluations be completed within the timeframe they set, which provided insufficient time to complete them. The driver, knowing it was unsafe, began to try to complete them behind the wheel. That was his fault. =========== If all those things were the faults of the driver and participants, why do some of us insist that twi was responsible? As you can easily see, everything except the heavy wind were within the control of twi. By running this program, twi had legally accepted a fiduciary responsibility to execute this program in a fashion that minimized the risks to the participants. That included controlling what they COULD control, and making a good-faith attempt to reduce risks where it was reasonable to do so. As most of us see it, they had several chances to reduce the risk in this situation- and were criminally negligent and morally negligent to the degree they did not. twi did not need to require the LEAD trip in the first place. Having required it, twi chose to send participants to travel in an obviously-unsafe vehicle. twi chose to require an artificial timeframe to take precedence over OBVIOUS SAFETY ISSUES (unsafe driving conditions.) Thus, if twi was exercising even AVERAGE safety precautions, I see no way the people would even BE in a trailer hitch-and certainly not in one when the weather was less than ideal for travel. To the average neutral observer, that's gross incompetence. And that's twi's fault. =========== Now then, what about the fault of the participants and driver? They're all adults and could refuse what sensible people would see as dangerous risks. That is true-but not the whole truth. Great social pressures and social stigmas were brought to bear on anyone who dared to question the soundness of twi decisions in the corps. If you chose to save your own neck rather than lay it under the headman's axe when a corps leader said to, you were subjected to "face-melting sessions", stigmatized, and thrown out if they were in a bad mood. However, sufficient groveling sometimes meant they allowed you to return. If those people had exercised the brains that God gave them, they would have been seen as scum, as dirt, as algae, in the eyes of the corps- and therefore in the eyes of God's people, as they were instructed to think. Furthermore, they had already been portrayed as washouts, and that leadership was looking for excuses to can them. All of that meant that sensible precautions become a secondary consideration when all of that is on the line. No, they HAD a choice to leave the corps when it came down to that- so long as they were willing to accept the corps pronouncement of judgement on them that they were failures and dirt in the eyes of God. That WAS a choice. However, twi was responsible for putting them in the position to make such a horrible either-or decision. ====== BTW, this is a long post. Despite that, it has substance. Some people will have no difficulty seeing that.

Granting that as true, AND that "hitch-hiking is very dangerous", A) Was it a good idea to REQUIRE hitch-hiking in a program? B) Once the dangers were encountered, was it a good idea to CONTINUE to REQUIRE hitch-hiking in a program?

I think that's quite an observation, and I'd like to add one of my own. (Not original, but I'm relating it here, anyway.) Some people, I think, are internalizing that MISPLACED GUILT, and saying "Well, since I refuse to be held responsible for their sins, I'm going to belittle or deny the harm they did, since this is the sole way to absolve me from wrongdoing", when the wrongdoing was most likely none of theirs to begin with.

You're entitled to your opinion. Myself, I say that if just the hitch-hiking to LEAD produced at least one death from being run over (which it did) and a number of rapes as women got in vehicles with total strangers (which it did), I would classify it as a "dangerous" practice. vpw himself told the corps to continue with it, even AFTER rapes took place. His explanation was that they could get raped anywhere. (Therefore, there was no reason to lower the risks of rape in his program by eliminating anything that increased the risk. This makes very little sense and is probably an excuse. More likely it was the care for money and LACK of care for people that drove a status quo once dangers had emerged.)

That was straight out of pfal. "Lambano, lambano, la-ball-o, ball.." *pantomines a pitch* "throw it out there." Even IN pfal, that sounded like nonsense to me. Just keep changing syllables until it made sense to you? Might as well speak of the ice cream the bedouins always eat. "Desert, desert, dessert.." *pantomine dishing ice cream* "serve up dessert." Makes about as much sense. What makes this weirder is Bullinger made this same jump out of nowhere. When I read that, I concluded that Bullinger, like most people, could pull stuff out of his gluteus maximus when he wanted to.

I mainly judge them on their own merits. Some changes I view as improvements, and some things are left out to the movie's detriment, IMHO. Why was no explanation ever stated for why the name "Dumbledore's Army"? They could have fit it in as dialogue spoken OVER shots of the group practicing. Personally, I REALLY missed having Marietta Edgecombe appear in the story. ("Sneak.") Someone suggested Kingsley Shacklebolt would look more like Michael Clark Duncan than the guy they cast, which I think is correct, but I think they didn't make a bad choice. GREAT moment in the OoTP-DE fight.... "Good one, James." I thought that fight was ALMOST too fast to follow. I'll want to review it later. :) Helena Bonham Carter SO owned her role as Bellatrix Lestrange. NICE scenes with the DA- but bringing "levicorpus" means it HAS to be excluded in the next movie. "Snape's Worst Memory" was included-as it just HAD to be. And Umbridge was portrayed just PERFECTLY. Although I really missed Dumbledore's replacement for Sybill as Divinations teacher- since Umbridge LOATHES hybrids and other beings. DD having him as a replacement IMMEDIATELY showed he was still on top of everything despite Umbridge. And, naturally, I'm expecting Book 7 will show that Bellatrix had a completely incorrect line in the big fight scene- one that was neither stated NOR SUGGESTED in Book 5- which will run flat against canon in about 2 days.

Right. It's not a lack of intellectual knowledge, it's a DELIBERATE ignorance, a conscious choice to say "there's hundreds of figures of speech, but when you're using one to make a point I don't like, I'll pretend figures of speech don't exist and attempt to obscure your point."

Since you asked.... My positions have been fairly consistent. (I reserve the right to learn things over the years.) However, some people have been fairly consistently MISrepresenting my positions, so when asked, I will often clarify them. [That's great! Many if not most of us have no problem with that. Many of us learned that BEFORE vpw, twi and pfal, many did not, but don't begrudge those who learned for having learned WHERE they learned.] [There's a variety of positions here on that one, and all their holders consider THEIR position to "make perfect sense", and have their reasons WHY. The Doctrinal forum is THE forum to discuss this one. You're welcome to visit it to read the reasonings-from Scripture and otherwise-of the various holders of the positions. Me, I say all those who claim to be Christians and how Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian positions ARE Christians, and not "inferior" or "greater" ones based on that one issue. Which puts me at odds with the general practice in twi...] [Having studied out the matter to my satisfaction from Scripture, I found I came independently to the positions Bullinger seemed to come to- which are notably DIFFERENT from twi positions in several places. And I think it's not that hard to see where Bullinger-and I- got our positions. (Or, to answer the question directly, me and Bullinger both say what you said.)] [What I believe Scripture shows, that I teach, no matter where I learned it. I HAVE, however, divorced myself from the elitist attitudes inflicted upon me by various organizations, primarily twi. And welcome to the GSC. We have a sticky at the top of this forum, with some free advice.]

Please remember that the same man who was reported- in twi's OWN "the way:living in love"- to have shirked his own chores growing up and slipping off for hours at a time instead- and convinced his dad that he should go to college rather than the farm (no small task)- THAT was the one who insisted that HE knew how to work, and NONE of the younger folk DID- even the ones who DID work on farms, or come right out of the military, and so on. So, there was a "work program" that didn't actually "educate" how to perform various jobs, but got menial work on the grounds performed without paying for workers. In fact, the workers PAID TO PERFORM MANUAL LABOR. Of course, once you completed your "tour of duty" with the military, you were free to live your life as you wished. However, once you completed the corps training- at least how it was reported after the first few corps- it became, as participants put it, "we own your @$$ and will tell you where to live and what to do for the rest of your life."

It did more than "heavily influence" his portrayal. Watch that part of the movie sometine- "Satan's Alley", the musical show in the movie. You'll see the entire thing was ripped off as AOS. The costumes, evil spirits, SCAFFOLDING, the shirt-off-for-the-final-combat, there's little that didn't find a home in AOS. If AOS had been the same length, it probably would have looked "separated at birth."

You raised the same issue Catcup did- but she identified it more precisely. You were thankful for what you experienced- God answered your prayers with genuine Christians with genuine love.

But...but Nottawayfer.... "Actions speak louder than words" when it's US, but when it comes to vpw, his actions are to be dismissed, and his words fixated upon, didn't you know that? So if he talked a good talk, and ruined some lives IN PRIVATE, you just go with his good talk, after all, who cares about a few ruined lives when the rest of us are learning The Wonderful Greatness Of God's Matchless Word?

That's plenty profound for me, thanks. :)

Indeed, and one of my all-time favourite movies. "Thinks a phone-call from God is daring. If he'd made it COLLECT- THAT would be daring...."