WordWolf

[DUUUHHHH. But it says that defilement of a man has nothing to do with anything that enters him- and that means "regardless of the method of entry." The words "regardless of the method of entry" aren't there, but that is the plain English meaning of what it says when the general word "enters" is used, as opposed to specifying "eaten" or the like. Therefore, that which enters a man can't defile him if he eats it, or is transfused with it, or he inhales it, or he gets a skin patch, or it's administered through a suppository. That's because it "entered" him, and Jesus categorically dismissed all methods of entry unilaterally as methods of defilement. Now, I can take HIS word for it, or I can take YOUR word for it. This is not a tough decision.] [Especially the ones Jesus said don't apply SPECIFICALLY.] [Your quotation left something out. Why do your verses run incomplete? You left out abstaining from "things strangled." Ok, so if your understanding is correct, Jesus said it's ok, and Acts said it's not ok. Here are the possibilities. A) the Bible is contradictory, unreliable, and devoid of authority. Therefore, the "no transfusion" thing is devoid of authority. B) the Gospel reference is misunderstood. Well, Jesus went on at length explaining. He covered anything entering the body. Scratch that possibility. C) the Acts reference is misunderstood. What makes this obvious is that the Epistles later go into why it's good for some people to not eat, and why it's good for some people to eat- when it's the same food both times. The emphasis is not on the "blood", but on "things offered to idols"- the strangled offerings and blood offered to idols. They really weren't supposed to participate in pagan worship ceremonies anymore, so lay off the pagan ceremonies, the oxen, the garlands, the orgies, the offerings of things strangled, and the offerings of blood. So, the rules didn't change in Acts, after Jesus spoke.] [Literally or symbolically, it was his blood. Jesus knew the rules.Good thing eating could no longer defile a man, according to no less an authority than Jesus Christ.] [sounds like an ironclad case to shut up about food and drink- which, according to you, somehow includes transfusions, since that supposedly was what was included in the OLD rules that included food and drink.] [You seem reluctant to actually post the relevant verses...]starbird x x x Romans 14 The Weak and the Strong 1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written: " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' "[a] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. 13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. 19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. 22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. =========== Romans 14 Principles of Conscience 1Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2©One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5(I)One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. 9For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. 10But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For (Q)we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11For it is written, "®AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD." 12So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God. 13Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way. 14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 16Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19So thenwe pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. 2-Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. 21It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin. ================= Romans 14 New International Version (NIV) Romans 14 The Weak and the Strong 1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written: " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' " 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. 13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. 19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. 22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. New International Version (NIV) Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society New American Standard Bible (NASB) Romans 14 Principles of Conscience 1Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2©One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to (F)judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. 9For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. 10But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11For it is written, "®AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD." 12So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God. 13Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way. 14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 16Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. 20Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. 21It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 22The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he whodoes not condemn himself in what he approves. 23But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin. =================== New King James Version (NKJV) Romans 14 The Law of Liberty 1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. 5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and roseand lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.11 For it is written: “ As I live, says the LORD, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God.” 12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way. 14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these thingsis acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.22 Do you have faith?Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. ================= [There you have it in 3 different versions. "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is NOTHING UNCLEAN OF ITSELF." Looks like attempts to twist the verses to get them to reverse and disallow something taken into the body are a failure.]

If that's not "THE TICK", I've no idea what it could be.

I believe I have the artists, but I can't cudgel up the song title yet.

Relevant verses? 1 Corinthians 14:32-33 New American Standard Bible (NASB) "32and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; 33for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." New King James Version (NKJV) "32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. " New International Version (NIV) "32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints," The prophet (the one who speaks for God) remains in control, and is not possessed, under the control of, slain by, nor otherwise the puppet of, The Spirit. If a bunch of people make a ruckus of a church meeting, that's not God's fault- he's not a God of confusion or disorder. I Corinthians 14:40. New American Standard Bible (NASB) "40 But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner." New King James Version (NKJV) "40 Let all things be done decently and in order." New International Version (NIV) "40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way." Having a meeting devolve into a session where people are barking, laughing, swinging their arms around, running around the room, throwing themselves on the floor, or slamming their head into the wall (I've heard examples of each) is not an orderly manner, and is neither fitting nor proper.

Are you saying you are unable to burn DVDs without Windows Vista?

By definition, that means you have no "abundance". According to twi's pamphlet "Christians Should be Prosperous" (which was often assigned to read as homework when beginning pfal), you're supposed to be prospering if you're giving them money. If you're giving them money and you are not prospering, then their doctrine does not work. As the mathematicians would write that, ~Q -> ~P.

A) You did not "jump too soon." Although there's a few people who still insist that their experiences in twi were the greatest things since sliced bread, nearly everybody who was ever exposed to it is happy to be out. B) Yes, the Belizean BRC people are an offshoot who is using the original materials from vpw. Here's a quick thumbnail of the life of vpw. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=218978 Specifically, they're using his taped pfal class, now converted to DVDs. C) Whether or not she's connected with the current twi, or some nostalgic offshoot that still adores vpw, she's NOT involved in something psychologically healthy, ESPECIALLY if it's still lauding vpw to the skies. (The man plagiarized while claiming to produce books based on a connection with God, drugged and raped women, set up a structure to cover his tracks when he drugged and raped women, often showed a toxic personality when not in public, chainsmoked and drank alcohol DAILY while complaining youths didn't know how to practice self-control, and sometimes taught harmful errors. He was well below the minimum standard for ANY kind of leader, let alone one purported to represent God.) D) Both twi and some groups that spun off from twi use leaders that were trained to command and bark orders and not tolerate free thinking and disagreement. Both twi and some offshoots see "crushing dissent" and "humiliating dissenters" as perfectly acceptable practices, especially once a veneer of godliness has been added to it. So, she won't be allowed to think, and when she gets sick and tired of being sick and tired, and tries to leave, they'll try to take her down emotionally and/or psychologically. In twi, it was common to try to convince people that they or their loved ones would drop dead if they left- they'd be a "greasespot by midnight". So, anticipate this. The practices are predictable, ungodly, and tiresome. But then, this hardly qualifies as news to many people. Feel free to send pm's to me or anyone else you think is making sense here. (The worst they can do is say "No, I don't want to talk to you.") Feel free to make up your own mind. If you don't think I or anyone else makes sense, hey, your conclusions. Feel free to reassess your conclusions if later events seem to support our claims.

So, theorizing and speculating time. Who thinks Sirius Black died and who thinks he's still alive? As far as the books go, we know he was last seen in the Death Room of the Dept of Mysteries, having passed thru the Veil/Arch. He was hit with an unvocalized Stunner, and shoved thru the passage. So, he was very much alive the instant before he went thru. We know it was a Stunner because Harry was watching the scene, and Harry's well aware of what a green spell means-only the AK has been demonstrated to be green. Bellatrix fires a red Stunner, misses, then fires another spell of unspecified colour, which shoves Sirius. Harry expected to see Sirius alive a moment later-and he knows full well what a green spell-the AK-does. If that really was the AK, and JKR NEGLECTED to give the colour and Harry's response didn't reflect that, JKR made a mistake more fundamental than I'm prepared to accept her making. She's mortal, but she's not moronic. Every use of the AK is carefully placed in the series. Would a single non-AK kill Sirius? No. Sirius was in his 30s and in full health. He can weather one better than a Muggle of similar age and health. McGonagall, at her advanced age, takes 4 Stunners and needs medical attention-but that doesn't kill her either. (Book 5, during the Astronomy OWL.) So, he was alive unless the Arch/Veil killed him. And if he's alive, he'll be seen again in Book 7. (Otherwise, there's no point in him not dying.) So, Sirius: alive or dead?

Married with kids. Read her website, and you'll learn about the writer the fastest. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en Among other things, she's corrected a rumour about her husband. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rubbi...n_view.cfm?id=2 "Section: Rubbish Bin Symbol(s): Recycled, Pure Garbage Dr. Neil Murray 'gives up work' Last year several newspaper stories alleged that my husband had given up work, presumably to sit at home and watch me write. This is one of those stories that make me angry, because they hurt my family. We asked the newspapers who had printed the misinformation to correct the story, which they did. However, an article has recently appeared in which Neil is yet again described as not working. So... and hopefully for the last time... Neil has NEVER given up work and continues to practise as a doctor in Edinburgh. All rights reserved JK Rowling."

*wild guess* "Lost in Space"?

It's a common sentiment... now have I ever heard these exact lyrics, or just something similar? *thinks*

"Mudd's Women"! They made Mc Coy's scanners go "bleep"! (BTW, the "wife of a Caesar" comment I made was a reference to "Mirror Mirror".)

I always wait for something corroborating. JKR herself said only 3 sources are to be trusted for HP news: JKR herself Scholastic or Bloomsbury, the book publishers Warner Brothers, on the movies http://www.movieweb.com/news/97/17397.php Thursday, February 1st, 2007 "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J.K. Rowling, the seventh and final book in the best-selling series, has been scheduled for release at 12:01 a.m. on July 21, 2007, it was announced today by Scholastic, the global children's publishing, education and media company. In making the announcement, Lisa Holton, President of Scholastic Children's Books said, "We are thrilled to announce the publication date of the seventh installment in this remarkable series. We join J.K. Rowling's millions of readers -- young and old, veterans and newcomers -- in anticipating what lies ahead." Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, J.K. Rowling's sixth Harry Potter book, was released on July 16, 2005, and was the fastest-selling book in history, selling 6.9 million copies in the first 24 hours. All six Harry Potter books, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince have been number one bestsellers in the United States, the U.K., and around the world. There are currently over 120 million copies of the Harry Potter books in print in the United States alone. Scholastic will publish Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (ISBN: 0- 545-01022-5 ; Price: $34.99) in hardcover under the Arthur A. Levine imprint with interior and cover art by Mary GrandPre, who has illustrated the previous six books. The deluxe edition (ISBN: 0-545-02937-6; Price: $65.00) and reinforced library edition (ISBN: 0-545-02936-8 ; Price: $39.99 ) will be published simultaneously." Oh, you meant it was JKR's site. (RK???) http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=97 "Section: News Thursday 1 February 2007 Publication Date for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows will be published on Saturday 21st July 2007 at 00:01 BST in the UK and at 00:01 in the USA. It will also be released at 00:01 BST on Saturday 21st July in other English speaking countries around the world. All rights reserved JK Rowling."

Bingo.

For free, here's the worst offenders of the misconceptions I hear. 1) Dumbledore survived or will return. No, JKR's been very specific. He is definitely dead, and will not be "doing a Gandalf." 2) JKR said exactly 2 characters die in Book 7. No. She said she changed part of the story, so 1 character who was slated to die, will live instead, and 2 characters who were slated to live, will die instead. So, 2 MORE characters will die. Since the plot was worked out long in advance, such a change obviously does NOT refer to Harry or Voldy. (If they die, they were planned to since Book 1 was out.) 3) JKR said she's going to kill off Harry so there will be no sequels. No. She said there will be no sequels. 7 books and the story is over. Possibly, there may be an 8th book for charity like "Quidditch Through the Ages" and "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" as a sort of sourcebook for the series, and possibly footnotes on "whatever happened to" characters after Book 7. As for Harry, she was asked about killing him off. She said she understood why some writers kill off the character, to prevent a sequel. If anything, one might suspect she was disagreeing with them, which suggests Harry survives. (Meanwhile, I use the OTHER quote to point to his survival.)

Since I think you'll find it useful, here's something I posted elsewhere. August 1, 2006, JKR did a public appearance with John Grisham and Stephen King. Someone made a transcript of the whole thing, divided into 3 parts. I took all 3 parts, and stripped out all the lines that related to JKR in any way, then reposted them together as one document. I left them labelled as A, B, C rather than parts I, II, III, so if you want to see if I'm lying, you can go look for all 3 parts and know which part to check. This settled a number of nagging questions, IMHO. So, here's the relevant quotes. ======================== Excerpts from 8-1-06 JKR Press Conference. From A: JKR:"I always planned seven books, and I planned this particular ending, and if I get through it and do what I meant to do when I first committed to this story, then I'll be proud. Audience member question (paraphrased): Why did Dumbledore have to die [asked by TIME for Kids representative] Rowling: I did an interview last year in which I was asked this question. In the genre in which I'm writing, you usually find that the hero has to go on alone. There comes a point when his support falls away and to be truly heroic he has to act alone. Harry is not completely alone, he still has his two faithful sidekicks. This was summarized for me by the person who asked the question with, you mean the old wizard always gets it, and that fundamentally, that is what I was saying. I was as trying to dress it up a little better than that. So that's why. In these sort of epic sagas, the hero eventually has to fight alone. Audience member question (paraphrased): Have there been any changes to what you initially planned out? Rowling: It is different to an extent. The essential plot is what I always planned when working toward the end I've planned toward the beginning. But a couple of characters I expected to survive have died and one character got a reprieve, so there have been some fairly major changes I suppose. ========================== From B: Nina: I just wanted to know what Hermione would see if she looked into the Mirror of Erised? J.K. Rowling: Well -- (crowd laughs and applauds) -- at the moment, as you know, Harry, Ron, and Hermione have just finished their penultimate year at Hogwarts and Hermione and Ron have told Harry that they're going to go with him wherever he goes next. So at the moment I think that Hermione would see most likely the three of them alive and unscathed and Voldemort finished. But I think that Hermione would also see herself closely entwined with...another...person (crowd roars and applauds loudly). I think you can probably guess. Thank you, very good question. I've never been asked that before. Now we have another. Unknown (1): Can muggles brew potions if they follow the exact instructions and they have all of the ingredients? J.K. Rowling: Well, I'd have to say no. Because there is always a magical component in the potion. Not just the ingredients so at some point they will have to use a wand. I've been asked what would happen if a muggle picked up a magic wand in my world and the answer would probably be something accidental and probably quite violent because the wand in my world is merely a vehicle or a vessel of sorts and there is a very close relationship as you know between the wand that each wizard uses and themselves. And you'll find out more about that in book 7 (crowd applauds). For a muggle you need the ability, in other words, to make these things work properly but you're right and I think that's an interesting point. As Potions seems on the face of it to be the most muggle-friendly subject. But there's normally a point in which you need to use magic. Thank you, good question. Unknown (2): First I just want to say happy belated birthday! J.K. Rowling: Oh thank you! Unknown (2): You said in a recent interview that Snape -- J.K. Rowling: Snape! Unknown (2): Uh huh (crowd applauds and screams) -- had a sort of redemptive quality about him, and I was wondering if there was any chance that Draco Malfoy might redeem himself? J.K. Rowling: All you girls and Draco Malfoy (crowd applauds). You've got to get past this. Unknown (2): And if any other characters might redeem themselves? J.K. Rowling: Well, I believe that almost anyone can redeem themselves. However, in some cases, as we know from reality -- if a psychologist were ever able to get Voldemort in a room, tape him down, take his wand away, I think he would be classified as a psychopath (crowd laughs). So there are people for whom redemption is not possible. So I'd say for my main characters, yes, there's the possibility for redemption for all of them. Draco I think -- Harry's view is that even given unlimited time would not have killed -- I'm assuming you all have read book 6 by now (crowd laughs), because I don't want to here a child cry that he was five pages away from the end -- let's just say that Draco would not have murdered the person in question. What that means for Draco's future, you will have to wait for. Samantha: In the wizarding world there are many wandmakers, Ollivander's being the one we're most familiar with. How come Ollivander chose the three magical cores for the wands he makes to be phoenix feather, unicorn hair, and dragon heartstring? And how come he decided that these are the three most powerful cores as opposed to others such as veela hair? J.K. Rowling: Good question. Well, it is true that there are several wandmakers and in my notes about Harry I have many different cores for wands. Essentially I decided Ollivander was going to use my three favorites. So Ollivander has decided that those are the three most powerful substances. Other wandmakers might choose things that are particular to their country because countries as you know in my world have their own particular indigenous magical species so veela hair was kind of obvious for Fleur's wand. But um, yeah, good question. I've never had that one before (crowd applauds). Todd: You mentioned before in the video that you had written the final chapter, but umm, how do you know when to stop writing an ending? J.K. Rowling: How do I know when to stop? Todd: How do you know when to stop, yeah? J.K. Rowling: Well I think some of the reviews of Phoenix suggest that I didn't know when to stop ha ha (crowd laughs). Well, I decided, you know, sixteen years ago, or thereabouts where I was going. And I will say, I'm quite a long way into writing book seven now. And there's a lot still to explain. I hadn't really realized... There's still a lot to find out, and there's a lot to figure out... and I'll probably leave some loose ends hanging that you'll be able to say, "Oh, well, in book eight, she'll explain why" (crowd screams approval). "You mentioned the toad!" That's not significant, by the way, just to save myself 500 letters. "You mentioned the toad!" Yes, but I do know where I'm going, I really do know where I'm going. I'm really going to miss writing Harry Potter; I will miss it fiendishly. Twenty-seven? Any thoughts on twenty-seven? (crowd laughs). No, I've plotted it out, and I think you'd start to see that I was running out of plot if I pushed it past this (crowd applauds). Stephen King: We'd like to take a few more questions and I'd like you to welcome the moderator who's going to [unintelligible] her name is Soledad O'Brien. ================= From C: JKR: I notice you like Snape. Just never give up hope you people, do you? Christina: My name is Christina and I'm 13 years old and from Staten Island, New York. If you could bring one Harry Potter character to life, other than Harry, who would it be? JK Rowling: If I could bring somebody to life? Christina: Other than Harry. JK Rowling: Other than Harry. Umm, personally, although it's a really tricky one, Hagrid. If I could have anyone (crowd applauds). Because I think - I think we'd all like a Hagrid in our life. Liability though he often is. It would be really great if I met a fundamentalist Christian, to say, "Would you like to discuss the matter with Hagrid?" (crowd laughs and applauds). Unknown (1): I'm 18 years old and I'm from New York. My question is, in Half-Blood Prince, Aunt Petunia is said to be oddly flushed when Dumbledore announces that Harry will be returning only once more to Privet Drive. Does this mean that Aunt Petunia harbors a hidden love or fondness for Harry and the connection he provides her to the wizarding world? (crowd laughs and applauds). JK Rowling: That's an excellent question (crowd laughs). And like all the best and most penetrating questions, it's difficult to answer. But, I will say this. There is a little more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye and you will find out what that is in book seven (crowd roars and applauds). Cory Mayer: My name's Cory Mayer and I'm 9 years old and I'm from Bordentown, New Jersey. I absolutely love your books. I'm not a big reader but your books make me want to read and that makes my mom happy (crowd and JK Rowling laugh). She loves your books too. In a recent interview you hinted at two main characters dying and possibly Harry Potter too. Was Dumbledore considered one of the main characters or will we have the chance to see him in action once again? Since he is the most powerful wizard of all time and Harry Potter is so loyal to him, how could he really be dead? JK Rowling: Ohhhhhhhh (Jo puts her head in her arms and crowd cheers and applauds). I feel terrible (crowd laughs). The British writer Graham Green once said that every writer had to have a chip of ice in their heart. Oh no (Jo says half weeping while crowd laughs). I think you may just have ruined my career (crowd laughs). Umm, I really can't answer that question because the answer is in book seven but ... you shouldn't expect Dumbledore to do a Gandalf. Let me just put it that way. I'm sorry (crowd moans and applauds). Salman and Milan Rushdie: Hello. We are Salman and Milan Rushdie (crowd applauds). Umm - JK Rowling: I'm not that sure this is fair (crowd laughs). I think you might be better at guessing plots than most. But anyway, off you go. Salman and Milan Rushdie: We are 9 and 59. And one of us is good at guessing plots, not me. And this is really Milan's question and it's kind of a follow up to the previous one. JK Rowling: Alright. Okay. Salman and Milan Rushdie: Until the events of Volume 6, it was always made plain that Snape might have been an unlikable fellow but he was essentially one of the good guys (crowd screams approval). JK Rowling: I can see this is the question you all really want answered. Salman and Milan Rushdie: Dumbledore himself - Dumbledore himself had always vouched for him. JK Rowling: Yes. Salman and Milan Rushdie: Now we are suddenly told that Snape is a villain and Dumbledore's killer. JK Rowling: Un hunh. Salman and Milan Rushdie: We cannot, or don't want to believe this (crowd laughs). Our theory is that Snape is in fact, still a good guy (crowd applauds). From which it follows that Dumbledore can't really be dead and that the death is a ruse cooked up between Dumbledore and Snape to put Voldemort off his guard so that when Harry and Voldemort come face to face (crowd laughs). Harry may have more allies than he or Voldemort suspects. So, is Snape good or bad? (crowd laughs, applauds and screams and Jo chuckles). In our opinion, everything follows from it. JK Rowling: Well, Salman, your opinion, I would say is ... right. But I see that I need to be a little more explicit and say that Dumbledore is definitely ... dead (crowd gasps). 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 (crowd laughs). But I think I need - you need - all of you need to move through the five stages of grief (crowd laughs), and I'm just helping you get past denial. So, I can't remember what's next. It may be anger so I think we should stop it here. Thank you (crowd applauds). Stephen King: That's a good idea (crowd laughs and applauds) I'll tell you what. I think our idea of what scares us changes as we get older. As a young person, one of the scariest things I ever read was Lord of the Flies. Because of the idea of those kids turning feral just scared the dickens outta me. Sometimes you get surprised into fright. When I picked up the Harry Potter books, I was not prepared for the depth of some of the frightening passages in there. Frankly, I was surprised by how scary the deatheaters were (crowd applauds) So there was plenty of scary stuff there. You know I've read a range of modern scary stuff. I try to keep up with the competitors (crowd laughs) The deatheaters - deatheaters are good. JK Rowling: I scared Stephen King! (crowd applauds) Stephen King: You scared Stephen King. Yeah. I hope you're proud of yourself! JK Rowling: Oh, I'm very proud of myself! Thank you yes I am! (crowd laughs) Martha Hoover: Good evening. Thank you. It has been an honor. This evening my question for you is, what is the one question your fans have never asked you, and should have? (crowd laughs and applauds). JK Rowling: Oh, God (crowd laughs). How can I answer that? I can think of a couple of things that give away the ending of book seven (crowd laughs). Having got this far ... having got 16 years down the line, I kind of feel that would throw it away (crowd laughs). For me, anyway, having put the effort in. I think that I've been asked excellent questions, it's just that the final book contains a couple of pieces of information that I don't think you could guess at. So umm - I would umm - I'm sorry. You see, people think that it's all so fixed in my head. It's not that obsessively plotted out. For example, this afternoon I believe I changed my mind on the title of book seven (crowd oohhs). Having been quite convinced that I had the title, I suddenly thought, "No, that would be better, wouldn't it?" in the shower just before coming out here, so - (crowd laughs). But you know what, I'm not going to tell you either version, because I don't - (crowd groans). Oh, come on! Now really! Have I not given you enough? I gave you Aunt Petunia. I told you Dumbledore is really (Jo moves finger across neck). So, I am trying to give something to you. Anyway. I'm sorry. I suppose it's that question. Everyone's really pleased you asked that question. It's me who's let everyone down, not you. sorry (crowd sighs and applauds). Soledad O'Brien: I'm going to pose the final question to you and I'd like all three of you to take a stab at it. You can do it in any order that you would like. If you were to have dinner with any five characters from any of your books -- take a moment to think about it -- who would you invite, and why would they be on your list? Any order. JK Rowling: Well I'd take Harry, to apologize to him (crowd laughs). Um, I'd have to take Harry, Ron and Hermione. JK Rowling: I would - this is - (crown shouts suggestions). JK Rowling: See, I know who's actually dead. JK Rowling: Pretend I can take anyone? Well then I would definitely take Dumbledore. I'd take Dumbledore, Harry, Ron, Hermione...and.. (crowd shouts characters) um, Hagrid. I'd take Hagrid, yeah. And Owen because he wouldn't take up much space (crowd laughs). ====================== A number of us, once I pointed out that closing comment, interpret it as follows. She was asked to name 5 characters to have dinner with. She names 3, then pauses, saying she knows who's actually dead. Then she found out she can invite characters who are dead, so she names Dumbledore. What that suggests is that she thought she could only invite characters who survive to the end of the series, and named Harry, Ron and Hermione. Therefore, all 3 of them survive. All bets are off on everyone else.

============ Well, we gave you a chance to make your case, without just cut-and-pasting, or replying solely in links. You have elected to avoid speaking for yourself, and have elected to dodge when plain questions called for plain speaking. We're not interested in what you have to sell. We've given you the benefit of the doubt, and you've had time to give us data to form an opinion. We've formed opinions. Most people would consider persisting here a waste of time, since we are now disinterested in your sales pitch, and the returns are "diminishing returns." However, if you really, really want to persist, we can do so. Just don't have the nerve to be surprised when you reap what you've been sowing (as opposed to what you MEANT to sow.)

Well, since the third date set (1918 was the third year when the Apocalypse was predicted, and 1975 was the fourth), the world still seems to be moving along. This is an incredibly slow Apocalypse. If you're looking for converts, this is the wrong p[ace. We're pretty convert-resistant, have been burned before ("once bitten, twice shy") and have little interest in having our heads shaved again or any other cult initiation. Nevertheless, if you really want to dance this dance, by all means, I'll call for the orchestra.....

Just because she HAS friends (here) and you don't is no reason to be a'hatin'.

BTW, this is a digression, but I thought you might want to look this over. This is a set of links about the "fat" thing. JKR said this, and it started the discussion. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extra..._view.cfm?id=22 Then suddenly this popped up in her "Rubbish Bin"- someone claimed JKR was hypocritical in her previous comments! http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rubbi..._view.cfm?id=14 We missed something important! Ok, here is the article-which is what we missed... in 3 links: http://www.mugglenet.com/viewer/?image_loc...lscans/MoS1.jpg http://www.mugglenet.com/viewer/?image_loc...lscans/MoS2.jpg http://www.mugglenet.com/viewer/?image_loc...s/DailyMail.jpg All of that prompted a MuggleNet editorial, seen here: http://www.mugglenet.com/infosection/opinion/fatfem.shtml which prompted many responses, which prompted this followup from MuggleNet... http://www.mugglenet.com/infosection/opinion/fatfem2.shtml Which explains what showed up in her Rubbish Bin. Me, I think the sloppy newspaper writer was careless enough to confuse the movie for the book. When junior high school students do that in a book report, it's bad. When a professional does this, it's unforgiveable. That was the Daily Mail, which is supposedly a respectable newspaper, if not, say, the Wall St Journal or the NY Times. He's unfamiliar with the books he's criticizing, and based his criticism on the MOVIES based on the books. As any HP fan (or LotR fan) can tell him, there can be BIG differences between the two. JKR has NO control over casting. Says so on her website. JKR's sole involvement in casting was being asked if she had ANY recommendations before Movie 1 was cast, and she said "Robbie Coltrane for Hagrid." "Hollywood" has made the characters pretty or handsome by casting pretty or handsome actors. The only characters we really know the weights on- and are either thin or fat- are Harry in Book 1 (who is malnourished), Hagrid (he's big, and carries extra weight, but well), Dudley (who's fat but loses weight by Book 5), Petunia (who's THIN), and one other. It's very interesting that Madame Maxime is supposed to be big in every dimension- but the actress cast is THIN. So, that one is the OPPOSITE of what JKR did. Remember Book 4? Maxime told Hagrid that she was "big-boned"? That's the favourite response of some people who are fat- "I'm not fat-I'm big-boned." (Cartman's made that a mantra..) Harry pretty much confirmed she's not thin... "Only thing with bigger bones than her is a dinosaur." So, blame the directors, but not JKR.

Boggles my mind that parents would consider that class- complete with the pictures of naked people thru a considerable portion of that class- was acceptable to have a 12-year-old girl to attend, let along RECOMMEND she take it. This, to me, ranks up there with the live CFS classes when vpw showed the pornographic movie of the 2 women doing stuff to that dog, and there were under-18s in attendance.

Raised on page 1, and still not addressed except to say it was addressed while still not actually ADDRESSING it. That would be novel. See, this is a DISCUSSION forum. We DISCUSS stuff here, not just post links of OTHER people's opinions or discussions. Dodging issues or ignoring them is not the same as DISCUSSING, which is what we do here. Links are fine as PARTS of discussion, but are not SUBSTITUTES for discussion. (I really don't think I'm unreasonable when I say this, and I don't get why some people think I am, unless their standards aren't reasonable.)

We can use any song from any era. I guess 1965 works just as well as 1970. Besides, I gave my opinion. If 1965 works better, great. Besides, anybody can post from any song. I've posted oldies because I knew some of the others would appreciate it. The only rule we've pretty-much agreed on was AIRPLAY. If people post songs nobody ever had a chance to hear on the air, then it's unfair to expect them to know them. I don't post songs I've only heard in my music collection for that reason, and others have agreed. That having been said, any song or any line is still fair game. We don't have to vote on that. (And we don't get to vote on what my OPINION should be, nor should we. )