Harry Potter Book VII Coming July 21!

So Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows is coming. Does anyone think that Harry will die?

I totally think he will have to die in order to kill Voldemort. Voldemort left a piece of himself in Harry and he can never die unless Harry dies as well.

Also, is Snape good or evil? I personally think that Doumbledore asked Snape to kill him.

All I know is that at midnight on the 21st I'll be in line dressed up just like for every other Harry Potter Book release

Yes I'm a geek feel free to make fun of me

http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs....NESS/702020319

Who's Harry Potter?

I have an 11 year old, I'll be in line at midnight.


Enjoy,
Marka

John Hogan wrote: Who's Harry Potter?

Only the best book on earth!!!!!!

I have to say that I'm not a Harry Potter fan. Sure, I like the genre (fantasy), and I have nothing against children's fiction (I'm a big fan of that, too...I loved the Bartimaeus trilogy by Jonathon Stroud, and I am reading the 2nd book of "Abarat," by Clive Barker), but think about the message behind a lot of Harry Potter plotlines. Most of the time, Harry & Co manage to win the big contests (and there always seems to be some big contest, ever to "prove" who's the "best" at something or other) and make all the ovations...by hard work, diligence, and sticking to the rules?

Nope, the opposite. Rowlings' antagonists are the ones who seem to abide by the rules, and yet curiously, Harry and his cohorts get the lauds for cheating, backsliding, and going against school procedures.

OK, sure, there's a long tradition of anti-heroes in fantasy genre, but I think that Rowlings makes the point too well, that to survive in Harry's world, you have to be a sneaky, cunning rulebreaker with a handsome face, that "school spirit" and competition are positive factors in human behavior (not a thing I learned in MY High School, that's for sure).

Or at least, have a best friend who's handsome, sneaky and cunning. All just IMO, of course.

Just out of curiosity have you read the books?

Yeah I do see where the bad guys seem to follow all the rules and the good guys break them, but there is that old saying that rules are meant to be broken. I think the message is more that you should follow what you know is right even if it means breaking a few rules. You have to admit, most of the times they break the rules they do it because they are trying to save mankind and stuff. And I mean if Rolling created characters that always adhered to the rules and never screwed up would they be very believable. The archetype of the teenager is not that of a goodie two shoes. As a college student I can honestly say that I don't exactly abide by every rule/law but I also don't go around mugging people so props to me.

As for a handsome face, well if you read the fifth and sixth books they are way less than handsome. I think Rolling portrays them as being even more awkward and icky than most teenaged boys. Again, I think she is going for the whole it's what's inside that counts.

Funny that I should say that after discussing my belief that a little bit of Voldemort is inside Harry

Rosemary Wulf wrote: Just out of curiosity have you read the books?

Rofl. OK, you caught me. I read the first and part of the second: and followed all the movies, so far.

Yeah I do see where the bad guys seem to follow all the rules and the good guys break them, but there is that old saying that rules are meant to be broken. I think the message is more that you should follow what you know is right even if it means breaking a few rules. You have to admit, most of the times they break the rules they do it because they are trying to save mankind and stuff.

OK, but the ends never justify the means.

And I mean if Rolling created characters that always adhered to the rules and never screwed up would they be very believable.

No, I want to see Harry screw up, make mistakes, break the rules. But I want to see some of the bad guys win a few once in awhile, when they play by the rules. It would make for a little more complexity to her world.

Funny that I should say that after discussing my belief that a little bit of Voldemort is inside Harry

But, don't you understand the danger you're inviting, just reading those books??

Why, you're practically inviting SATAN-N-N-N-n-n-n-n...n. into your house!!

Neil, loved the link!! Nice to see that people can have their iron faith rattled by a work of fiction.

James Ashby wrote: Neil, loved the link!! Nice to see that people can have their iron faith rattled by a work of fiction.

It'll be fun to see what they make of Philip Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' trilogy if it gains popularity after the film. (Somehow I suspect the film won't deal with certain things quite the same way, though perhaps I'll be surprised.)

Much better than Harry Potter, imo.

you have to be a sneaky, cunning rulebreaker with a handsome face

Ahh, the real world

Interesting point of view for the books Neil.
I've heard religious types go off on tangents about them but I think your points on harry and co breaking the rules being sneaky and compititions are pretty good.
Lets face it though, Aikido is probably thee only medium I can think of that isn't competitive todday, we're kinda out on our own on that one.

Still really get a kick out of religious groups getting all rhiled up over these videos.
*I* played dungeons and dragons as a kid, you don't see ME doing anything violent do you?
*shakes head*

Sean Orchard wrote: It'll be fun to see what they make of Philip Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' trilogy if it gains popularity after the film.

Film? When? Loved the books.

Bronson

I don't care what anybody thinks of the books, but seeing so many kids actually reading is pretty cool to me. I mean there are so many World of War Craft addicts who pretty much spend more time on that game than the real world. I'd rather see kids reading HP than spending hours raiding the dungeon of the dwarf city or whatever.

Neil

I have always been impressed by your postings in the past but your assertion that

"the ends never justify the means". is quite probaly the dumbest thing you have ever written, it's the sort of really ignorant thing ... a certain other poster would say.

The ends undoubtely DO sometimes justify the means.

After all would it be wrong to say that the ends of protecting law abiding citizens from violent assault through the existence of police?

Would you say the end of treating peoples illness does not justify the education and training of doctors and nurses?

Would you say that the ends of being able to personally defend yourself from a violent attack do not justify training in a martial art like say...Aikido.

I think perhaps the point you are making is that the ends NEVER jusitfy ANY/ALL MEANS.

And to put things in perspective are you saying that Ghandi's 'passive resistance' to the British rule in India and Marin Luther King Jr's then unlawful actions were also unjustifed.

So there are clearly times when breaking the rules (and even the law) have been recognised as the right thing to do.

Anyway back to Harry Potter

1. - the main charecters is childrens (and adult) adventure stories are almost always the ones who break the rules.

2. - with competitions Harry is never lauded for cheating (deliberately breaking the rules for his own or his teams benefit) - in any single competion.

3. - He has been praised for doing what he believes to be right (rescuing his friends etc), unsually at great personal risk - even if it means breaking the rules.

4. - Also note that as far back as the first book other charecters have been praised for doing what they believed was right (even if it was against what Harry wanted).

5. - It has been put forward very powerfully (by Prof Lupin) that he is not justified in simply 'doing what he damn well pleases'. And even more powerfully through the death of Sirus Black

PS - I do also think that maybe, just maybe, things like murder, letting violent creatures loose against schoolchildren (Book 1), entrancing someone for the purpose of murder and resurection (Book 2), trying to reduce an innocent man into a brainless vegetable and have an animal put down from sheer spite, (Book 3), commiting kidnapping and murder (again!!) (Book 4), treason and more murder (book 5) and trying to murder you headmaster and conspire to allow dangerous crimals to take over a school (book 6)

Could perhaps, if viewed in the correct light, be regarded as being BAD things and maybe even against the rules.

And as far as His Dark Materials being better - that seems like an 'apples and oranges' sort or comparison given one is an outright adventure story and the other uses an adventure story to expore some intersestign concepts (including the Republic of Heaven)

David Chalk wrote: Neil I have always been impressed by your postings in the past but your assertion that "the ends never justify the means". is quite probaly the dumbest thing you have ever written, it's the sort of really ignorant thing ... a certain other poster would say. The ends undoubtely DO sometimes justify the means.

We can agree to disagree.

After all would it be wrong to say that the ends of protecting law abiding citizens from violent assault through the existence of police?

So, what means are needed to be justified, here? Keyword, "justification."

Would you say the end of treating peoples illness does not justify the education and training of doctors and nurses? Would you say that the ends of being able to personally defend yourself from a violent attack do not justify training in a martial art like say...Aikido. I think perhaps the point you are making is that the ends NEVER jusitfy ANY/ALL MEANS.

Why do you need to "justify" training in Aikido, becoming a doctor or nurse, or organizing a police dept?

Justify

1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: justified each budgetary expense as necessary; anger that is justified by the circumstances. 2. To declare free of blame; absolve. 3. To free (a human) of the guilt and penalty attached to grievous sin. Used of God.

The emphasis seems to be on proving that you're absolved of blame or penalty for doing questionably moral actions. I do not need to be "absolved of blame" for training in Aikido, or to be a doctor.

Princess Rose wrote: I think the message is more that you should follow what you know is right even if it means breaking a few rules. You have to admit, most of the times they break the rules they do it because they are trying to save mankind and stuff.

Name ONE despot in all of history who DIDN'T think that he was doing some horrible thing or another for "the greater good." They ALL rationalize that their end-goal justifies the means of getting there. I've heard this fractured logic used for apologizing for everything from torture, to nuclear weapons.

Heck, you could even rationalize slavery as being ultimately "good," with this logic. After all, without slavery, America might not have gotten off the ground. The landed gentry who arrived here didn't want to work; the indentured servants were around only a dozen years or so and then they were free; and the Indians were unmanagable as slaves...so who was going to do the work? SOMEONE needed to do the work, or the colonies would have failed, right at the starting gate.

A slave-owner in the 19th Century might well have mouthed the same tortured rationale, to apologize for his livelihood. So, I was saying that breaking the rules is not justified by doing it simply because you know you're doing the right thing.

And to put things in perspective are you saying that Ghandi's 'passive resistance' to the British rule in India and Marin Luther King Jr's then unlawful actions were also unjustifed.

Nope. You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it was unjustified: I said that you could not justify your actions, merely by the results.

Gandhi COULD justify his actions by claiming a higher moral ground, that his passive resistance was not hurting anyone while British colonial rule is. But that's not claiming that some rosy future will clear all the wrongs you've done to get there. It's taking the issue of wrongdoing and placing it squarely in the present, where it belongs. Claiming that the "ends justify the means" is absolving all blame in the present, in service of some (possibly) far-off goal in the future.

So there are clearly times when breaking the rules (and even the law) have been recognised as the right thing to do.

Yes, breaking the law (and the rules) IS sometimes right thing to do. But, the 'right-ness' of your goal alone is never a good defence. This form of rationalization could be applied to all kinds of disreputable behavior. In sum it becomes an apology.

If I had a dollar for every time I read some defence of invading Iraq "because it will all work out for the Iraqi's, in the end," I'd be a rich man. Pinochet, no doubt, claimed that the disappearances in his murderous regime were justified, under similar, misplaced logic.

And I have little doubt that some of those interrogators working at Gitmo at this very moment calm their troubled nerves by mouthing that the "ends justify the means" to themselves, before nodding off to sleep.

Breaking the rules MAY WELL BE the "right" thing to do at times, but you need more than that. Sure, it's perfectly OK to break the law and resist the order to desist and block traffic...but you need more than that to justify your disturbing the peace. You need some rationale as to why the present condition cannot stand.

Perhaps some law is being broken (i.e., ppl illegally tortured, detained or sent to Syria), at that moment that needs a different direction. OK, no problem there. But, to suggest that the ultimate release of Gitmo prisoners is a proper justification for ALL SORTS of illegal behaviors (i.e., it's OK to create a civil disturbance to free the prisoners; but is it OK to kill someone to free them? According to "the ends, justifying the means," it is).

The ONLY time I've ever heard the ends absolutely justifying the means is what we in the States call "Good Samaritan" laws, i.e., a person knocking on a stranger's door and seeing an unconscious person inside cannot be charged with forced entry, if s/he breaks in and saves the person's life. But that all takes place in the immediate present...if you don't break the law NOW, someone might die.

There's an element of snap-judgement and timing missing in the machinations of H. Potter. Harry isn't often punished because he makes a snap decision for good ends. He's often punished (and he often gets punished, but the punishments almost seem more of an inducement to try even more devious stratagems) because his web of deceit catches up with him.

Anyway back to Harry Potter 1. - the main charecters is childrens (and adult) adventure stories are almost always the ones who break the rules.

Yes, and no.

Again, I have no problems with rulebreakers. You're right, Frodo, Ged, Winnie the Pooh...heck, Jack and the Beanstalk were rulebreakers. But, Frodo suffered alienation from the Shire; Ged (from the Earthsea trilogy) suffered for his rulebreaking by being hounded by his Shadow for a whole book; and Jack suffered through the scorn and banishment from his family.

No doubt, Harry & Co suffered, too: but in the end, the books seems to reward amoral and duplicitous behavior, while the ppl who toe the line are the ones left behind.

It's a curious message to be sending to kids.

2. - with competitions Harry is never lauded for cheating (deliberately breaking the rules for his own or his teams benefit) - in any single competion.

Wrong. At the end of the 1st book (as I recall), Harry & Co were explicitly rewarded for going around the rules.

4. - Also note that as far back as the first book other charecters have been praised for doing what they believed was right (even if it was against what Harry wanted).

And what about the antagonists? Aren't THEY doing what THEY think is right? Of course they are.

PS - I do also think that maybe, just maybe, things like murder, letting violent creatures loose against schoolchildren (Book 1), entrancing someone for the purpose of murder and resurection (Book 2), trying to reduce an innocent man into a brainless vegetable and have an animal put down from sheer spite, (Book 3), commiting kidnapping and murder (again!!) (Book 4), treason and more murder (book 5) and trying to murder you headmaster and conspire to allow dangerous crimals to take over a school (book 6) Could perhaps, if viewed in the correct light, be regarded as being BAD things and maybe even against the rules.

Do ya REALLY think so...?

Princess Rose wrote: don't care what anybody thinks of the books, but seeing so many kids actually reading is pretty cool to me. I mean there are so many World of War Craft addicts who pretty much spend more time on that game than the real world. I'd rather see kids reading HP than spending hours raiding the dungeon of the dwarf city or whatever.

True enough. If you like the books...great. Don't let anyone put you down over your literary preferences.

I first came to this realization of this theme after watching the 1st movie for the 2nd time. I was watching the climax, when Dumbledore announced who won the contest (always, always a contest to "prove" whose "better"), and there was a quick cut to Draco Malfoy & Co; and I began to realize that I was empathizing more with Malfoy than with the triumphant Harry. I mean, sure, Malfoy is a racist bigot, but he DID play by the rules as best he knows, and what is his reward?

Last place. Why? Because, Harry is "right." I started to think about this from a teacher's perspective. A teacher should not have "favorites," much less a whole school. And yet, this movie was suggesting the opposite, that if you cheat and tell yourself that you're the "good" guy, that all will be well.

Darn these 15 min timeouts!

David Chalk wrote: Marin Luther King Jr's then unlawful actions were also unjustifed.

Nope. In reading over King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail, his language is very much focused on the present, and the process it takes to get to negotiation:

You deplore the demonstrations taking place In Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative. In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action. We have gone through an these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation. You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

He NEVER says once in that letter that one day his illegal actions will be "justified:" the essence of his interest is very much in the present, focused upon expanding dialogue, instead of manifesting a prosaic, rosy future. The CLOSEST he comes to it is in the last few sentences in the quote: but even there, his "ultimate goal (opening the door to negotiation)" isn't really a goal at all, but more of an enhancement to an ongoing process.

James Ashby wrote: Neil, loved the link!! Nice to see that people can have their iron faith rattled by a work of fiction.

Yeah, that's one thing I like about the Harry Potter series.

But, for readers of "Chick" publications...I'd hardly describe their faith as composed of "iron..." more like something pliable, like soft plastic, or cheesy-doodle-shaped packing material.

Rosemary,

I think the books are great and I, too, am avidly awaiting the new one in July.

The books are well written. They're good literature and they'll join the likes of Narnia and Lord of the Rings, in my opinion.

The characters grapple with the consequences of their actions and there is a clear preference for doing good, very loosely defined as something we all know in our hearts and which we know when we violate.

I'm a Christian and I don't worry about the books. In fact, I started reading them because my daughter, then 11, started when the first book came out and I wanted to see what kind of ideas it contained. I think it's a great series and, as you said, it's great that it inspires kids to read.

Best to you and good luck with all.

David

Rosemary Wulf wrote: I don't care what anybody thinks of the books, but seeing so many kids actually reading is pretty cool to me. I mean there are so many World of War Craft addicts who pretty much spend more time on that game than the real world. I'd rather see kids reading HP than spending hours raiding the dungeon of the dwarf city or whatever.

David Orange wrote: Rosemary, I think the books are great and I, too, am avidly awaiting the new one in July. The books are well written. They're good literature and they'll join the likes of Narnia and Lord of the Rings, in my opinion.

Agreed. They are well written.

Neil

Interesting argument

My point is that the end do SOMETIMES justify the means - something that can be shown through the actions of Ghandi. But you must be clear on the ends and the means. By the way you definition of jusitfy "1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid:" is perfectly appropriate - it's called proportionality.

To say the ends justify ANY means is a very different kettle of fish indeed

Which makes it so surprising you are either unwilling or unable to understand that to appreciate that a blanket assertion that the ends do not justify the means is not only mistaken it is gibberish.

As far as competitions are concerned which one are you talking about - Quiddich - No, The Tri-Wizard Tournament - No, The inter-House Cup (Based on points awarded to the School Houses throughout the year ) - well if you are going to base your argument on that then you are going to ignore Snape constanly deducting points out of personal dislike (isn't that against the rules).

And given the books and film concentrate on Harry against Voldemort and his interactions - you can hardly call Malfoy an antagonist - just a little creep.

Still try His Dark Materials

Food for thought, from old-school geekiness: http://www.codepoet.org/~markw/DnD/a...iculation.html

David Chalk wrote: the end do SOMETIMES justify the means - something that can be shown through the actions of Ghandi. But you must be clear on the ends and the means. By the way you definition of jusitfy "1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid:" is perfectly appropriate - it's called proportionality. To say the ends justify ANY means is a very different kettle of fish indeed

Sorry, but from my (admittedly) meager understanding of Gandhi, he said no such thing about clarity of ends. In fact, this idea seems to violate one of his four basic principles:

A Summary of M.K. Gandhi's Technique for Political Action

Gandhi believed that means do not serve ends, rather means create ends. Thus, to attain an end that is positive and truthful, one must use means that are positive and truthful. This philosophy can be summarized by his statement, "the means are the ends in the making." Means that create ends have two interesting implications. First, one cannot define a just, non-violent end and then use unjust and violent means to attain it--for the end will be in character with the means used. This view precludes taking actions under the philosophy summarized in the statement "the ends justify the means"--a philosophy that seems to permeate current U.S. policy-making. Indeed, the "ends" being created by current government policy with regard to some drugs are very different than the officially stated goals. A second implication is that, while one must always be moving toward a goal of pure truth and justice, the end cannot be defined precisely in advance. Each action one takes creates the next action and that one, the next, each action always in keeping with the last and moving progressively closer to truth and justice. Through actively engaging with fellow activists and the opponent, one grows in understanding of what must be done, a step at a time, to create the most just and truthful end. The technique becomes dynamic when it succeeds in provoking internal change in the opponent. Thus the knowledge and understanding of both the activist and the opponent grow simultaneously toward truth and justice. However, the technique is not self-propelling; it is usually used in a context of a stagnant, inert, or deliberately destructive force and requires tremendous energy. The activist must constantly reassess the opponent's comprehension and adjust the program so that it is more than reactive to the opponent's change--every change must be viewed as an opportunity to press the campaign further forward.

The means create the means: they do not justify them.

Which makes it so surprising you are either unwilling or unable to understand that to appreciate that a blanket assertion that the ends do not justify the means is not only mistaken it is gibberish.

There is no "proportionality" in the statement "the ends justify the means." It's a deterministic statement...it implies that you know enough in the present to be able to offer up a defence of your actions, in the future. This is a logical fallacy. To even use the term "justify" is to imply that whatever means you use, lawful or unlawful, are defended by whatever ends you had in mind.

Sorry, but even in Gandhi's book, that's not right.

A good theory can come in handy in a tight corner

There is, in fact, a relatively well-worked-out theory of political action which covers exactly, as far as I can see, the questions raised by good journalism, obedience to the law, and the occasions when the two come into conflict. It has the powerful advantage that it annoys the hell out of ideologues of left and right alike and even gives many anarchists fits. It's the concept of civil disobedience as expounded by Mohandas K. Gandhi ("Mahatma" to his admirers). If an issue -- press freedom, say -- is important enough to you, you may break the law as a protest. Crucially, you take personal responsibility for your protest. If going to jail is the result, then it becomes, if it has any merit, the more powerful.

Suggesting that you are above the law merely because you know your cause to be right is a fallacy. Even if you KNOW your cause to be right--setting the prisoners free from Gitmo, for example--it's a specious argument to suggest that you ought to be set free upon arrest, because your hoped-for ends were "right," 91% of the prisoners are innocent, and Gitmo violates international law (all true).

The means determine the ends: they are not justified by them. Freeing the prisoners of Gitmo by breaking the law and blowing up the wall would, if successful, free some unfairly imprisoned people, but it would only offer a lesson to society that the best way to fight injustice is to be unjust, yourself.

And if you managed to free the prisoners thru violent methods and gain power yourself--in time, of course, you might even have to build a prison yourself, to detain the people who disagree with you...and society would not progress.

It's all right, though, you don't have to put flowers in your hair and skip off to levitate the Pentagon to use this rule. No more than common sense is needed. If you aim, for example, for some reason to propose that people in public life have a right to a private life, and the means you use are to recount all the nasty, nasty revelations made about their private lives -- then the end you arrive at is going to be the opposite of what you wanted.

Even the term--justify--has some legal implications, as if you have to defend your position before a magistrate, or a jury.

well if you are going to base your argument on that then you are going to ignore Snape constanly deducting points out of personal dislike (isn't that against the rules).

Sorry, but from where I grew up, it was considered cheating to go around the rules, whether or not your opponent chooses to cheat as well. There ARE other methods.

And given the books and film concentrate on Harry against Voldemort and his interactions - you can hardly call Malfoy an antagonist - just a little creep.

Yeah...a minor antagonist, at best.

Still try His Dark Materials

Definitely. And, I might suggest the incredible Bartimaeus trilogy, by Jonathon Stroud.

Robert Rumph wrote: Food for thought, from old-school geekiness: http://www.codepoet.org/~markw/DnD/...ticulation.html

Hmm...I came out "neutral good!" Is this thing even working properly??

Neil Mick wrote: Hmm...I came out "neutral good!" Is this thing even working properly??

Out of curiosity, which alignment would you think provided the most apt description of yourself?

On the bright side, you'd fit in at Hogwarts..

Robert Rumpf wrote: Out of curiosity, which alignment would you think provided the most apt description of yourself?

Rofl. In my old RPG days I used to love playing the most evil, nasty, chaotic-evil types.

But neutral-good fits is the closet alignment to describing the real me.

On the bright side, you'd fit in at Hogwarts..

Wouldn't that be fun, to visit?

Neil Mick wrote: Wouldn't that be fun, to visit?

Sure, until you got a puke flavored jellybean.

Neil i think you need to reread post seven. you have not read the books to form a truely educated oppinion. So what you have followed the movies, any who reads alot knows that the movies leave out grate amounts of detail and chuncks of the plotline.
Secondly to you and your friend, i think this thred is suposed to be for descussing the books, not gandhi marten luther king or any one else.
neil i also injoyed your quote about hp inviting the devel into your home, news flash the devel is everywhere. learn to think for your self, don't let a religious establishment tell you what you can and can't read.

p.s
i have read all the books and own all except book two at the moment, book seven will be very educational, i too wonder who will die.