Harry Potter is the devil (not really)

Originally posted by PulsusMeusGallo
reply to post by TwoEggz

 

Yes, I am familiar with the "journey" required to navigate The Red Hen's website

in that I had to copy n paste, print and rearrange in a cohesive order those printed pages to be able to keep her opinions inline with coherent thought.

She and I agree on much, disagree on some.

The Red Hen Mashup

Like James and Lilly Potter, unemployed are you not? Time is your essence. Oh ghod, of all the irrational stupidity. It’s small wonder the Gallus family is all but extinct.

Boyo, no one can follow tour fraud-timeline-debacle, no one, if you want understanding and the accolades you favour, best bet for you? Put something readable forth.

Try a nonverbal spell casting.

reply to post by TheRedHen


I agree. The timeline is necessary as is a Cast of Characters (Frauds), maybe in the form of a screenplay?

It wasn't your eloquence that persuaded me, TheRedHen, truth willing out.

Originally posted by PulsusMeusGallo
reply to post by TheRedHen

 

I agree. The timeline is necessary as is a Cast of Characters (Frauds), maybe in the form of a screenplay?

It wasn't your eloquence that persuaded me, TheRedHen, truth willing out.

My eloquence is demonstrated, yours a series of careless mistakes. When you marry TwoEggz, will your offspring wear blue cravats and horribly woolen jumpers of puce?

A riddle for you lovers. When we were given the information on the Black family tapestry sketch, we were pretty sure that the Marauder cohort first went up to Hogwarts in the Autumn of 1969, but before that point we thought it was probably ’70. Rowling has endorsed the Lexicon’s 1960 birth date for the Marauder cohort, if born in 1960 the Marauders would have started Hogwarts in 1971.

So when did they start?

Originally posted by TheRedHen

A riddle ...when we were given the information on the Black family tapestry sketch, we were pretty sure that the Marauder cohort first went up to Hogwarts in the Autumn of 1969, but before that point we thought it was probably ’70. Rowling has endorsed the Lexicon’s 1960 birth date for the Marauder cohort, if born in 1960 the Marauders would have started Hogwarts in 1971.

So when did they start?

A rabbit hole from a Red Hen? Not likely going there and of all people, you should know exactly why this is a trick, absurd and unanswerable question. Riddles have answers, Hen.

I have two copies of PoA. They contradict one another. Has Voldemort been gone 12 or 13 or 15 years from the time of his marking Harry, killing the Potters and being in absentia?

Sorry, not jumping into this rabittwormhole, Hen.

reply to post by TheRedHen


Riddle me this. Why riddle us with nonsense? You don't believe in the nonsense why should we jump through your nonsense hoops? Henny, get a grip. Siriously. Who you think you are dealing with here? We aren't your loose band of fanfic dumbbutz who let you get away with a bloody pitiful webbing and a bunch of blitherings which mix your fact and your fiction into a mess of henwash.

You were much better off calling out Rowling as a fraud especially with that Deathly Hallows garbage, stick to that. We can agree to agree and become all chummy-wummy and I love you and blech.

Originally posted by TwoEggz

Red Hen, you were much better off calling out Rowling as a fraud especially with that Deathly Hallows garbage, stick to that. We can agree to agree and become all chummy-wummy and I love you and blech.

Don't see that happening but...

Book 7 more commonly called Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a Rowling's capstone piece. Well, only in name not function.

Half Blood Prince as a book undid more plot bunnies, timeline inconsistencies and out-and-out- foibles only to be overwritten by the awful DHs which acted as if it could have cared a flying fook.

According to Victor Dix, the collaboration between Warner, Rowling and Yates was elaborate. It was hurried and it was extremely movie-centric. IOW, it was rarely about literature and the evidences are the numerous, the exponentially numerous, inconsistencies. It's as if the Author Trio was well more inclined to write good screenplay, and imagineering up new rides (Gringott's Bank cart ride in DH I to Bellatrix' Vault is such a thinly disguised addition to the text)

Gringott's Coaster

..than caring for the characters, the integrity of the book as a Septology and the readers themselves. By the time the "capstone" was mounted, the series had eternally fallen apart with far too many gaping holes to be ever filled properly in.

Originally posted by PulsusMeusGallo

Book 7 more commonly called Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a Rowling's capstone piece. Well, only in name not function.

Half Blood Prince as a book undid more plot bunnies, timeline inconsistencies and out-and-out- foibles only to be overwritten by the awful DHs which acted as if it could have cared a flying fook.

According to Victor Dix, the collaboration between Warner, Rowling and Yates was elaborate. It was hurried and it was extremely movie-centric. IOW, it was rarely about literature and the evidences are the numerous, the exponentially numerous, inconsistencies. It's as if the Author Trio was well more inclined to write good screenplay, and imagineering up new rides (Gringott's Bank cart ride in DH I to Bellatrix' Vault is such a thinly disguised addition to the text)

Gringott's Coaster

..than caring for the characters, the integrity of the book as a Septology and the readers themselves.

By the time the "capstone" was mounted, the series had eternally fallen apart with far too many gaping holes to be ever filled properly in.

So you are all giddy about catching the DHs' gimmicks and all that ,are you now? How about (all together now) the brilliant Hermione Granger who can rewrite her own parents personal histories and pack them off to Austrailia by chapter 6, and yet claims she doesn’t know any memory spells a handful of chapters later.

This is one of the many reasons I am convinced the book wasn’t actually edited at all.

According to you and TwoBallz, DHs was a collaboration of the highest order. Puhleeze.

I think I went to that exact camp as a kit, I'm serious..
Anyways, if you think that's a "Jesus camp" It's only 'cause you haven't seen the real thing. THAT is liberal and heathenistic compared to some friends of mine. They're the kind who preach against short hair, makeup, jewelry, tv, country music.. anyway. I'd send my kids to my friends' camp, but not to the one in these videos.

Although, it is true that Harry Potter would have been stoned under OT Law..

Originally posted by Billie828

I think I went to that exact camp as a kit, I'm serious..
Anyways, if you think that's a "Jesus camp" It's only 'cause you haven't seen the real thing. THAT is liberal and heathenistic compared to some friends of mine. They're the kind who preach against short hair, makeup, jewelry, tv, country music.. anyway. I'd send my kids to my friends' camp, but not to the one in these videos.

Although, it is true that Harry Potter would have been stoned under OT Law..

I don't remember that. When was Harry stoned? After the Three Broomsticks where he met Slughorn?

reply to post by PulsusMeusGallo


Personally I think he was stoned throughout the entire movies.. He was ok through the books though

I can't believe all of you!

Harry Potter is one of the driving forces behind corruption and witch craft in our children! It is a tool of Satan just like those pokeman.

And those camps are there to ensure our children do not become losers and bottom feeders like the rest of you!

Now excuse me while I go read my bible!

Originally posted by Billie828
reply to post by PulsusMeusGallo

 

Personally I think he was stoned throughout the entire movies.. He was ok through the books though

If he wasn't stoned, loaded to the gills, he dame sure must have been homosexual.

Rita Skeeter in Deathly Hallows:

"I devote an entire chapter to the whole Potter-Dumbledore relationship. It's been called unhealthy, even sinister. Again, your readers will have to buy my book for the whole story, but there is no question that Dumbledore took an unnatural interest in Potter from the word go."

Unhealthy. Unnatural. Even sinister. You know, I haven't seen this kind of description of a gay relationship by a well-liked character in a mainstream novel since, oh, the seventies. (Maybe other well-beloved characters have done so in fiction since then, but I haven't seen that.) And I'd say that a gay relationship is certainly what's being implied, based on the wording.

Homo Harry, Oh No!

Originally posted by Echo3Foxtrot

I can't believe all of you!

Harry Potter is one of the driving forces behind corruption and witch craft in our children! It is a tool of Satan just like those pokeman.

Well, like, yeah, in the post right above this one I already said Potter is a queer. duh. poke-man. duh.

Originally posted by Echo3Foxtrot

And those camps are there to ensure our children do not become losers and bottom feeders like the rest of you!

Now excuse me while I go read my bible!

WTH for, reread Harry Potter, it's the same story only overwritten in Rowlingish. No, wait, you can't do that even Jo Rowling swore she never reread her books.

Yeah, she actually said that.

Originally posted by TwoEggz

If he wasn't stoned, loaded to the gills, he dame sure must have been homosexual.

Rita Skeeter in Deathly Hallows:

"I devote an entire chapter to the whole Potter-Dumbledore relationship. It's been called unhealthy, even sinister. Again, your readers will have to buy my book for the whole story, but there is no question that Dumbledore took an unnatural interest in Potter from the word go."

Unhealthy. Unnatural. Even sinister. You know, I haven't seen this kind of description of a gay relationship by a well-liked character in a mainstream novel since, oh, the seventies. (Maybe other well-beloved characters have done so in fiction since then, but I haven't seen that.) And I'd say that a gay relationship is certainly what's being implied, based on the wording.

Homo Harry, Oh No!

There, feel better, I gave you a star, TwoDullz. Next come the rainbows, ponies and sprinkles.

You do realize that you are calling Albus Dumbledore a pedophile since at no time was Harrydore of consensual age. Apparantly this does not upset Rowling who by the way uses Rita Skeeter to talk to her fans and critics...as herself. Dodgy BS if I should say so.

Harry's not the devil, DD is. Or maybe it's the goat screwer, Abeforth, DD's brother who was convicted of "Goat Incantations"...which has never been explained...anyone want to go there can do so without me.

If ever there was proof that Rowling was heavily medicated, drunk or both it is DHs. Pedophiles, bestiality, homosexuality and a book written as if she allowed the drugs their will.

Originally posted by Billie828
reply to post by PulsusMeusGallo

 

Personally I think he was stoned throughout the entire movies.. He was ok through the books though

OK? By your definition only. By any literate definition, Potter was a dullard who whined like a little grrl, had only two friends...one an idiot, the other an insufferable blowhard...married the wrong chick, lusted after an old man who he never asked a damn thing about to him or anyone else. On and on and on.

So I will go on.

He was a blatant, repetitve cheat (Potions Class - HBP) but we're blaming the fiction on the fact writer. When Hermione never experienced any adverse consequences for getting Umbridge attacked by centaurs, and when Harry was assured by Ron that covering Draco in cuts that wouldn't stop bleeding and that would have killed him if Snape hadn't know the countercurse...well, I pretty much knew that the series had no moral compass, and that the moral was that as long as you weren't a Slytherin, you could whatever you wanted to whoever you wanted, and if you hurt someone, oh well, tough s#.

Both Author and Protagonist are lame-oes.

Originally posted by PulsusMeusGallo

According to Victor Dix

Tired, tired of this. Why not according to Jesus of Nazareth of Buddha's left nut or Kim Chang Chung. People have no idea who Victor Dix is or was so why mention it?

Originally posted by TwoEggz

WTH for, reread Harry Potter, it's the same story only overwritten in Rowlingish. No, wait, you can't do that even Jo Rowling swore she never reread her books.

Yeah, she actually said that.

Actually, it if you really pay attention, just about all the statements Rowling makes about editors and their corrections, and anything that she ever discussed with them all applies only to things in the first four books.

After that point the books were neither character-driven nor plot-driven, they were market-driven, and churned out in the least possible turn-around period from the date she turned in the manuscript. Editing simply became too expensive an option in terms of times, deadlines and movie creating-producing-ticket selling cycles.

Worryingly, in some interview of other, she claimed she had some woman who reads everything and checks for continuity errors. Either this woman doesn't, or she's crap at her job, or JKR plain doesn't listen to her. (I'm going for that last one, seeing as JKR's also apparently dispensed with the advice of her editor).

Originally posted by TheRedHen

You do realize that you are calling Albus Dumbledore a pedophile since at no time was Harrydore of consensual age. Apparantly this does not upset Rowling ...Or maybe it's the goat screwer, Abeforth, DD's brother who was convicted of "Goat Incantations"...which has never been explained...If ever there was proof that Rowling was heavily medicated, drunk or both it is DHs. Pedophiles, bestiality, homosexuality and a book written as if she allowed the drugs their will.

The proof is that Rowling alone could not have been this expert at marketing to both sides of the good and evil equation.

When Harry reads The Prophet about DD's and his relationship, he throws the paper in disgust and tramps around his room in complete and utter disdain. It is vile, it upsets him---->Fundamental Christian Right religion well served!

The inclusion of the shocking bestiality, homosexuality and pedophilia sells like a tabloid sells----->Bloomsbury, Scholastic and Warner couldn't be happier.

Rowling ain't that smart, not even close.

Originally posted by TheRedHen

...the brilliant Hermione Granger who can rewrite her own parents personal histories and pack them off to Austrailia by chapter 6, and yet claims she doesn’t know any memory spells a handful of chapters later.

This is one of the many reasons I am convinced the book wasn’t actually edited at all.

No need to ask for the "many", the books were not edited at any great effort at all. Any of them - with possible exception to moderate editing in Books One and Two but they were only 500ppgs long total. And purposefully, blatantly plagiarized from Sam Muldoon and the Philosopher's Stone, The Chymical Wedding (structure) and Willy the Wizard.

Team Rowling could care less about their fans, the stories numerous plot holes and bunnies, the characters...it's about a 20+ year, continuing, effort to steal, rearrange, and market the greatest scam in nonfiction history. It's about MONEY, nothing else. Nothing else.

Originally posted by TheRedHen

According to you and TwoBallz, DHs was a collaboration of the highest order. Puhleeze.

It was but the highest order had nothing to do with literary accomplishment, a point I have made many times.

As for two balls, better than a crazy hat.

You know, this whole Rowling=Christian irritates the sheet out of me. How many interviews, columns, articles, reports have been written about her and how many of those have pronounced what a fabass Christian she is.

None.

Rowling: "My beliefs and my struggling with religious belief and so on I think is quite apparent in this book." Duh, the book is a mess and the biggest part of the mess is the mess she made of this quasi-Christian WTFever she is trying to say which she admits she has no clue.

Deathly Hallows reads like the mindless psychobabble scrabbling of a Chruch Sunday Calvinist-Christian, trying to assemble a moral framework out of this piece and that piece of doctrine she does not partially understand or believe. Halfassed-formed ideas about faith and destiny and redemption and death and heaven and limbo and homosexual love - it's closer to sacrilegious.

Just like Satan The Deceiver and Confuser, now we know who the Devil is.