Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.harry-potter » Baby Harry's Daring
Baby Harry's Daring [message #281944] Mi, 14 Juni 2006 14:55
cwlNO  
I keep stumbling over an item that I find totally unrealistic. I consider
the Godric's Hollow scene in the first movie to be canon in so far as JKR
wrote it on the director's request. Harry is 15 months old and Lily is
screaming her head off. The AK on Lily is explosively loud and blinding.
Yet, when LV's wand is pointed at Harry, he is serenely composed and
almost smiling. Just before the curse is delivered, he cocks his head a
little bit and seems to give a look of daring. (..."C'mon, Dude. Bring it
on.") The observant eye will notice that Harry's final look is frozen, for
a split second, by the film editors.

Unless we are dealing with a time jump, during which Uncle Voldy fed him
and sang a song while changing his diapers, Harry should be screaming
bloody hell like any other kid in such a situation. The only explanation I
can find is that we are somehow supposed to be looking at Lily in virtual
corporal possession of Harry. Might this already be her protection or, at
least, part of her ancient magic? Might he have her soul or a fragment in
him? Perhaps Harry even had different eyes before that night. IIRC, Harry
doesn't remember anything that happened between Lily's death and his own
scarring "light".

Thoughts?
......
Green-Eyed Chris
Janus Thickey Ward
St Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #281950 ] Mi, 14 Juni 2006 18:59
Brian  
Green-Eyed Chris wrote:
> I keep stumbling over an item that I find totally unrealistic. I consider
> the Godric's Hollow scene in the first movie to be canon in so far as JKR
> wrote it on the director's request. Harry is 15 months old and Lily is
> screaming her head off. The AK on Lily is explosively loud and blinding.
> Yet, when LV's wand is pointed at Harry, he is serenely composed and
> almost smiling. Just before the curse is delivered, he cocks his head a
> little bit and seems to give a look of daring. (..."C'mon, Dude. Bring it
> on.") The observant eye will notice that Harry's final look is frozen, for
> a split second, by the film editors.
>
> Unless we are dealing with a time jump, during which Uncle Voldy fed him
> and sang a song while changing his diapers, Harry should be screaming
> bloody hell like any other kid in such a situation. The only explanation I
> can find is that we are somehow supposed to be looking at Lily in virtual
> corporal possession of Harry. Might this already be her protection or, at
> least, part of her ancient magic? Might he have her soul or a fragment in
> him? Perhaps Harry even had different eyes before that night. IIRC, Harry
> doesn't remember anything that happened between Lily's death and his own
> scarring "light".

I'm unclear: Are you confused by Harry's calm demeanor as a 15-month-old,
or as a 15-*year*-old?

--
Brian Tung <brian [at] isi.edu>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #281954 ] Mi, 14 Juni 2006 21:25
Fish Eye no Miko  
Green-Eyed Chris wrote:

> I keep stumbling over an item that I find totally unrealistic. I
> consider the Godric's Hollow scene in the first movie to be canon
> in so far as JKR wrote it on the director's request.

Except that the scene doesn't jibe with her assertion that he was in his
crib and didn't see her death. In the scene in the movie, she's holding
him, so he's not in his crib (cot) when James dies We don't see where he
is when she dies, but from what Jo says, I get the impression that he was
in the crib the whole time. So either you consider a scene in a movie that
she wrote, or something she said later to explain why he hadn't actually
seen a death until Cedric's. Here's the quote:
"Harry did not see his parents die. He was one year old and in a cot at
the time."--Edinburgh Book Festival, 15 August, 2004
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm

> Unless we are dealing with a time jump, during which Uncle
> Voldy fed him and sang a song while changing his diapers,
> Harry should be screaming bloody hell like any other kid
> in such a situation.

Right.

> The only explanation I can find is that we are somehow supposed
> to be looking at Lily in virtual corporal possession of Harry. Might
> this already be her protection or, at least, part of her ancient magic?
> Might he have her soul or a fragment in him?

So, who did she kill?

> Perhaps Harry even had different eyes before that night. IIRC, Harry
> doesn't remember anything that happened between Lily's death and
> his own scarring "light".
> Thoughts?

The Movie Aren't Canon.

Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"I'm the impish officer of death."
-Mike Nelson, _Mystery Science Theater 3000_.
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #281956 ] Mi, 14 Juni 2006 20:46
DUH  
> The Movie Aren't Canon.

What if the lenses are Canon?
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #281958 ] Mi, 14 Juni 2006 22:04
cwlNO  
In article <e6pf8m$81v$1 [at] praesepe.isi.edu>, brian [at] isi.edu (Brian Tung) wrote:

>Green-Eyed Chris wrote:
>> I keep stumbling over an item that I find totally unrealistic. I consider
>> the Godric's Hollow scene in the first movie to be canon in so far as JKR
>> wrote it on the director's request. Harry is 15 months old and Lily is
>> screaming her head off. The AK on Lily is explosively loud and blinding.
>> Yet, when LV's wand is pointed at Harry, he is serenely composed and
>> almost smiling. Just before the curse is delivered, he cocks his head a
>> little bit and seems to give a look of daring. (..."C'mon, Dude. Bring it
>> on.") The observant eye will notice that Harry's final look is frozen, for
>> a split second, by the film editors.
>>
>> Unless we are dealing with a time jump, during which Uncle Voldy fed him
>> and sang a song while changing his diapers, Harry should be screaming
>> bloody hell like any other kid in such a situation. The only explanation I
>> can find is that we are somehow supposed to be looking at Lily in virtual
>> corporal possession of Harry. Might this already be her protection or, at
>> least, part of her ancient magic? Might he have her soul or a fragment in
>> him? Perhaps Harry even had different eyes before that night. IIRC, Harry
>> doesn't remember anything that happened between Lily's death and his own
>> scarring "light".
>
>I'm unclear: Are you confused by Harry's calm demeanor as a 15-month-old,
>or as a 15-*year*-old?

I will readily confess that JKR can confuse me. I am addressing the movie
scene of Godric's Hollow on October 31, 1981 (Ch. 8 on my German DVD of
the first movie) where the 15-month-old Harry is facing LV's wand.
--
Chris
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #281959 ] Mi, 14 Juni 2006 22:04
cwlNO  
In article <tvYjg.13734$_c1.4755 [at] fed1read05>, "Fish Eye no Miko"
<fisheye [at] deadmoon.circus> wrote:

>Green-Eyed Chris wrote:
>
>> I keep stumbling over an item that I find totally unrealistic. I
>> consider the Godric's Hollow scene in the first movie to be canon
>> in so far as JKR wrote it on the director's request.
>
>Except that the scene doesn't jibe with her assertion that he was in his
>crib and didn't see her death. In the scene in the movie, she's holding
>him,

He is totally content, riding on her arm, and she is screaming her ass
off! That ain't the way real kids work, Catherine. Lily is obviously
screaming "James!". Any tyke would dissolve in such a situation.

>so he's not in his crib (cot) when James dies We don't see where he
>is when she dies, but from what Jo says, I get the impression that he was
>in the crib the whole time. So either you consider a scene in a movie that
>she wrote, or something she said later to explain why he hadn't actually
>seen a death until Cedric's. Here's the quote:
> "Harry did not see his parents die. He was one year old and in a cot at
>the time."--Edinburgh Book Festival, 15 August, 2004
>http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm

It doesn't really matter where Harry was when his parents were killed. The
whole situation should have been enough to have a normal kid crying like
hell. Here, I do wish that you hadn't simply deleted my point that "The AK
on Lily is explosively loud and blinding.". Things like that can become an
invitation to hijackers.

>
>> Unless we are dealing with a time jump, during which Uncle
>> Voldy fed him and sang a song while changing his diapers,
>> Harry should be screaming bloody hell like any other kid
>> in such a situation.
>
>Right.

That's really my main point.

>
>> The only explanation I can find is that we are somehow supposed
>> to be looking at Lily in virtual corporal possession of Harry. Might
>> this already be her protection or, at least, part of her ancient magic?
>> Might he have her soul or a fragment in him?
>
>So, who did she kill?

James, in a suicide pact for Harry's protection? I'm simply speculating
that the most primitive piece of ancient magic might be possession. Think
about LV in his worst state. Lily might have possessed Harry before she
was AKd. I know... I'm starting to sound like dear Jane.

>
>> Perhaps Harry even had different eyes before that night. IIRC, Harry
>> doesn't remember anything that happened between Lily's death and
>> his own scarring "light".
>> Thoughts?
>
>The Movie Aren't Canon.

Well that's the underlying question. Just how much control did JKR have
over that scene? ...and how much control does Warner Bros. have over JKR?
--
Chris
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #281964 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 01:50
Fish Eye no Miko  
Green-Eyed Chris wrote:

> "Fish Eye no Miko" <fisheye [at] deadmoon.circus> wrote:
>> Green-Eyed Chris wrote:
>>
>>> I keep stumbling over an item that I find totally unrealistic. I
>>> consider the Godric's Hollow scene in the first movie to be
>>> canon in so far as JKR wrote it on the director's request.
>>
>> Except that the scene doesn't jibe with her assertion that he
>> was in his crib and didn't see her death. In the scene in the
>> movie, she's holding him,
>
> He is totally content, riding on her arm, and she is screaming her
> ass off! That ain't the way real kids work, Catherine.

WTF? I'm not disagreeing with you about that point. I'm trying to make
another point...

>> so he's not in his crib (cot) when James dies We don't see where
>> he is when she dies, but from what Jo says, I get the impression
>> that he was in the crib the whole time. So either you consider
>> a scene in a movie that she wrote, or something she said later to
>> explain why he hadn't actually seen a death until Cedric's. Here's
>> the quote:
>> "Harry did not see his parents die. He was one year old and in a
>> cot at the time."--Edinburgh Book Festival, 15 August, 2004
>> http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm
>
> It doesn't really matter where Harry was when his parents were
> killed.

Yeah, it kinda does. There's a reason Jo specified where he was.

> The whole situation should have been enough to have a
> normal kid crying like hell.

Again, who's disagreeing with you on this point? Thanks for arguing a
point I'm not even fighting you on while completely ignoring the point I'm
trying to make.
I'm saying that the scene can not happen how it happened in the movie. So
how it happened in the movie is *irrelevant*. As long as you're trying to
make a canonical theory, that scene in the movie shouldn't be part of your
argument.

> Here, I do wish that you hadn't simply deleted my point that "The AK
> on Lily is explosively loud and blinding.". Things like that can become
> an invitation to hijackers.

Why? It's irrelevant to my point, an only emphasizes something I'm not
arguing with you about.

>>> Unless we are dealing with a time jump, during which Uncle
>>> Voldy fed him and sang a song while changing his diapers,
>>> Harry should be screaming bloody hell like any other kid
>>> in such a situation.
>>
>> Right.
>
> That's really my main point.

And my main point is that none of the matters.. The movie scene
contradicts what Jo has told us, so the scene didn't happen that way. It's
like saying, "Why couldn't Harry see Thestrals after PS/SS, since as you
see in the movie, he saw him die?".

>>> The only explanation I can find is that we are somehow supposed
>>> to be looking at Lily in virtual corporal possession of Harry.
>>> Might this already be her protection or, at least, part of her
>>> ancient magic? Might he have her soul or a fragment in him?
>>
>> So, who did she kill?
>
> James, in a suicide pact for Harry's protection?

Yes. Jo is going to write a story in which the hero's mother killed her
own husband.
~_~

> I'm simply speculating

Based on a scene that didn't happen the way you describe it.

>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> The Movie Aren't Canon.
>
> Well that's the underlying question. Just how much control did JKR
> have over that scene?

<sigh>
As much as you bitched about me ignoring your points, you did the same
thing to me. Re-read the point I made near the beginning of this post.

Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
Right now you are reading my .sig quote.
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #281965 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 02:02
Fish Eye no Miko  
duh wrote:

>> The Movie Aren't Canon.
>
> What if the lenses are Canon?

Ha! Nice.

Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"I'm the impish officer of death."
-Mike Nelson, _Mystery Science Theater 3000_.
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #281967 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 03:30
wadkin2000  
Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
> Green-Eyed Chris wrote:
>
> > "Fish Eye no Miko" <fisheye [at] deadmoon.circus> wrote:
> >> Green-Eyed Chris wrote:
> >>
> >>> I keep stumbling over an item that I find totally unrealistic. I
> >>> consider the Godric's Hollow scene in the first movie to be
> >>> canon in so far as JKR wrote it on the director's request.
> >>
> >> Except that the scene doesn't jibe with her assertion that he
> >> was in his crib and didn't see her death. In the scene in the
> >> movie, she's holding him,
> >
> > He is totally content, riding on her arm, and she is screaming her
> > ass off! That ain't the way real kids work, Catherine.
>
> WTF? I'm not disagreeing with you about that point. I'm trying to make
> another point...
>
> >> so he's not in his crib (cot) when James dies We don't see where
> >> he is when she dies, but from what Jo says, I get the impression
> >> that he was in the crib the whole time. So either you consider
> >> a scene in a movie that she wrote, or something she said later to
> >> explain why he hadn't actually seen a death until Cedric's. Here's
> >> the quote:
> >> "Harry did not see his parents die. He was one year old and in a
> >> cot at the time."--Edinburgh Book Festival, 15 August, 2004
> >> http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm
> >
> > It doesn't really matter where Harry was when his parents were
> > killed.
>
> Yeah, it kinda does. There's a reason Jo specified where he was.
>
> > The whole situation should have been enough to have a
> > normal kid crying like hell.
>
> Again, who's disagreeing with you on this point? Thanks for arguing a
> point I'm not even fighting you on while completely ignoring the point I'm
> trying to make.
> I'm saying that the scene can not happen how it happened in the movie. So
> how it happened in the movie is *irrelevant*. As long as you're trying to
> make a canonical theory, that scene in the movie shouldn't be part of your
> argument.
>
> > Here, I do wish that you hadn't simply deleted my point that "The AK
> > on Lily is explosively loud and blinding.". Things like that can become
> > an invitation to hijackers.
>
> Why? It's irrelevant to my point, an only emphasizes something I'm not
> arguing with you about.
>
> >>> Unless we are dealing with a time jump, during which Uncle
> >>> Voldy fed him and sang a song while changing his diapers,
> >>> Harry should be screaming bloody hell like any other kid
> >>> in such a situation.
> >>
> >> Right.
> >
> > That's really my main point.
>
> And my main point is that none of the matters.. The movie scene
> contradicts what Jo has told us, so the scene didn't happen that way. It's
> like saying, "Why couldn't Harry see Thestrals after PS/SS, since as you
> see in the movie, he saw him die?".
>
> >>> The only explanation I can find is that we are somehow supposed
> >>> to be looking at Lily in virtual corporal possession of Harry.
> >>> Might this already be her protection or, at least, part of her
> >>> ancient magic? Might he have her soul or a fragment in him?
> >>
> >> So, who did she kill?
> >
> > James, in a suicide pact for Harry's protection?
>
> Yes. Jo is going to write a story in which the hero's mother killed her
> own husband.
> ~_~
>
> > I'm simply speculating
>
> Based on a scene that didn't happen the way you describe it.
>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> The Movie Aren't Canon.
> >
> > Well that's the underlying question. Just how much control did JKR
> > have over that scene?
>
> <sigh>
> As much as you bitched about me ignoring your points, you did the same
> thing to me. Re-read the point I made near the beginning of this post.
>
> Catherine Johnson.
> --
> fenm at cox dot net
> Right now you are reading my .sig quote.


I found this at www.angelfire.com/mi/3/cookarama/sorbkmovdiff.html

'Chris Columbus said in Oct.'01 that there will be an extra scene in
"Sorcerer's Stone" you'll find nowhere in the book. This is not a Steve
Kloves embellishment, however. Columbus told Empire On Line that JK
submitted material to the production that she had deleted from the
final "Sorcerer's Stone" manuscript. Kloves adapted the Rowling
"add-on" and placed it in the script.

"It's in the first film because she originally wrote it for the first
book and decided to take it out. So you'll see that when you see the
film," Columbus said. "It is one little sequence where we get a key
into something that happened in Harry's past."

'The appearance of a human Voldemort reflects the typical path books
(words) take to the screen (images). Flashbacks and stories in novels
often become scenes with dialogue in movie adaptations. Voldemort's
attack on James and Lily Potter will be played out full tilt on screen.
These scenes will be the visual replaying of a flashback.'
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #281976 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 09:38
Toon  
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:55:59 +0200, cwlNO [at] SPAMfreenet.de (Green-Eyed
Chris) wrote:

>I keep stumbling over an item that I find totally unrealistic. I consider
>the Godric's Hollow scene in the first movie to be canon in so far as JKR
>wrote it on the director's request.

But did she write what really happened that night, or someone's
flashback to what they believe happened that night?


>least, part of her ancient magic? Might he have her soul or a fragment in
>him? Perhaps Harry even had different eyes before that night. IIRC, Harry
>doesn't remember anything that happened between Lily's death and his own
>scarring "light".

No, he has Voldie's Soul Bit in him. Not Lily's. Lily didn't kill,
and so far, there's no way to tear the soul short of a killing.

I wouldn't put too much stock in a baby's acting, anyway's.
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #281977 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 09:40
Toon  
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:04:37 +0200, cwlNO [at] SPAMfreenet.de (Green-Eyed
Chris) wrote:


>I will readily confess that JKR can confuse me. I am addressing the movie
>scene of Godric's Hollow on October 31, 1981 (Ch. 8 on my German DVD of
>the first movie) where the 15-month-old Harry is facing LV's wand.


He was looking at the wand, and thinking, "My Daddy's is bigger."
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #281978 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 09:43
Toon  
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:04:45 +0200, cwlNO [at] SPAMfreenet.de (Green-Eyed
Chris) wrote:


>James, in a suicide pact for Harry's protection?

Nope. That'd prove forethought, and Lily acted on the spur of the
moment.


>Well that's the underlying question. Just how much control did JKR have
>over that scene? ...and how much control does Warner Bros. have over JKR?

And did she write the scene base don her book universe, or the movie
universe?
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #281979 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 09:46
Toon  
On 14 Jun 2006 18:30:06 -0700, wadkin2000 [at] yahoo.com wrote:

>I found this at www.angelfire.com/mi/3/cookarama/sorbkmovdiff.html
>
>'Chris Columbus said in Oct.'01 that there will be an extra scene in
>"Sorcerer's Stone" you'll find nowhere in the book. This is not a Steve
>Kloves embellishment, however. Columbus told Empire On Line that JK
>submitted material to the production that she had deleted from the
>final "Sorcerer's Stone" manuscript. Kloves adapted the Rowling
>"add-on" and placed it in the script.
>
>"It's in the first film because she originally wrote it for the first
>book and decided to take it out. So you'll see that when you see the
>film," Columbus said. "It is one little sequence where we get a key
>into something that happened in Harry's past."
>
>'The appearance of a human Voldemort reflects the typical path books
>(words) take to the screen (images). Flashbacks and stories in novels
>often become scenes with dialogue in movie adaptations. Voldemort's
>attack on James and Lily Potter will be played out full tilt on screen.
>These scenes will be the visual replaying of a flashback.'

And V wasn't human when he died. We know because he resurrected
himself as was before death.
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #281980 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 10:46
Fish Eye no Miko  
wadkin2000 [at] yahoo.com wrote:

> I found this at www.angelfire.com/mi/3/cookarama/sorbkmovdiff.html
> 'Chris Columbus said in Oct.'01 that there will be an extra scene in
> "Sorcerer's Stone" you'll find nowhere in the book. This is not a
> Steve Kloves embellishment, however. Columbus told Empire On
> Line that JK submitted material to the production that she had
> deleted from the final "Sorcerer's Stone" manuscript. Kloves adapted
> the Rowling "add-on" and placed it in the script.

So, it's not Jo's own writing, but Klove's adaptation of it.
Not canon.

Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"The corpse's bitter crimson tears flow and mingle with the endless sand,
feeding the chaos within me and making me stronger."
-Gaara, _Naruto_.
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #281981 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 09:57
dsueme  
Green-Eyed Chris wrote:

I consider
> the Godric's Hollow scene in the first movie to be canon

I admire your courage, and gasp at your foolhardiness.

Harry, he is serenely composed and
> almost smiling. Just before the curse is delivered, he cocks his head a
> little bit and seems to give a look of daring. (..."C'mon, Dude. Bring it
> on.") The observant eye will notice that Harry's final look is frozen, for
> a split second, by the film editors.

This is silly. Infant Harry simply doesn't know what the hell is going
on. That is the "Occam's Razor" approach to that scene.

Dave
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #281986 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 12:32
cwlNO  
In article <lv0kg.7993$rS6.5027 [at] fed1read11>, "Fish Eye no Miko"
<fisheye [at] deadmoon.circus> wrote:

>Green-Eyed Chris wrote:
>
>> "Fish Eye no Miko" <fisheye [at] deadmoon.circus> wrote:
>>> Green-Eyed Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>> I keep stumbling over an item that I find totally unrealistic. I
>>>> consider the Godric's Hollow scene in the first movie to be
>>>> canon in so far as JKR wrote it on the director's request.
>>>
>>> Except that the scene doesn't jibe with her assertion that he
>>> was in his crib and didn't see her death. In the scene in the
>>> movie, she's holding him,
>>
>> He is totally content, riding on her arm, and she is screaming her
>> ass off! That ain't the way real kids work, Catherine.
>
>WTF? I'm not disagreeing with you about that point. I'm trying to make
>another point...
>
>>> so he's not in his crib (cot) when James dies We don't see where
>>> he is when she dies, but from what Jo says, I get the impression
>>> that he was in the crib the whole time. So either you consider
>>> a scene in a movie that she wrote, or something she said later to
>>> explain why he hadn't actually seen a death until Cedric's. Here's
>>> the quote:
>>> "Harry did not see his parents die. He was one year old and in a
>>> cot at the time."--Edinburgh Book Festival, 15 August, 2004
>>> http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm
>>
>> It doesn't really matter where Harry was when his parents were
>> killed.
>
>Yeah, it kinda does. There's a reason Jo specified where he was.
>
>> The whole situation should have been enough to have a
>> normal kid crying like hell.
>
>Again, who's disagreeing with you on this point? Thanks for arguing a
>point I'm not even fighting you on while completely ignoring the point I'm
>trying to make.
>I'm saying that the scene can not happen how it happened in the movie. So
>how it happened in the movie is *irrelevant*. As long as you're trying to
>make a canonical theory, that scene in the movie shouldn't be part of your
>argument.
>
>> Here, I do wish that you hadn't simply deleted my point that "The AK
>> on Lily is explosively loud and blinding.". Things like that can become
>> an invitation to hijackers.
>
>Why? It's irrelevant to my point, an only emphasizes something I'm not
>arguing with you about.
>
>>>> Unless we are dealing with a time jump, during which Uncle
>>>> Voldy fed him and sang a song while changing his diapers,
>>>> Harry should be screaming bloody hell like any other kid
>>>> in such a situation.
>>>
>>> Right.
>>
>> That's really my main point.
>
>And my main point is that none of the matters.. The movie scene
>contradicts what Jo has told us, so the scene didn't happen that way. It's
>like saying, "Why couldn't Harry see Thestrals after PS/SS, since as you
>see in the movie, he saw him die?".
>
>>>> The only explanation I can find is that we are somehow supposed
>>>> to be looking at Lily in virtual corporal possession of Harry.
>>>> Might this already be her protection or, at least, part of her
>>>> ancient magic? Might he have her soul or a fragment in him?
>>>
>>> So, who did she kill?

I am speaking of ancient magic, not Horcruxes. Possession seems to be very
basic, LV having been capable of using it while his "living soul" was in a
"spectral existence" (to use Troels' terminology). Transferring souls or
fragments need not be bound to Horcruxes.

>>
>> James, in a suicide pact for Harry's protection?
>
>Yes. Jo is going to write a story in which the hero's mother killed her
>own husband.
>~_~
>
>> I'm simply speculating
>
>Based on a scene that didn't happen the way you describe it.

That is not just. You are killing the messenger.

>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> The Movie Aren't Canon.
>>
>> Well that's the underlying question. Just how much control did JKR
>> have over that scene?
>
><sigh>
>As much as you bitched about me ignoring your points, you did the same
>thing to me. Re-read the point I made near the beginning of this post.

I was pissed at your deletions without even bothering to snip. I glossed
over your point because I was trying to avoid the old crib-cot-Thestral
discussion and simply cannot bring myself to take any JKR foot-in-mouth
quote seriously anymore. She does contradict the movie as to where Harry
was when James was killed. But, either way, Harry need not have seen one
of his parents die.

In the movie scene, Lily is clutching Harry to her chest and her back is
turned to the closed door when James is killed. Harry could not ~see~ him
die. Lily is not holding Harry when she is killed. Neither crib, cot nor
Harry are anywhere to be seen. Harry did not necessarily ~see~ her die.
Many cribs have curtained sides so that the child doesn't lay in a draft.
We see Harry sitting in front of a curtain when the wand is pointing at
him.
--
Chris
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #281992 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 15:58
wadkin2000  
Toon wrote:
> On 14 Jun 2006 18:30:06 -0700, wadkin2000 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >I found this at www.angelfire.com/mi/3/cookarama/sorbkmovdiff.html
> >
> >'Chris Columbus said in Oct.'01 that there will be an extra scene in
> >"Sorcerer's Stone" you'll find nowhere in the book. This is not a Steve
> >Kloves embellishment, however. Columbus told Empire On Line that JK
> >submitted material to the production that she had deleted from the
> >final "Sorcerer's Stone" manuscript. Kloves adapted the Rowling
> >"add-on" and placed it in the script.
> >
> >"It's in the first film because she originally wrote it for the first
> >book and decided to take it out. So you'll see that when you see the
> >film," Columbus said. "It is one little sequence where we get a key
> >into something that happened in Harry's past."
> >
> >'The appearance of a human Voldemort reflects the typical path books
> >(words) take to the screen (images). Flashbacks and stories in novels
> >often become scenes with dialogue in movie adaptations. Voldemort's
> >attack on James and Lily Potter will be played out full tilt on screen.
> >These scenes will be the visual replaying of a flashback.'
>
> And V wasn't human when he died. We know because he resurrected
> himself as was before death.


Toon, I don't think at the time the interview that any of the people
involved even knew about horcruxes. When it took place, they were
referring to the corporeal form of Voldemort walking toward the house
in that scene.

Cassie
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #281993 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 17:18
cwlNO  
In article <1150358226.383233.49160 [at] h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "David
Sueme" <dsueme [at] comcast.net> wrote:

>Green-Eyed Chris wrote:
>
> I consider
>> the Godric's Hollow scene in the first movie to be canon
>
>I admire your courage, and gasp at your foolhardiness.

We have at least a year to go until next Tuesday. All major topics have
been discussed ad nauseam. It's time to show a bit of fantasy and
innovation. I think Cassie and Catherine have cleared up the canon issue.
But I've got my balls hanging out here and cannot recall the last time
~you~ started any topical thread. ...although your German independence
analysis was excellent. Any hyena can lift it's hind leg and piss on a
posting. It's the same behavior you and I so cherish in other unnamed
person's "contributions" to this group. So, at least, give me credit for a
certain amount of guts. I knew what I was getting in to tryung to put
something new out there.

>
>Harry, he is serenely composed and
>> almost smiling. Just before the curse is delivered, he cocks his head a
>> little bit and seems to give a look of daring. (..."C'mon, Dude. Bring it
>> on.") The observant eye will notice that Harry's final look is frozen, for
>> a split second, by the film editors.
>
>This is silly. Infant Harry simply doesn't know what the hell is going
>on. That is the "Occam's Razor" approach to that scene.

I am not yet convinced that JKR has fully digested William of Ockham.
--
Chris
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #282031 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 06:56
Toon  
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:32:25 +0200, cwlNO [at] SPAMfreenet.de (Green-Eyed
Chris) wrote:

>I am speaking of ancient magic, not Horcruxes. Possession seems to be very
>basic, LV having been capable of using it while his "living soul" was in a
>"spectral existence" (to use Troels' terminology). Transferring souls or
>fragments need not be bound to Horcruxes.

I think V's spectral existence naturally gives him the power to
possess. It's basic, but for spectral beings (Ghosts, spirits, souls,
etc.) I was quite surprised the living version could still do it. and
that should be quite a difficult takes to learn.
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #282043 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 09:48
dsueme  
Green-Eyed Chris wrote:

> We have at least a year to go until next Tuesday. All major topics have
> been discussed ad nauseam. It's time to show a bit of fantasy and
> innovation.

IIUC, usenet now needs a new acronym: "WAGBWAB" (wild ass guess
because we are bored). Why didn't you just say so?

> But I've got my balls hanging out here and cannot recall the last
time
> ~you~ started any topical thread. ...

I tried shortly after the last book was published. But, unfortunately
for my thread, I cannot find a citation for a "common sense"
proposition that is the "cornerstone" of my argument - an author's
vocabularly tends to become more set as they grow older. Or, old
people tend to get set in thier ways. How intuitive is this? Yet it
is surprisingly difficult to find an empirical study that supports this
common sense notion.

Perhaps if I had nothing else to do I could eventually research up a
citation. But until I find a citation, my argument that JKR didn't
write all of book six contains a gap that is easy for social liberals
who want to deny any degree of deteminism can attack.

Dave
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #282047 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 11:18
cwlNO  
In article <1150444116.545833.194030 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, "David
Sueme" <dsueme [at] comcast.net> wrote:

>Green-Eyed Chris wrote:
>
>> We have at least a year to go until next Tuesday. All major topics have
>> been discussed ad nauseam. It's time to show a bit of fantasy and
>> innovation.
>
>IIUC, usenet now needs a new acronym: "WAGBWAB" (wild ass guess
>because we are bored). Why didn't you just say so?
>
> > But I've got my balls hanging out here and cannot recall the last
>time
>> ~you~ started any topical thread. ...
>
>I tried shortly after the last book was published. But, unfortunately
>for my thread, I cannot find a citation for a "common sense"
>proposition that is the "cornerstone" of my argument - an author's
>vocabularly tends to become more set as they grow older. Or, old
>people tend to get set in thier ways. How intuitive is this? Yet it
>is surprisingly difficult to find an empirical study that supports this
>common sense notion.
>
>Perhaps if I had nothing else to do I could eventually research up a
>citation. But until I find a citation, my argument that JKR didn't
>write all of book six contains a gap that is easy for social liberals
>who want to deny any degree of deteminism can attack.

1. http://www.geri.duke.edu/cogpsych/pdf/Madden_et_al_1996.pdf

Adult Age Differences in Regional Cerebral Blood Flow during Visual Word
Identification: Evidence from H215O PET
DAVID J. MADDEN,* TIMOTHY G. TURKINGTON,Ý R. EDWARD COLEMAN,Ý JAMES M.
PROVENZALE,Ý TIMOTHY R. DEGRADO,Ý AND JOHN M. HOFFMANý
NEUROIMAGE 3, 127­142 (1996)
ARTICLE NO. 0015

2. A Structural Factor Analysis of Vocabulary Knowledge and Relations to Age
Bowles et al. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci.2005; 60: P234-P241
--
Chris
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #282119 ] Sa, 17 Juni 2006 10:24
dsueme  
Green-Eyed Chris wrote:

I wrote:
I cannot find a citation for a "common sense"
> >proposition that is the "cornerstone" of my argument - an author's
> >vocabularly tends to become more set as they grow older.
>
> 2. A Structural Factor Analysis of Vocabulary Knowledge and Relations to Age
> Bowles et al. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci.2005; 60: P234-P241

Interesting, but not exactly on point. I'm really not interested in
proving something with regards to "old people", but rather middle aged
people.

The proposition I really want to support might be stated:

1. JKR at age 39 is unlikely to suddenly beging using the phrase
"brainwave" to describe a bright idea when she has never before used it
in thousands of pages of prose.

So, attempting to "generalize" this proposition, I make it...

2. older people are less likely to adopt new idioms

and attempting to further generalize the concept:

3. as one ages, one becomes less likely to adopt new idioms.

Notice that that I'm speaking in terms of "older", not "real old". I'm
not talking about the mental failings as the human body declines with
old age and eventually becomes senescent and dies, which is what the
discipline of gerentology is all about.

I'm actually proposing that there is a "psychodynamic" process, and
taking a wild-assed guess, I would speculate that the willingness to
adopt new idioms peaks between 16 and 18, and then enters a process of
attenuation that continues until senescence sets in.

The concept "works for me".

Dave
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #282121 ] Sa, 17 Juni 2006 11:53
cwlNO  
In article <1150532663.251481.219250 [at] r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "David
Sueme" <dsueme [at] comcast.net> wrote:

>Green-Eyed Chris wrote:
>
>I wrote:
> I cannot find a citation for a "common sense"
>> >proposition that is the "cornerstone" of my argument - an author's
>> >vocabularly tends to become more set as they grow older.
>>
>> 2. A Structural Factor Analysis of Vocabulary Knowledge and Relations to Age
>> Bowles et al. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci.2005; 60: P234-P241
>
>Interesting, but not exactly on point. I'm really not interested in
>proving something with regards to "old people", but rather middle aged
>people.
>
>The proposition I really want to support might be stated:
>
>1. JKR at age 39 is unlikely to suddenly beging using the phrase
>"brainwave" to describe a bright idea when she has never before used it
>in thousands of pages of prose.
>
>So, attempting to "generalize" this proposition, I make it...
>
>2. older people are less likely to adopt new idioms
>
>and attempting to further generalize the concept:
>
>3. as one ages, one becomes less likely to adopt new idioms.
>
>Notice that that I'm speaking in terms of "older", not "real old". I'm
>not talking about the mental failings as the human body declines with
>old age and eventually becomes senescent and dies, which is what the
>discipline of gerentology is all about.
>
>I'm actually proposing that there is a "psychodynamic" process, and
>taking a wild-assed guess, I would speculate that the willingness to
>adopt new idioms peaks between 16 and 18, and then enters a process of
>attenuation that continues until senescence sets in.
>
>The concept "works for me".

As the saying goes, over here, I was just trying to blow some pepper in
your ass so that you'd finally sit down and write the damned thing. I want
to read it! There must be a way to do a comparative statistical analysis
of the vocabulary used in books 1-5 in relation to book 6, discounting new
words like "Horcrux". That should nail it.

I inadvertently deleted your posting in the "Why destroy horcruxes BEFORE
LV is killed?" thread where you wrote:

"I see the Horcruxes as simply 1) a bad idea, 2) clearly made up after
book five was finished. There were no Horcruxes concieved when JKR wrote
"Sourcerer's Stone"."

I see Firenze's unicorn blood sermon as an indication that your second
point is correct. The idea of "a half-life, a cursed life, from the moment
the blood touches your lips" never plays out. Quite the contrary. With his
resurrection in GoF and Horcruxes in HBP, LV is well on the road to
immortality.
--
Chris
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #282174 ] So, 18 Juni 2006 09:36
Toon  
On 17 Jun 2006 01:24:23 -0700, "David Sueme" <dsueme [at] comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>Green-Eyed Chris wrote:
>
>I wrote:
> I cannot find a citation for a "common sense"
>> >proposition that is the "cornerstone" of my argument - an author's
>> >vocabularly tends to become more set as they grow older.
>>
>> 2. A Structural Factor Analysis of Vocabulary Knowledge and Relations to Age
>> Bowles et al. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci.2005; 60: P234-P241
>
>Interesting, but not exactly on point. I'm really not interested in
>proving something with regards to "old people", but rather middle aged
>people.
>
>The proposition I really want to support might be stated:
>
>1. JKR at age 39 is unlikely to suddenly beging using the phrase
>"brainwave" to describe a bright idea when she has never before used it
>in thousands of pages of prose.
>
>So, attempting to "generalize" this proposition, I make it...
>
>2. older people are less likely to adopt new idioms
>
>and attempting to further generalize the concept:
>
>3. as one ages, one becomes less likely to adopt new idioms.
>
>Notice that that I'm speaking in terms of "older", not "real old". I'm
>not talking about the mental failings as the human body declines with
>old age and eventually becomes senescent and dies, which is what the
>discipline of gerentology is all about.
>
>I'm actually proposing that there is a "psychodynamic" process, and
>taking a wild-assed guess, I would speculate that the willingness to
>adopt new idioms peaks between 16 and 18, and then enters a process of
>attenuation that continues until senescence sets in.
>
>The concept "works for me".
>
>Dave

You can't teach an old dog new tricks.
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #282229 ] Mo, 19 Juni 2006 08:13
Imagun Aqilya  
"Green-Eyed Chris" <cwlNO [at] SPAMfreenet.de> wrote in message
news:cwlNO-1706061153530001 [at] o4d8d.o.pppool.de...
> In article <1150532663.251481.219250 [at] r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "David


> I see Firenze's unicorn blood sermon as an indication that your second
> point is correct. The idea of "a half-life, a cursed life, from the moment
> the blood touches your lips" never plays out. Quite the contrary. With his
> resurrection in GoF and Horcruxes in HBP, LV is well on the road to
> immortality.


Was it actually V who drank the unicorns' blood? Technically the blood
touched Quirrell's lips and things didnt' really work out too well for him
after that.
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #282230 ] Mo, 19 Juni 2006 09:46
cwlNO  
In article <Yfrlg.69151$S61.29152 [at] edtnps90>, "Imagun Aqilya"
<dingle [at] dongle.net> wrote:

>"Green-Eyed Chris" <cwlNO [at] SPAMfreenet.de> wrote in message
>news:cwlNO-1706061153530001 [at] o4d8d.o.pppool.de...
>> In article <1150532663.251481.219250 [at] r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "David
>
>
>> I see Firenze's unicorn blood sermon as an indication that your second
>> point is correct. The idea of "a half-life, a cursed life, from the moment
>> the blood touches your lips" never plays out. Quite the contrary. With his
>> resurrection in GoF and Horcruxes in HBP, LV is well on the road to
>> immortality.
>
>
>Was it actually V who drank the unicorns' blood? Technically the blood
>touched Quirrell's lips and things didnt' really work out too well for him
>after that.

PS/SS, Ch. 17:
»See what I have become?« the face said. »Mere shadow and
vaporŠ I have form only when I can share another¹s bodyŠ but
there have always been those willing to let me into their hearts
and mindsŠ Unicorn blood has strengthened me, these past
weeksŠ you saw faithful Quirrell drinking it for me in the forestŠ
and once I have the Elixir of Life, I will be able to create a body
of my ownŠ NowŠ why don¹t you give me that Stone in your
pocket?«

GoF, Ch. 33:
»Wormtail¹s body, of course, was ill adapted for possession, as
all assumed him dead, and would attract far too much attention
if noticed. However, he was the able-bodied servant I needed,
and, poor wizard though he is, Wormtail was able to follow the
instructions I gave him, which would return me to a
rudimentary, weak body of my own, a body I would be able to
inhabit while awaiting the essential ingredients for true rebirthŠ
a spell or two of my own inventionŠ a little help from my dear
Nagini«, Voldemorts red eyes fell upon the continually circling
snake, »a potion concocted from unicorn blood, and the snake
venom Nagini providedŠ I was soon returned to an almost
human form, and strong enough to travel.
--
Chris
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #282242 ] Mo, 19 Juni 2006 16:34
Imagun Aqilya  
"Green-Eyed Chris" <cwlNO [at] SPAMfreenet.de> wrote in message
news:cwlNO-1906060946070001 [at] o4d83.o.pppool.de...

»a potion concocted from unicorn blood, and the snake
> venom Nagini providedŠ I was soon returned to an almost
> human form, and strong enough to travel.


Ahh... I had forgotten that the snake venom concoction had unicorn blood in
it. Looks like V's screwed after all.
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #282243 ] Mo, 19 Juni 2006 18:53
Mauro  
"Toon" <toon [at] toon.com> wrote in message
news:lj0a92tppcfn4itopqdhbe53t6cv1dgcn7 [at] 4ax.com...
> On 17 Jun 2006 01:24:23 -0700, "David Sueme" <dsueme [at] comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Green-Eyed Chris wrote:
> >
> >I wrote:
> > I cannot find a citation for a "common sense"
> >> >proposition that is the "cornerstone" of my argument - an author's
> >> >vocabularly tends to become more set as they grow older.
> >>
> >> 2. A Structural Factor Analysis of Vocabulary Knowledge and Relations
to Age
> >> Bowles et al. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci.2005; 60: P234-P241
> >
> >Interesting, but not exactly on point. I'm really not interested in
> >proving something with regards to "old people", but rather middle aged
> >people.
> >
> >The proposition I really want to support might be stated:
> >
> >1. JKR at age 39 is unlikely to suddenly beging using the phrase
> >"brainwave" to describe a bright idea when she has never before used it
> >in thousands of pages of prose.
> >
> >So, attempting to "generalize" this proposition, I make it...
> >
> >2. older people are less likely to adopt new idioms
> >
> >and attempting to further generalize the concept:
> >
> >3. as one ages, one becomes less likely to adopt new idioms.
> >
> >Notice that that I'm speaking in terms of "older", not "real old". I'm
> >not talking about the mental failings as the human body declines with
> >old age and eventually becomes senescent and dies, which is what the
> >discipline of gerentology is all about.
> >
> >I'm actually proposing that there is a "psychodynamic" process, and
> >taking a wild-assed guess, I would speculate that the willingness to
> >adopt new idioms peaks between 16 and 18, and then enters a process of
> >attenuation that continues until senescence sets in.
> >
> >The concept "works for me".
> >
> >Dave
>
> You can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Do you realize how offensive this whole line of conversation is to those of
us who are older on this newsgroup? The idea that you can't teach an old
dog new tricks is just plain idiotic. As a corporate trainer, I saw people
well into their 60's learning new things all the time. Often -- but not
always -- they learn more slowly, but they still learn. And as for picking
up new slang, I see that all the time. After Kill Bill V. 1 came out,
during annual reviews my boss would come out of his office and (hopefully
jokingly) ask his admin assistant, "Any more subordinates for me to kill?"
(one of The Bride's lines to O-Ren). And once my boss's boss came into one
of our team meetings for an update on a project we were working on. It was
taking a lot longer than he had originally expected, and someone asked him
if he had thought it was going to be a quick and simple fix. His response
was "You know, for a second there, yeah, I kinda did" (another one of The
Bride's lines). To stick with the Tarrantino theme, after Pulp Fiction came
out there were a couple of guys ready for retirement at the job I had at
that time who had a very memorable disagreement about which one of them was
the f**king foot master, and a husband and wife in their 50's that both
worked for that company started calling each other Honey Bunny and Pumpkin.

And now that I think about it, my boss's boss also started using the term
"brainwave" just after HBP came out.

So yes, maybe older people don't use new terms or new slang as often, but
"as often" hardly equates to "at all." You (David S.) are trying to say
that one new word used in a book of however many pages HBP was is proof that
it wasn't written by JKR? Riddikulus! How young are you, anyway?

As for a psychodynamic process where adopting new idioms peaks at 18, you
obviously haven't a) attended college, where adopting new idioms continues
unabated at least through post-doctorate work or b) read much. Greg
Benford, for example, is not exactly a spring chicken (born in 1941), and
neither is Stephen King (born in 1947), and they both use new idioms all the
time -- although Benford's tend to be science-related. A writer who doesn't
continue to build and update their vocabulary through their entire life is
not going to continue to sell books. Your theory is an example of age-ism
at its worst.

M.
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #282273 ] Di, 20 Juni 2006 01:39
Thomas Madura  
Mauro wrote:

> "Toon" <toon [at] toon.com> wrote in message
> news:lj0a92tppcfn4itopqdhbe53t6cv1dgcn7 [at] 4ax.com...
>
>>On 17 Jun 2006 01:24:23 -0700, "David Sueme" <dsueme [at] comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Green-Eyed Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>I wrote:
>>>I cannot find a citation for a "common sense"
>>>
>>>>>proposition that is the "cornerstone" of my argument - an author's
>>>>>vocabularly tends to become more set as they grow older.
>>>>
>>>>2. A Structural Factor Analysis of Vocabulary Knowledge and Relations
>
> to Age
>
>>>>Bowles et al. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci.2005; 60: P234-P241
>>>
>>>Interesting, but not exactly on point. I'm really not interested in
>>>proving something with regards to "old people", but rather middle aged
>>>people.
>>>
>>>The proposition I really want to support might be stated:
>>>
>>>1. JKR at age 39 is unlikely to suddenly beging using the phrase
>>>"brainwave" to describe a bright idea when she has never before used it
>>>in thousands of pages of prose.
>>>
>>>So, attempting to "generalize" this proposition, I make it...
>>>
>>>2. older people are less likely to adopt new idioms
>>>
>>>and attempting to further generalize the concept:
>>>
>>>3. as one ages, one becomes less likely to adopt new idioms.
>>>
>>>Notice that that I'm speaking in terms of "older", not "real old". I'm
>>>not talking about the mental failings as the human body declines with
>>>old age and eventually becomes senescent and dies, which is what the
>>>discipline of gerentology is all about.
>>>
>>>I'm actually proposing that there is a "psychodynamic" process, and
>>>taking a wild-assed guess, I would speculate that the willingness to
>>>adopt new idioms peaks between 16 and 18, and then enters a process of
>>>attenuation that continues until senescence sets in.
>>>
>>>The concept "works for me".
>>>
>>>Dave
>>
>>You can't teach an old dog new tricks.
>
>
> Do you realize how offensive this whole line of conversation is to those of
> us who are older on this newsgroup? The idea that you can't teach an old
> dog new tricks is just plain idiotic. As a corporate trainer, I saw people
> well into their 60's learning new things all the time. Often -- but not
> always -- they learn more slowly, but they still learn. And as for picking
> up new slang, I see that all the time. After Kill Bill V. 1 came out,
> during annual reviews my boss would come out of his office and (hopefully
> jokingly) ask his admin assistant, "Any more subordinates for me to kill?"
> (one of The Bride's lines to O-Ren). And once my boss's boss came into one
> of our team meetings for an update on a project we were working on. It was
> taking a lot longer than he had originally expected, and someone asked him
> if he had thought it was going to be a quick and simple fix. His response
> was "You know, for a second there, yeah, I kinda did" (another one of The
> Bride's lines). To stick with the Tarrantino theme, after Pulp Fiction came
> out there were a couple of guys ready for retirement at the job I had at
> that time who had a very memorable disagreement about which one of them was
> the f**king foot master, and a husband and wife in their 50's that both
> worked for that company started calling each other Honey Bunny and Pumpkin.
>
> And now that I think about it, my boss's boss also started using the term
> "brainwave" just after HBP came out.
>
> So yes, maybe older people don't use new terms or new slang as often, but
> "as often" hardly equates to "at all." You (David S.) are trying to say
> that one new word used in a book of however many pages HBP was is proof that
> it wasn't written by JKR? Riddikulus! How young are you, anyway?
>
> As for a psychodynamic process where adopting new idioms peaks at 18, you
> obviously haven't a) attended college, where adopting new idioms continues
> unabated at least through post-doctorate work or b) read much. Greg
> Benford, for example, is not exactly a spring chicken (born in 1941), and
> neither is Stephen King (born in 1947), and they both use new idioms all the
> time -- although Benford's tend to be science-related. A writer who doesn't
> continue to build and update their vocabulary through their entire life is
> not going to continue to sell books. Your theory is an example of age-ism
> at its worst.
>
> M.
>
>

Bravo

However .....


Noting that I am in your age bracket or so (circa 1941) - I have one
thing to say

You wrote ALL of the above to someone named

"green eyed" !!!!!!!
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #282295 ] Di, 20 Juni 2006 14:53
cwlNO  
In article <OAGlg.41858$mF2.25049 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Thom Madura <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Mauro wrote:
>
>> "Toon" <toon [at] toon.com> wrote in message
>> news:lj0a92tppcfn4itopqdhbe53t6cv1dgcn7 [at] 4ax.com...
>>
>>>On 17 Jun 2006 01:24:23 -0700, "David Sueme" <dsueme [at] comcast.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Green-Eyed Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I wrote:
>>>>I cannot find a citation for a "common sense"
>>>>
>>>>>>proposition that is the "cornerstone" of my argument - an author's
>>>>>>vocabularly tends to become more set as they grow older.
>>>>>
>>>>>2. A Structural Factor Analysis of Vocabulary Knowledge and Relations
>>
>> to Age
>>
>>>>>Bowles et al. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci.2005; 60: P234-P241
>>>>
>>>>Interesting, but not exactly on point. I'm really not interested in
>>>>proving something with regards to "old people", but rather middle aged
>>>>people.
>>>>
>>>>The proposition I really want to support might be stated:
>>>>
>>>>1. JKR at age 39 is unlikely to suddenly beging using the phrase
>>>>"brainwave" to describe a bright idea when she has never before used it
>>>>in thousands of pages of prose.
>>>>
>>>>So, attempting to "generalize" this proposition, I make it...
>>>>
>>>>2. older people are less likely to adopt new idioms
>>>>
>>>>and attempting to further generalize the concept:
>>>>
>>>>3. as one ages, one becomes less likely to adopt new idioms.
>>>>
>>>>Notice that that I'm speaking in terms of "older", not "real old". I'm
>>>>not talking about the mental failings as the human body declines with
>>>>old age and eventually becomes senescent and dies, which is what the
>>>>discipline of gerentology is all about.
>>>>
>>>>I'm actually proposing that there is a "psychodynamic" process, and
>>>>taking a wild-assed guess, I would speculate that the willingness to
>>>>adopt new idioms peaks between 16 and 18, and then enters a process of
>>>>attenuation that continues until senescence sets in.
>>>>
>>>>The concept "works for me".
>>>>
>>>>Dave
>>>
>>>You can't teach an old dog new tricks.
>>
>>
>> Do you realize how offensive this whole line of conversation is to those of
>> us who are older on this newsgroup? The idea that you can't teach an old
>> dog new tricks is just plain idiotic. As a corporate trainer, I saw people
>> well into their 60's learning new things all the time. Often -- but not
>> always -- they learn more slowly, but they still learn. And as for picking
>> up new slang, I see that all the time. After Kill Bill V. 1 came out,
>> during annual reviews my boss would come out of his office and (hopefully
>> jokingly) ask his admin assistant, "Any more subordinates for me to kill?"
>> (one of The Bride's lines to O-Ren). And once my boss's boss came into one
>> of our team meetings for an update on a project we were working on. It was
>> taking a lot longer than he had originally expected, and someone asked him
>> if he had thought it was going to be a quick and simple fix. His response
>> was "You know, for a second there, yeah, I kinda did" (another one of The
>> Bride's lines). To stick with the Tarrantino theme, after Pulp Fiction came
>> out there were a couple of guys ready for retirement at the job I had at
>> that time who had a very memorable disagreement about which one of them was
>> the f**king foot master, and a husband and wife in their 50's that both
>> worked for that company started calling each other Honey Bunny and Pumpkin.
>>
>> And now that I think about it, my boss's boss also started using the term
>> "brainwave" just after HBP came out.
>>
>> So yes, maybe older people don't use new terms or new slang as often, but
>> "as often" hardly equates to "at all." You (David S.) are trying to say
>> that one new word used in a book of however many pages HBP was is proof that
>> it wasn't written by JKR? Riddikulus! How young are you, anyway?
>>
>> As for a psychodynamic process where adopting new idioms peaks at 18, you
>> obviously haven't a) attended college, where adopting new idioms continues
>> unabated at least through post-doctorate work or b) read much. Greg
>> Benford, for example, is not exactly a spring chicken (born in 1941), and
>> neither is Stephen King (born in 1947), and they both use new idioms all the
>> time -- although Benford's tend to be science-related. A writer who doesn't
>> continue to build and update their vocabulary through their entire life is
>> not going to continue to sell books. Your theory is an example of age-ism
>> at its worst.
>>
>> M.
>>
>>
>
>Bravo
>
>However .....
>
>
>Noting that I am in your age bracket or so (circa 1941) - I have one
>thing to say
>
>You wrote ALL of the above to someone named
>
>"green eyed" !!!!!!!

A self-declared veteran of this group really should know better. The three
back-to-back "greater than" or "whence derived" symbols clearly indicate
that Mauro was addressing Dave. If it was your sole intent to insult me,
then I would most certainly like to know why.
--
Chris
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #282310 ] Di, 20 Juni 2006 23:26
Thomas Madura  
Green-Eyed Chris wrote:

> In article <OAGlg.41858$mF2.25049 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Thom Madura <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Mauro wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Toon" <toon [at] toon.com> wrote in message
>>>news:lj0a92tppcfn4itopqdhbe53t6cv1dgcn7 [at] 4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 17 Jun 2006 01:24:23 -0700, "David Sueme" <dsueme [at] comcast.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Green-Eyed Chris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>I wrote:
>>>>>I cannot find a citation for a "common sense"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>proposition that is the "cornerstone" of my argument - an author's
>>>>>>>vocabularly tends to become more set as they grow older.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>2. A Structural Factor Analysis of Vocabulary Knowledge and Relations
>>>
>>>to Age
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Bowles et al. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci.2005; 60: P234-P241
>>>>>
>>>>>Interesting, but not exactly on point. I'm really not interested in
>>>>>proving something with regards to "old people", but rather middle aged
>>>>>people.
>>>>>
>>>>>The proposition I really want to support might be stated:
>>>>>
>>>>>1. JKR at age 39 is unlikely to suddenly beging using the phrase
>>>>>"brainwave" to describe a bright idea when she has never before used it
>>>>>in thousands of pages of prose.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, attempting to "generalize" this proposition, I make it...
>>>>>
>>>>>2. older people are less likely to adopt new idioms
>>>>>
>>>>>and attempting to further generalize the concept:
>>>>>
>>>>>3. as one ages, one becomes less likely to adopt new idioms.
>>>>>
>>>>>Notice that that I'm speaking in terms of "older", not "real old". I'm
>>>>>not talking about the mental failings as the human body declines with
>>>>>old age and eventually becomes senescent and dies, which is what the
>>>>>discipline of gerentology is all about.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm actually proposing that there is a "psychodynamic" process, and
>>>>>taking a wild-assed guess, I would speculate that the willingness to
>>>>>adopt new idioms peaks between 16 and 18, and then enters a process of
>>>>>attenuation that continues until senescence sets in.
>>>>>
>>>>>The concept "works for me".
>>>>>
>>>>>Dave
>>>>
>>>>You can't teach an old dog new tricks.
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you realize how offensive this whole line of conversation is to those of
>>>us who are older on this newsgroup? The idea that you can't teach an old
>>>dog new tricks is just plain idiotic. As a corporate trainer, I saw people
>>>well into their 60's learning new things all the time. Often -- but not
>>>always -- they learn more slowly, but they still learn. And as for picking
>>>up new slang, I see that all the time. After Kill Bill V. 1 came out,
>>>during annual reviews my boss would come out of his office and (hopefully
>>>jokingly) ask his admin assistant, "Any more subordinates for me to kill?"
>>>(one of The Bride's lines to O-Ren). And once my boss's boss came into one
>>>of our team meetings for an update on a project we were working on. It was
>>>taking a lot longer than he had originally expected, and someone asked him
>>>if he had thought it was going to be a quick and simple fix. His response
>>>was "You know, for a second there, yeah, I kinda did" (another one of The
>>>Bride's lines). To stick with the Tarrantino theme, after Pulp Fiction came
>>>out there were a couple of guys ready for retirement at the job I had at
>>>that time who had a very memorable disagreement about which one of them was
>>>the f**king foot master, and a husband and wife in their 50's that both
>>>worked for that company started calling each other Honey Bunny and Pumpkin.
>>>
>>>And now that I think about it, my boss's boss also started using the term
>>>"brainwave" just after HBP came out.
>>>
>>>So yes, maybe older people don't use new terms or new slang as often, but
>>>"as often" hardly equates to "at all." You (David S.) are trying to say
>>>that one new word used in a book of however many pages HBP was is proof that
>>>it wasn't written by JKR? Riddikulus! How young are you, anyway?
>>>
>>>As for a psychodynamic process where adopting new idioms peaks at 18, you
>>>obviously haven't a) attended college, where adopting new idioms continues
>>>unabated at least through post-doctorate work or b) read much. Greg
>>>Benford, for example, is not exactly a spring chicken (born in 1941), and
>>>neither is Stephen King (born in 1947), and they both use new idioms all the
>>>time -- although Benford's tend to be science-related. A writer who doesn't
>>>continue to build and update their vocabulary through their entire life is
>>>not going to continue to sell books. Your theory is an example of age-ism
>>>at its worst.
>>>
>>>M.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Bravo
>>
>>However .....
>>
>>
>>Noting that I am in your age bracket or so (circa 1941) - I have one
>>thing to say
>>
>>You wrote ALL of the above to someone named
>>
>>"green eyed" !!!!!!!
>
>
> A self-declared veteran of this group really should know better. The three
> back-to-back "greater than" or "whence derived" symbols clearly indicate
> that Mauro was addressing Dave. If it was your sole intent to insult me,
> then I would most certainly like to know why.
> --
> Chris


Clearly I meant the insult to the original poster
Re: Baby Harry's Daring [message #282318 ] Mi, 21 Juni 2006 11:55
cwlNO  
In article <%JZlg.222423$Fs1.78561 [at] bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Thom Madura <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Green-Eyed Chris wrote:
>
>> In article <OAGlg.41858$mF2.25049 [at] bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> Thom Madura <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mauro wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Toon" <toon [at] toon.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:lj0a92tppcfn4itopqdhbe53t6cv1dgcn7 [at] 4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 17 Jun 2006 01:24:23 -0700, "David Sueme" <dsueme [at] comcast.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Green-Eyed Chris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I wrote:
>>>>>>I cannot find a citation for a "common sense"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>proposition that is the "cornerstone" of my argument - an author's
>>>>>>>>vocabularly tends to become more set as they grow older.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>2. A Structural Factor Analysis of Vocabulary Knowledge and Relations
>>>>
>>>>to Age
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Bowles et al. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci.2005; 60: P234-P241
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Interesting, but not exactly on point. I'm really not interested in
>>>>>>proving something with regards to "old people", but rather middle aged
>>>>>>people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The proposition I really want to support might be stated:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. JKR at age 39 is unlikely to suddenly beging using the phrase
>>>>>>"brainwave" to describe a bright idea when she has never before used it
>>>>>>in thousands of pages of prose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, attempting to "generalize" this proposition, I make it...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>2. older people are less likely to adopt new idioms
>>>>>>
>>>>>>and attempting to further generalize the concept:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>3. as one ages, one becomes less likely to adopt new idioms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Notice that that I'm speaking in terms of "older", not "real old". I'm
>>>>>>not talking about the mental failings as the human body declines with
>>>>>>old age and eventually becomes senescent and dies, which is what the
>>>>>>discipline of gerentology is all about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm actually proposing that there is a "psychodynamic" process, and
>>>>>>taking a wild-assed guess, I would speculate that the willingness to
>>>>>>adopt new idioms peaks between 16 and 18, and then enters a process of
>>>>>>attenuation that continues until senescence sets in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The concept "works for me".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>You can't teach an old dog new tricks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you realize how offensive this whole line of conversation is to those of
>>>>us who are older on this newsgroup? The idea that you can't teach an old
>>>>dog new tricks is just plain idiotic. As a corporate trainer, I saw people
>>>>well into their 60's learning new things all the time. Often -- but not
>>>>always -- they learn more slowly, but they still learn. And as for picking
>>>>up new slang, I see that all the time. After Kill Bill V. 1 came out,
>>>>during annual reviews my boss would come out of his office and (hopefully
>>>>jokingly) ask his admin assistant, "Any more subordinates for me to kill?"
>>>>(one of The Bride's lines to O-Ren). And once my boss's boss came into one
>>>>of our team meetings for an update on a project we were working on. It was
>>>>taking a lot longer than he had originally expected, and someone asked him
>>>>if he had thought it was going to be a quick and simple fix. His response
>>>>was "You know, for a second there, yeah, I kinda did" (another one of The
>>>>Bride's lines). To stick with the Tarrantino theme, after Pulp Fiction came
>>>>out there were a couple of guys ready for retirement at the job I had at
>>>>that time who had a very memorable disagreement about which one of them was
>>>>the f**king foot master, and a husband and wife in their 50's that both
>>>>worked for that company started calling each other Honey Bunny and Pumpkin.
>>>>
>>>>And now that I think about it, my boss's boss also started using the term
>>>>"brainwave" just after HBP came out.
>>>>
>>>>So yes, maybe older people don't use new terms or new slang as often, but
>>>>"as often" hardly equates to "at all." You (David S.) are trying to say
>>>>that one new word used in a book of however many pages HBP was is proof that
>>>>it wasn't written by JKR? Riddikulus! How young are you, anyway?
>>>>
>>>>As for a psychodynamic process where adopting new idioms peaks at 18, you
>>>>obviously haven't a) attended college, where adopting new idioms continues
>>>>unabated at least through post-doctorate work or b) read much. Greg
>>>>Benford, for example, is not exactly a spring chicken (born in 1941), and
>>>>neither is Stephen King (born in 1947), and they both use new idioms all the
>>>>time -- although Benford's tend to be science-related. A writer who doesn't
>>>>continue to build and update their vocabulary through their entire life is
>>>>not going to continue to sell books. Your theory is an example of age-ism
>>>>at its worst.
>>>>
>>>>M.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Bravo
>>>
>>>However .....
>>>
>>>
>>>Noting that I am in your age bracket or so (circa 1941) - I have one
>>>thing to say
>>>
>>>You wrote ALL of the above to someone named
>>>
>>>"green eyed" !!!!!!!
>>
>>
>> A self-declared veteran of this group really should know better. The three
>> back-to-back "greater than" or "whence derived" symbols clearly indicate
>> that Mauro was addressing Dave. If it was your sole intent to insult me,
>> then I would most certainly like to know why.
>> --
>> Chris
>
>
>Clearly I meant the insult to the original poster

.... he clearly waffled, intransigently refusing to learn a new trick.
Vorheriges Thema:LV Question about Horcruxes
Nächstes Thema:help me please
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 07:23:55 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,05156 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered