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 » Speaking of Horcruxes
Speaking of Horcruxes [message #297930] Di, 11 Juli 2006 04:50
Bubba  
This may have already been discussed on this board, so I apologize in
advance if it has as I'm not a regular here. To the point, I was
watching CoS DVD yesterday and it occurred to me that Voldemort must
have killed someone by the age of 16 so that he could "preserve his
16-year old self in the diary." In CoS, we don't know the diary is a
Horcrux and it's only in HBP that we find out that it is/was. So we
must conclude that Tom Riddle murdered someone when he was 16 years old
or in his 6th year at Hogwarts. We must also conclude that it was
sometime after his meeting with Prof. Slughorn, he definitely killed
someone at age 16. Now, here's a great question: Who did he kill?

Bubba
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #297932 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 04:54
nystulc  
Bubba wrote:
> This may have already been discussed on this board, so I apologize in
> advance if it has as I'm not a regular here. To the point, I was
> watching CoS DVD yesterday and it occurred to me that Voldemort must
> have killed someone by the age of 16 so that he could "preserve his
> 16-year old self in the diary." In CoS, we don't know the diary is a
> Horcrux and it's only in HBP that we find out that it is/was. So we
> must conclude that Tom Riddle murdered someone when he was 16 years old
> or in his 6th year at Hogwarts. We must also conclude that it was
> sometime after his meeting with Prof. Slughorn, he definitely killed
> someone at age 16. Now, here's a great question: Who did he kill?

Professor Flitwick. He's been an inferius ever since.
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #297933 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 04:59
Rebecca Clayton  
"Bubba" <funnybubba [at] mac.com> wrote in message
news:funnybubba-B46FD6.22500710072006 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> This may have already been discussed on this board, so I apologize in
> advance if it has as I'm not a regular here. To the point, I was
> watching CoS DVD yesterday and it occurred to me that Voldemort must
> have killed someone by the age of 16 so that he could "preserve his
> 16-year old self in the diary." In CoS, we don't know the diary is a
> Horcrux and it's only in HBP that we find out that it is/was. So we
> must conclude that Tom Riddle murdered someone when he was 16 years old
> or in his 6th year at Hogwarts. We must also conclude that it was
> sometime after his meeting with Prof. Slughorn, he definitely killed
> someone at age 16. Now, here's a great question: Who did he kill?
>
> Bubba

My guess would be Moaning Myrtle.
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #297934 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 05:03
The Magic Engineer  
"Rebecca Clayton" <rebeccaclayton [at] bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:fuEsg.21277$Ud4.6475 [at] bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Bubba" <funnybubba [at] mac.com> wrote in message
> news:funnybubba-B46FD6.22500710072006 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>> This may have already been discussed on this board, so I apologize in
>> advance if it has as I'm not a regular here. To the point, I was
>> watching CoS DVD yesterday and it occurred to me that Voldemort must
>> have killed someone by the age of 16 so that he could "preserve his
>> 16-year old self in the diary." In CoS, we don't know the diary is a
>> Horcrux and it's only in HBP that we find out that it is/was. So we
>> must conclude that Tom Riddle murdered someone when he was 16 years old
>> or in his 6th year at Hogwarts. We must also conclude that it was
>> sometime after his meeting with Prof. Slughorn, he definitely killed
>> someone at age 16. Now, here's a great question: Who did he kill?
>>
>> Bubba
>
> My guess would be Moaning Myrtle.

Wasn't Myrtle killed by the basilisk that he let loose, and not by
Tom's own hand?

My guess would be some random muggle.. or wasn't there a line
in one of Dumbledore's memories that he lured some kids into a
cave and did some unspeakables to them? Or was that just scaring
the daylights out of them?


TME
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #297937 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 05:08
mystic  
Bubba wrote:
> This may have already been discussed on this board, so I apologize in
> advance if it has as I'm not a regular here. To the point, I was
> watching CoS DVD yesterday and it occurred to me that Voldemort must
> have killed someone by the age of 16 so that he could "preserve his
> 16-year old self in the diary." In CoS, we don't know the diary is a
> Horcrux and it's only in HBP that we find out that it is/was. So we
> must conclude that Tom Riddle murdered someone when he was 16 years old
> or in his 6th year at Hogwarts. We must also conclude that it was
> sometime after his meeting with Prof. Slughorn, he definitely killed
> someone at age 16. Now, here's a great question: Who did he kill?
>
> Bubba
His dad and his grandparents. You find this out in HBP. And it was
before his meeting with Slughorn since he already had Slitherin's Ring
when the meeting took place.

I think it is unlikely that he didn't have enough deaths to get the
required horcrux's before he tried to kill Harry. After all by then he
was called the "Dark Lord". The last one might have been meant for Harry
to be the victim. But only Ms. Rowlings knows for sure.
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #297957 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 09:52
Toon  
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 02:50:07 GMT, Bubba <funnybubba [at] mac.com> wrote:

>This may have already been discussed on this board, so I apologize in
>advance if it has as I'm not a regular here. To the point, I was
>watching CoS DVD yesterday and it occurred to me that Voldemort must
>have killed someone by the age of 16 so that he could "preserve his
>16-year old self in the diary." In CoS, we don't know the diary is a
>Horcrux and it's only in HBP that we find out that it is/was. So we
>must conclude that Tom Riddle murdered someone when he was 16 years old
>or in his 6th year at Hogwarts. We must also conclude that it was
>sometime after his meeting with Prof. Slughorn, he definitely killed
>someone at age 16. Now, here's a great question: Who did he kill?
>
>Bubba

Not a pureblood. He'd want them around.
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #297960 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 10:12
dicconf  
In article <44b3160a$0$3628$822641b3 [at] news.adtechcomputers.com>,
*MYSTIC* <mystic [at] thecave.net> wrote:
>Bubba wrote:
>> This may have already been discussed on this board, so I apologize in
>> advance if it has as I'm not a regular here. To the point, I was
>> watching CoS DVD yesterday and it occurred to me that Voldemort must
>> have killed someone by the age of 16 so that he could "preserve his
>> 16-year old self in the diary." In CoS, we don't know the diary is a
>> Horcrux and it's only in HBP that we find out that it is/was. So we
>> must conclude that Tom Riddle murdered someone when he was 16 years old
>> or in his 6th year at Hogwarts. We must also conclude that it was
>> sometime after his meeting with Prof. Slughorn, he definitely killed
>> someone at age 16. Now, here's a great question: Who did he kill?

>His dad and his grandparents. You find this out in HBP. And it was
>before his meeting with Slughorn since he already had Slitherin's Ring
>when the meeting took place.

He had the ring on, though, so it wasn't a horcrux yet. I don't think
the diary was a horcrux yet either; he was just asking Slughorn what a
horcrux was at that point. I think he made the diary first just as a
way to store his old memories - that _is_ what a diary is for! - but
then he made it into a horcrux _later_. I don't think he actually used
those first killings for anything except revenge.

>I think it is unlikely that he didn't have enough deaths to get the
>required horcrux's before he tried to kill Harry. After all by then he
>was called the "Dark Lord". The last one might have been meant for Harry
>to be the victim. But only Ms. Rowlings knows for sure.

It seems to be accepted by the characters in the books that V intended
to kill Harry and use his death to make a horcrux out of something else.
What that something else was, we don't know, but since V died on the spot,
either it was taken away by Wormtail or Hagrid (or someone else?)
or it's still in the rubble. On the other hand, wouldn't someone have
cleared up the building lot by now?

=Tamar
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #297965 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 12:29
Christian Winter  
Richard Eney wrote:
> It seems to be accepted by the characters in the books that V intended
> to kill Harry and use his death to make a horcrux out of something else.
> What that something else was, we don't know, but since V died on the spot,
> either it was taken away by Wormtail or Hagrid (or someone else?)
> or it's still in the rubble.

My guess it that it had been taken away by Wormtail when he fetched
Voldemort's wand.

-Chris
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #297967 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 14:59
Bubba  
In article <1JidnQ2ebNqFiC7ZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
"The Magic Engineer" <pem &( [at] comcastic!> wrote:

> "Rebecca Clayton" <rebeccaclayton [at] bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:fuEsg.21277$Ud4.6475 [at] bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Bubba" <funnybubba [at] mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:funnybubba-B46FD6.22500710072006 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> >> This may have already been discussed on this board, so I apologize in
> >> advance if it has as I'm not a regular here. To the point, I was
> >> watching CoS DVD yesterday and it occurred to me that Voldemort must
> >> have killed someone by the age of 16 so that he could "preserve his
> >> 16-year old self in the diary." In CoS, we don't know the diary is a
> >> Horcrux and it's only in HBP that we find out that it is/was. So we
> >> must conclude that Tom Riddle murdered someone when he was 16 years old
> >> or in his 6th year at Hogwarts. We must also conclude that it was
> >> sometime after his meeting with Prof. Slughorn, he definitely killed
> >> someone at age 16. Now, here's a great question: Who did he kill?
> >>
> >> Bubba
> >
> > My guess would be Moaning Myrtle.
>
> Wasn't Myrtle killed by the basilisk that he let loose, and not by
> Tom's own hand?
>
> My guess would be some random muggle.. or wasn't there a line
> in one of Dumbledore's memories that he lured some kids into a
> cave and did some unspeakables to them? Or was that just scaring
> the daylights out of them?
>
>
> TME
>
>

Moaning Myrtle was not killed by Tom's own hand. As for the kids in the
cave, that was in Dear Tommy's youth, way before he even attended
Hogwarts.
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #297969 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 15:20
BaJoRi  
"The Magic Engineer" <pem &( [at] comcastic!> wrote in message
news:1JidnQ2ebNqFiC7ZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>
> "Rebecca Clayton" <rebeccaclayton [at] bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:fuEsg.21277$Ud4.6475 [at] bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Bubba" <funnybubba [at] mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:funnybubba-B46FD6.22500710072006 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>>> This may have already been discussed on this board, so I apologize in
>>> advance if it has as I'm not a regular here. To the point, I was
>>> watching CoS DVD yesterday and it occurred to me that Voldemort must
>>> have killed someone by the age of 16 so that he could "preserve his
>>> 16-year old self in the diary." In CoS, we don't know the diary is a
>>> Horcrux and it's only in HBP that we find out that it is/was. So we
>>> must conclude that Tom Riddle murdered someone when he was 16 years old
>>> or in his 6th year at Hogwarts. We must also conclude that it was
>>> sometime after his meeting with Prof. Slughorn, he definitely killed
>>> someone at age 16. Now, here's a great question: Who did he kill?
>>>
>>> Bubba
>>
>> My guess would be Moaning Myrtle.
>
> Wasn't Myrtle killed by the basilisk that he let loose, and not by
> Tom's own hand?

It could easily have been his realtives, the Riddles. The damage to the soul
was done, and he could have taken advantage of that any time. There is never
an indication given that he had ever made the horcrux while still at
Hogwarts



>
> My guess would be some random muggle.. or wasn't there a line
> in one of Dumbledore's memories that he lured some kids into a
> cave and did some unspeakables to them? Or was that just scaring
> the daylights out of them?
>
>
> TME
>
>
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #297970 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 15:43
Kenny  
"Bubba" <funnybubba [at] mac.com> wrote in message
news:funnybubba-53EFA9.08594911072006 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> Moaning Myrtle was not killed by Tom's own hand. As for the kids in the
> cave, that was in Dear Tommy's youth, way before he even attended
> Hogwarts.

Does it have to be by his own hand or does it count if he sicks his pet
Basilisk on someone with the intent to kill them? I think it would count
because he is the one controlling the Basilisk.


Kenny
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #297972 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 15:48
Rebecca Clayton  
"BaJoRi" <bajori [at] cbg.com> wrote in message
news:VANsg.111890$YR4.31525 [at] fe10.news.easynews.com...
>
> "The Magic Engineer" <pem &( [at] comcastic!> wrote in message
> news:1JidnQ2ebNqFiC7ZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
> >
> > "Rebecca Clayton" <rebeccaclayton [at] bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:fuEsg.21277$Ud4.6475 [at] bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> "Bubba" <funnybubba [at] mac.com> wrote in message
> >> news:funnybubba-B46FD6.22500710072006 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> >>> This may have already been discussed on this board, so I apologize in
> >>> advance if it has as I'm not a regular here. To the point, I was
> >>> watching CoS DVD yesterday and it occurred to me that Voldemort must
> >>> have killed someone by the age of 16 so that he could "preserve his
> >>> 16-year old self in the diary." In CoS, we don't know the diary is a
> >>> Horcrux and it's only in HBP that we find out that it is/was. So we
> >>> must conclude that Tom Riddle murdered someone when he was 16 years
old
> >>> or in his 6th year at Hogwarts. We must also conclude that it was
> >>> sometime after his meeting with Prof. Slughorn, he definitely killed
> >>> someone at age 16. Now, here's a great question: Who did he kill?
> >>>
> >>> Bubba
> >>
> >> My guess would be Moaning Myrtle.
> >
> > Wasn't Myrtle killed by the basilisk that he let loose, and not by
> > Tom's own hand?
>
> It could easily have been his realtives, the Riddles. The damage to the
soul
> was done, and he could have taken advantage of that any time. There is
never
> an indication given that he had ever made the horcrux while still at
> Hogwarts
>

I don't think it could have been the Riddles because by the time he asked
Slughorn about horcruxes he had already killed them. Unless he already knew
how to make a horcrux and the only thing he wanted to know from Slughorn was
if it would be possible to make multiple horcruxes.
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #297973 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 15:51
Kenny  
"Richard Eney" <dicconf [at] radix.net> wrote in message
news:12b6nag24el0c1b [at] corp.supernews.com...
> It seems to be accepted by the characters in the books that V intended
> to kill Harry and use his death to make a horcrux out of something else.
> What that something else was, we don't know, but since V died on the spot,
> either it was taken away by Wormtail or Hagrid (or someone else?)
> or it's still in the rubble. On the other hand, wouldn't someone have
> cleared up the building lot by now?
>
> =Tamar


You think someone would come along and clean it up after all these years,
but in HBP, didn't DD find the ring in the ruins of the Gaunts house? If
this was the case, one has to ask if the enchantments that protect a place
and keep muggles out of there stay in effect long after the building is
demolished.


Kenny
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #297983 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 17:57
tbarry22  
The Magic Engineer ( [at] comcastic!>) wrote:
> "Rebecca Clayton" <rebeccaclayton [at] bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:fuEsg.21277$Ud4.6475 [at] bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Bubba" <funnybubba [at] mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:funnybubba-B46FD6.22500710072006 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> >> This may have already been discussed on this board, so I apologize in
> >> advance if it has as I'm not a regular here. To the point, I was
> >> watching CoS DVD yesterday and it occurred to me that Voldemort must
> >> have killed someone by the age of 16 so that he could "preserve his
> >> 16-year old self in the diary." In CoS, we don't know the diary is a
> >> Horcrux and it's only in HBP that we find out that it is/was. So we
> >> must conclude that Tom Riddle murdered someone when he was 16 years old
> >> or in his 6th year at Hogwarts. We must also conclude that it was
> >> sometime after his meeting with Prof. Slughorn, he definitely killed
> >> someone at age 16. Now, here's a great question: Who did he kill?
> >>
> >> Bubba
> >
> > My guess would be Moaning Myrtle.
>
> Wasn't Myrtle killed by the basilisk that he let loose, and not by
> Tom's own hand?
>
> My guess would be some random muggle.. or wasn't there a line
> in one of Dumbledore's memories that he lured some kids into a
> cave and did some unspeakables to them? Or was that just scaring
> the daylights out of them?
>
>
The annoying assumption by most people on this group is that the
Horcrux must be made immediately after a murder, of which we have no
evidence that is true. Once the soul is torn, it is torn. Plus,
Voldemort's motivation for killing his family was not solely Horcruxes,
but also revenge and shame. Since he knew his soul was split, he went
to Slughorn to learn about horcruxes; the diary was a test version to
see that he could do it.
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #297986 ] Di, 11 Juli 2006 18:25
flip+  
"Rebecca Clayton" <rebeccaclayton [at] bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> My guess would be Moaning Myrtle.

Bubba <funnybubba [at] mac.com> writes:
>Moaning Myrtle was not killed by Tom's own hand.

The basilisk could easilly be considered a weapon, and was (likely)
under tom's influence. If person kills someone using a gun, it wasn't
by their "own hand", but they are still said to have
murdered. (assuming it isn't self defence, etc)

Of course, if "neither can live while the other survives"... wouldn't
tom's killing of harry be considered self defence? ;)

I'm with the moaning myrtle crowd, until i hear a convincing argument
otherwise.

--
May no harm befall you,
flip
Wands don't kill people, little bolts of light kill people.
Wands just make the light go really really fast. (physics aside)
(and neither the wand or the light make the decision...
just so we make that clear.)
In my email replace SeeEmmYou.EeeDeeYou with CMU.EDU
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #298036 ] Mi, 12 Juli 2006 10:05
Toon  
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:43:59 GMT, "Kenny"
<omgtheykilledkenny [at] telus.net> wrote:

>
>"Bubba" <funnybubba [at] mac.com> wrote in message
>news:funnybubba-53EFA9.08594911072006 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>> Moaning Myrtle was not killed by Tom's own hand. As for the kids in the
>> cave, that was in Dear Tommy's youth, way before he even attended
>> Hogwarts.
>
>Does it have to be by his own hand or does it count if he sicks his pet
>Basilisk on someone with the intent to kill them? I think it would count
>because he is the one controlling the Basilisk.
>
>
>Kenny
>

But saying go and kill in general is not the same as killing a
specific person. He wouldn't even know a death happened until much
later. And we don't know the time limit after death on removing soul
bits.
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #298038 ] Mi, 12 Juli 2006 10:08
Toon  
On 11 Jul 2006 12:25:40 -0400, Philip Lewis
<flip+ [at] andrew.SeeEmmYou.EeeDeeYou> wrote:

>Of course, if "neither can live while the other survives"... wouldn't
>tom's killing of harry be considered self defence? ;)


What about the fact only Harry can vanquish him. Isn't stopping
someone from vanquishing you self defense? and Harry has a 50% chance
of killing V in the final battle. That alone is reason for self
defense. But Minsiter, I had to AK Harry Potter. He'd have killed me
if I didn't. And I wasn't initially trying to kill him.

(Exepect the Crucio Curse to be used to make Harry suffer for all his
interference over the years.)
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #298049 ] Mi, 12 Juli 2006 11:16
dicconf  
In article <s1Osg.104199$I61.54925 [at] clgrps13>,
Kenny <omgtheykilledkenny [at] telus.net> wrote:
>
>"Richard Eney" <dicconf [at] radix.net> wrote in message
>news:12b6nag24el0c1b [at] corp.supernews.com...
>> It seems to be accepted by the characters in the books that V intended
>> to kill Harry and use his death to make a horcrux out of something else.
>> What that something else was, we don't know, but since V died on the spot,
>> either it was taken away by Wormtail or Hagrid (or someone else?)
>> or it's still in the rubble. On the other hand, wouldn't someone have
>> cleared up the building lot by now?
>
>You think someone would come along and clean it up after all these years,
>but in HBP, didn't DD find the ring in the ruins of the Gaunts house? If
>this was the case, one has to ask if the enchantments that protect a place
>and keep muggles out of there stay in effect long after the building is
>demolished.

They probably do but there are other possible factors.

The MoM investigated the site. They also questioned a lot of muggles
before obliviating them.

The Gaunts' house is a different case altogether. It was a wretched
hovel to begin with - back in the 16th century it was pretty posh, having
a chimney and more than one room, but by the 20th century it was outmoded.
But there was no explosion, and nobody wanted to explore that nasty old
place. The owners were dead or in prison, and once they died, it may
have been considered Crown property; they weren't to type to make wills.
I think legally it ought to have been Voldemort's, since he didn't
personally kill the last remaining Slytherin relatives he had. He may
even have made some covert arrangements to have it pass into his
ownership under a cover name.

=Tamar
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #298054 ] Mi, 12 Juli 2006 16:49
yogertlvr  
Richard Eney wrote:
> In article <44b3160a$0$3628$822641b3 [at] news.adtechcomputers.com>,
> *MYSTIC* <mystic [at] thecave.net> wrote:
> >Bubba wrote:
> >> This may have already been discussed on this board, so I apologize in
> >> advance if it has as I'm not a regular here. To the point, I was
> >> watching CoS DVD yesterday and it occurred to me that Voldemort must
> >> have killed someone by the age of 16 so that he could "preserve his
> >> 16-year old self in the diary." In CoS, we don't know the diary is a
> >> Horcrux and it's only in HBP that we find out that it is/was. So we
> >> must conclude that Tom Riddle murdered someone when he was 16 years old
> >> or in his 6th year at Hogwarts. We must also conclude that it was
> >> sometime after his meeting with Prof. Slughorn, he definitely killed
> >> someone at age 16. Now, here's a great question: Who did he kill?
>
> >His dad and his grandparents. You find this out in HBP. And it was
> >before his meeting with Slughorn since he already had Slitherin's Ring
> >when the meeting took place.
>
> He had the ring on, though, so it wasn't a horcrux yet. I don't think
> the diary was a horcrux yet either; he was just asking Slughorn what a
> horcrux was at that point. I think he made the diary first just as a
> way to store his old memories - that _is_ what a diary is for! - but
> then he made it into a horcrux _later_. I don't think he actually used
> those first killings for anything except revenge.
>
> >I think it is unlikely that he didn't have enough deaths to get the
> >required horcrux's before he tried to kill Harry. After all by then he
> >was called the "Dark Lord". The last one might have been meant for Harry
> >to be the victim. But only Ms. Rowlings knows for sure.
>
> It seems to be accepted by the characters in the books that V intended
> to kill Harry and use his death to make a horcrux out of something else.
> What that something else was, we don't know, but since V died on the spot,
> either it was taken away by Wormtail or Hagrid (or someone else?)
> or it's still in the rubble. On the other hand, wouldn't someone have
> cleared up the building lot by now?
>
> =Tamar

To me, I have a feeling JKR already answered the question about
something in the rubble. In an interview, JKR had said she may have
Harry Return to his home, in search of clues to his past. I have an
idea that Harry Himself is already a horcrux.
Remember in GoF, Harry's blood was used to bring V back to a full body,
wormtail did not kill Harry outright; and if V wanted Harry dead before
this, he would have done it years earlier in SS. When Professor Q
(cant spell his name) hosted V, he had all opportunity to kill Harry at
any moment and make it look like an accident.
No, it is my belief that Harry is V's horcrux, and only V can kill
Harry to obtain his final horcrux that is in Harry. This is the
Prophecy, "one can not live, while the other is alive:" (words to that
effect)...
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #300065 ] Mi, 12 Juli 2006 19:13
DaveD  
"yogertlvr" <etower036 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1152715750.666210.117860 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Richard Eney wrote:
> > In article <44b3160a$0$3628$822641b3 [at] news.adtechcomputers.com>,
> > *MYSTIC* <mystic [at] thecave.net> wrote:
> > >Bubba wrote:

> To me, I have a feeling JKR already answered the question about
> something in the rubble. In an interview, JKR had said she may have
> Harry Return to his home, in search of clues to his past. I have an
> idea that Harry Himself is already a horcrux.
> Remember in GoF, Harry's blood was used to bring V back to a full body,
> wormtail did not kill Harry outright; and if V wanted Harry dead before
> this, he would have done it years earlier in SS. When Professor Q
> (cant spell his name) hosted V, he had all opportunity to kill Harry at
> any moment and make it look like an accident.
> No, it is my belief that Harry is V's horcrux, and only V can kill
> Harry to obtain his final horcrux that is in Harry. This is the
> Prophecy, "one can not live, while the other is alive:" (words to that
> effect)...

Actually, "...for neither can live while the other survives" and Voldy
specifically talks about the time after his AK rebounded off Harry as
surviving. So reading the prophecy both ways, Harry cannot live while Voldy
survives, and Voldy can't live while Harry survives.

The first way could be that Voldy's horcrux is in Harry, and will possess
him if Voldy doesn't have his own body or some other host (since GOF, he can
touch Harry; and he could possess him, if only for a short time, in the MoM
in OoTP: he only disappeared that time because Harry felt love for Sirius)

For the other way round, there's always the possibility that it was a mutual
and reversed horcrux I suppose - a soul part of Harry's inside Voldy, if the
spell also split/duplicated as it backfired - but I don't think so, somehow!
So I'd read the reverse of the prophecy (Voldy can't live while Harry
survives) as meaning if Harry survives, he'll hunt Voldy down and presumably
kill him because of what Voldy did to his parents and Sirius, and for
self-protection as Voldy's prophesied to kill him anyway (can't imagine JKR
allowing Harry to kill him purely out of revenge - bit stoneage).

DaveD

DaveD
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #300072 ] Mi, 12 Juli 2006 20:18
Kenny  
"Toon" <toon [at] toon.com> wrote in message
news:j7b9b2ppqd0rrtbobo9o6ut91jduc4j79i [at] 4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:43:59 GMT, "Kenny"
> <omgtheykilledkenny [at] telus.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bubba" <funnybubba [at] mac.com> wrote in message
>>news:funnybubba-53EFA9.08594911072006 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>>> Moaning Myrtle was not killed by Tom's own hand. As for the kids in the
>>> cave, that was in Dear Tommy's youth, way before he even attended
>>> Hogwarts.
>>
>>Does it have to be by his own hand or does it count if he sicks his pet
>>Basilisk on someone with the intent to kill them? I think it would count
>>because he is the one controlling the Basilisk.
>>
>>
>>Kenny
>>
>
> But saying go and kill in general is not the same as killing a
> specific person. He wouldn't even know a death happened until much
> later. And we don't know the time limit after death on removing soul
> bits.

I think it has to do with intent. If I plant a bomb somewhere knowing full
well when it goes off it will kill someone, then I am a murderer. It
doesn't matter if I knew the person it got or not. A judge and jury aren't
going to care either -- I murdered someone and they will treat me the same
as if I walked up to someone I did know and shot them in the head. Riddle
intended for the Basilisk to kill someone -- he just didn't care who it got.
He was the one controlling the Basilisk and sicking it on people. In my
view, he murdered Moaning Myrtle just as he murdered his father and
grandparents. One was a deliberate murder on a random person and the other
was a murder done up close and personal -- actually three murders. By the
time Riddle left Hogwarts, he had murdered at least four times, shreading
his soul each time. We can only suspect how many he's murdered since then.


Kenny
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #300095 ] Do, 13 Juli 2006 05:12
The Magic Engineer  
"Bubba" <funnybubba [at] mac.com> wrote in message
news:funnybubba-53EFA9.08594911072006 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <1JidnQ2ebNqFiC7ZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
> "The Magic Engineer" <pem &( [at] comcastic!> wrote:
>
>> "Rebecca Clayton" <rebeccaclayton [at] bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:fuEsg.21277$Ud4.6475 [at] bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>> >
>> > "Bubba" <funnybubba [at] mac.com> wrote in message
>> > news:funnybubba-B46FD6.22500710072006 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>> >> This may have already been discussed on this board, so I apologize in
>> >> advance if it has as I'm not a regular here. To the point, I was
>> >> watching CoS DVD yesterday and it occurred to me that Voldemort must
>> >> have killed someone by the age of 16 so that he could "preserve his
>> >> 16-year old self in the diary." In CoS, we don't know the diary is a
>> >> Horcrux and it's only in HBP that we find out that it is/was. So we
>> >> must conclude that Tom Riddle murdered someone when he was 16 years
>> >> old
>> >> or in his 6th year at Hogwarts. We must also conclude that it was
>> >> sometime after his meeting with Prof. Slughorn, he definitely killed
>> >> someone at age 16. Now, here's a great question: Who did he kill?
>> >>
>> >> Bubba
>> >
>> > My guess would be Moaning Myrtle.
>>
>> Wasn't Myrtle killed by the basilisk that he let loose, and not by
>> Tom's own hand?
>>
>> My guess would be some random muggle.. or wasn't there a line
>> in one of Dumbledore's memories that he lured some kids into a
>> cave and did some unspeakables to them? Or was that just scaring
>> the daylights out of them?
>>
>>
>> TME
>>
>>
>
> Moaning Myrtle was not killed by Tom's own hand.

That's what I said.

As for the kids in the
> cave, that was in Dear Tommy's youth, way before he even attended
> Hogwarts.

Aah yes, that's right, it was during the interview before coming to
Hogwarts that he talked about that.

TME
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #300096 ] Do, 13 Juli 2006 05:34
The Magic Engineer  
<tbarry22 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1152633440.847634.259810 [at] m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> The Magic Engineer ( [at] comcastic!>) wrote:
>> "Rebecca Clayton" <rebeccaclayton [at] bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:fuEsg.21277$Ud4.6475 [at] bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>> >
>> > "Bubba" <funnybubba [at] mac.com> wrote in message
>> > news:funnybubba-B46FD6.22500710072006 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>> >> This may have already been discussed on this board, so I apologize in
>> >> advance if it has as I'm not a regular here. To the point, I was
>> >> watching CoS DVD yesterday and it occurred to me that Voldemort must
>> >> have killed someone by the age of 16 so that he could "preserve his
>> >> 16-year old self in the diary." In CoS, we don't know the diary is a
>> >> Horcrux and it's only in HBP that we find out that it is/was. So we
>> >> must conclude that Tom Riddle murdered someone when he was 16 years
>> >> old
>> >> or in his 6th year at Hogwarts. We must also conclude that it was
>> >> sometime after his meeting with Prof. Slughorn, he definitely killed
>> >> someone at age 16. Now, here's a great question: Who did he kill?
>> >>
>> >> Bubba
>> >
>> > My guess would be Moaning Myrtle.
>>
>> Wasn't Myrtle killed by the basilisk that he let loose, and not by
>> Tom's own hand?
>>
>> My guess would be some random muggle.. or wasn't there a line
>> in one of Dumbledore's memories that he lured some kids into a
>> cave and did some unspeakables to them? Or was that just scaring
>> the daylights out of them?
>>
>>
> The annoying assumption by most people on this group is that the
> Horcrux must be made immediately after a murder, of which we have no
> evidence that is true.

It's not annoying, it's plausible. Hasn't been proven/disproven either
way yet. It makes sense to a large number of people here.

Once the soul is torn, it is torn. Plus,
> Voldemort's motivation for killing his family was not solely Horcruxes,
> but also revenge and shame. Since he knew his soul was split, he went
> to Slughorn to learn about horcruxes; the diary was a test version to
> see that he could do it.

Maybe not immediately after, but soon thereafter. Within hours or
a day or two, tops, I'd guess. I don't think that he split his soul before
coming up with the idea of making a horcrux. I think he found out about
them, asked Slughorn, then decided to do it. The diary was a test
version, I'll buy that. I believe that the splitting of one's soul is
needed while making the horcrux. If you split your soul, you have to
put the piece somewhere, hence the Horcrux. You can't just have a
piece of your soul lying around like a tip of a finger waiting for a jar
to put it in.

He killed his family out of revenge and shame. But later realized that
he could kill and keep himself alive as a result when he learned about
horcruxes from Slughorn. So then he started to prepare by making
a few.

TME
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #300100 ] Do, 13 Juli 2006 09:36
Toon  
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:16:28 -0000, dicconf [at] radix.net (Richard Eney)
wrote:

>In article <s1Osg.104199$I61.54925 [at] clgrps13>,
>Kenny <omgtheykilledkenny [at] telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>"Richard Eney" <dicconf [at] radix.net> wrote in message
>>news:12b6nag24el0c1b [at] corp.supernews.com...
>>> It seems to be accepted by the characters in the books that V intended
>>> to kill Harry and use his death to make a horcrux out of something else.
>>> What that something else was, we don't know, but since V died on the spot,
>>> either it was taken away by Wormtail or Hagrid (or someone else?)
>>> or it's still in the rubble. On the other hand, wouldn't someone have
>>> cleared up the building lot by now?
>>
>>You think someone would come along and clean it up after all these years,
>>but in HBP, didn't DD find the ring in the ruins of the Gaunts house? If
>>this was the case, one has to ask if the enchantments that protect a place
>>and keep muggles out of there stay in effect long after the building is
>>demolished.
>
>They probably do but there are other possible factors.
>
>The MoM investigated the site. They also questioned a lot of muggles
>before obliviating them.
>
>The Gaunts' house is a different case altogether. It was a wretched
>hovel to begin with - back in the 16th century it was pretty posh, having
>a chimney and more than one room, but by the 20th century it was outmoded.
>But there was no explosion, and nobody wanted to explore that nasty old
>place. The owners were dead or in prison, and once they died, it may
>have been considered Crown property; they weren't to type to make wills.
>I think legally it ought to have been Voldemort's, since he didn't
>personally kill the last remaining Slytherin relatives he had. He may
>even have made some covert arrangements to have it pass into his
>ownership under a cover name.
>
>=Tamar
Lord Mold E Vort
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #300101 ] Do, 13 Juli 2006 09:38
Toon  
On 12 Jul 2006 07:49:10 -0700, "yogertlvr" <etower036 [at] aol.com> wrote:

>Harry Return to his home, in search of clues to his past. I have an
>idea that Harry Himself is already a horcrux.

Join the club. We've got jackets.

>No, it is my belief that Harry is V's horcrux, and only V can kill
>Harry to obtain his final horcrux that is in Harry.

That's not how horcruxes work. If V kills Harry, the horcrux is gone.
This can be acceptable to him, for he'll use Harry's death as an
instant replacement.
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #300102 ] Do, 13 Juli 2006 09:41
Toon  
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:18:52 GMT, "Kenny"
<omgtheykilledkenny [at] telus.net> wrote:

>
>"Toon" <toon [at] toon.com> wrote in message
>news:j7b9b2ppqd0rrtbobo9o6ut91jduc4j79i [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:43:59 GMT, "Kenny"
>> <omgtheykilledkenny [at] telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bubba" <funnybubba [at] mac.com> wrote in message
>>>news:funnybubba-53EFA9.08594911072006 [at] newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
>>>> Moaning Myrtle was not killed by Tom's own hand. As for the kids in the
>>>> cave, that was in Dear Tommy's youth, way before he even attended
>>>> Hogwarts.
>>>
>>>Does it have to be by his own hand or does it count if he sicks his pet
>>>Basilisk on someone with the intent to kill them? I think it would count
>>>because he is the one controlling the Basilisk.
>>>
>>>
>>>Kenny
>>>
>>
>> But saying go and kill in general is not the same as killing a
>> specific person. He wouldn't even know a death happened until much
>> later. And we don't know the time limit after death on removing soul
>> bits.
>
>I think it has to do with intent. If I plant a bomb somewhere knowing full
>well when it goes off it will kill someone, then I am a murderer. It
>doesn't matter if I knew the person it got or not. A judge and jury aren't
>going to care either -- I murdered someone and they will treat me the same
>as if I walked up to someone I did know and shot them in the head. Riddle
>intended for the Basilisk to kill someone -- he just didn't care who it got.
>He was the one controlling the Basilisk and sicking it on people. In my
>view, he murdered Moaning Myrtle just as he murdered his father and
>grandparents. One was a deliberate murder on a random person and the other
>was a murder done up close and personal -- actually three murders. By the
>time Riddle left Hogwarts, he had murdered at least four times, shreading
>his soul each time. We can only suspect how many he's murdered since then.
>
>
>Kenny
>

But the murder rips the soul. If you plant the bomb, how do you know
anyone dies when it goes off? How could V know the Basilisk killed?
Neither of you can know until updated, and I don't think a soul can be
ripped after the fact
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #300113 ] Do, 13 Juli 2006 14:50
flip+  
Toon <toon [at] toon.com> writes:
>But the murder rips the soul. [...] How could V know the Basilisk killed?
I seem to recall that Myrtle "heard a boy's voice" when she left the
stall and was killed. Thus, Tom was there and would know, could have
ordered it directly..
ah... found it:

From Chamber of Secrets, when harry asks how Myrtle died:
>"Ooooh, it was dreadful," she said with relish. "It happened right in
>here. I died in this very stall. I remember it so well. Id hidden because
>Olive Hornby was teasing me about my glasses. The door was locked,
>and I was crying, and then I heard somebody come in. They said
>something funny. A different language, I think it must have been.
>Anyway, what really got me was that it was a boy speaking. So I
>unlocked the door, to tell him to go and use his own toilet, and then -"
>Myrtle swelled importantly, her face shining. "I died."


--
May no harm befall you,
flip
Ich habe keine Ahnung was das bedeutet, oder vielleicht doch?
In my email replace SeeEmmYou.EeeDeeYou with CMU.EDU
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #300118 ] Do, 13 Juli 2006 18:28
orangemenace  
I'm pretty sure it was his father, Tom Riddle, Sr.

Tom Riddle/Voldemort *did* cause Moaning Myrtle's death by opening the
Chamber of Secrets, but that was indirectly via the Basilisk, so I don't
know if that counts exactly.

~ Ari
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #300133 ] Fr, 14 Juli 2006 00:41
Troels Forchhammer  
In message <news:qvjodvtllci.fsf [at] unix42.andrew.cmu.edu>
Philip Lewis <flip+ [at] andrew.SeeEmmYou.EeeDeeYou> enriched us with:
>
> Toon <toon [at] toon.com> writes:
>>
>> But the murder rips the soul. [...] How could V know the Basilisk
>> killed?
>
> I seem to recall that Myrtle "heard a boy's voice" when she left
> the stall and was killed. Thus, Tom was there and would know,
> could have ordered it directly..

That misses, IMO, the point.

The whole discussion about Myrtle has, to me, very little to do with
Voldemort's intentions at that point (had he been holding a gun, his
soul, IMO, would have been ripped regardless of whether it was an
accident or not), and everything to do with the nature of the Basilisk.

If the Basilisk is sapient, and possesses a Free Will, then it chose to
obey Riddle's order to kill, and the guilt would be distributed, so we
could not know if it would result in the soul being ripped on either,
both or none.

If, on the other hand, the Basilisk is basically without it's own will
in this matter, then Riddle is solely responsible, and the Basilisk can
be likened to his wand.

A third possibility is that the Basilisk is only barely under control,
and that Riddle might have been able to control whom it attacked, but
could not have stopped it from attacking people.

Regarding the soul-splitting, it is also possible that one has to
actively kill the other person, in which case Riddle would only have
been affected by the killing of Myrtle insofar as the Basilisk is no
more than a tool (albeit not an inanimate tool). I am well aware of
the problems inherent in such set-up (what, for instance, when a group
of wizards gang together and collectively manage to cause enough damage
on a victim to kill him?), but this is, after all, a story, and things
don't have to make sense in the full complexity of reality, as long as
it makes sense in the situations in which they are applied within the
story (yes, that is me saying so -- I'd prefer it the other way around,
but Rowling obviously doesn't care what I think, so I have to adapt
<GG>).

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.
- /Reaper Man/ (Terry Pratchett)
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #300177 ] Fr, 14 Juli 2006 07:04
Toon  
On 13 Jul 2006 08:50:53 -0400, Philip Lewis
<flip+ [at] andrew.SeeEmmYou.EeeDeeYou> wrote:

>Toon <toon [at] toon.com> writes:
>>But the murder rips the soul. [...] How could V know the Basilisk killed?
>I seem to recall that Myrtle "heard a boy's voice" when she left the
>stall and was killed. Thus, Tom was there and would know, could have
>ordered it directly..
>ah... found it:
>
>From Chamber of Secrets, when harry asks how Myrtle died:
>>"Ooooh, it was dreadful," she said with relish. "It happened right in
>>here. I died in this very stall. I remember it so well. Id hidden because
>>Olive Hornby was teasing me about my glasses. The door was locked,
>>and I was crying, and then I heard somebody come in. They said
>>something funny. A different language, I think it must have been.
>>Anyway, what really got me was that it was a boy speaking. So I
>>unlocked the door, to tell him to go and use his own toilet, and then -"
>>Myrtle swelled importantly, her face shining. "I died."

Tomym was in the girls' loo? That cad.
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #300179 ] Fr, 14 Juli 2006 07:07
Toon  
On 13 Jul 2006 22:41:19 GMT, Troels Forchhammer
<Troels [at] ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:

>If the Basilisk is sapient, and possesses a Free Will, then it chose to
>obey Riddle's order to kill, and the guilt would be distributed, so we
>could not know if it would result in the soul being ripped on either,
>both or none.
>
>If, on the other hand, the Basilisk is basically without it's own will
>in this matter, then Riddle is solely responsible, and the Basilisk can
>be likened to his wand.


He tells Harry in the COS he made sure Harry couldn't control it. Then
sent the Basilisk on the final attack on Harry. So, the Basilisk
doesn't have much free will, or it could chose who to obey. By
ordering it to obey only Riddle, it had no free will. even Obey me
only is by choice. And no spell was used for mind control. Riddle
used Parselteongue to order strict obedience.
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #300183 ] Fr, 14 Juli 2006 08:52
Kish  
Toon wrote:

> Tomym was in the girls' loo? That cad.

Of course he was, the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets was there.
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #300232 ] Sa, 15 Juli 2006 10:34
Toon  
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 06:52:04 GMT, Kish <Kish_K [at] pacbell.net> wrote:

>Toon wrote:
>
>> Tomym was in the girls' loo? That cad.
>
>Of course he was, the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets was there.

But to originally find it.
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #300238 ] Sa, 15 Juli 2006 13:10
Troels Forchhammer  
In message <news:5g9eb2t11sn4tifs19sp95k9uak8k1p028 [at] 4ax.com>
Toon <toon [at] toon.com> enriched us with:
>
> On 13 Jul 2006 22:41:19 GMT, Troels Forchhammer
> <Troels [at] ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>

<snip>

>> If, on the other hand, the Basilisk is basically without it's own
>> will in this matter, then Riddle is solely responsible, and the
>> Basilisk can be likened to his wand.
>
> He tells Harry in the COS he made sure Harry couldn't control it.

That's just the film. While it does answer an unimportant question (why
did Harry, in the book, never try to gain control of the Basilisk), the
question is never raised in the book, because there it is clear in the
moral context that the Basilisk is an evil thing, and controlling it is
also, in and off itself, evil.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does
knowledge.
- Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882)
Re: Speaking of Horcruxes [message #300298 ] So, 16 Juli 2006 09:39
Toon  
On 15 Jul 2006 11:10:23 GMT, Troels Forchhammer
<Troels [at] ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:

>In message <news:5g9eb2t11sn4tifs19sp95k9uak8k1p028 [at] 4ax.com>
>Toon <toon [at] toon.com> enriched us with:
>>
>> On 13 Jul 2006 22:41:19 GMT, Troels Forchhammer
>> <Troels [at] ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>
><snip>
>
>>> If, on the other hand, the Basilisk is basically without it's own
>>> will in this matter, then Riddle is solely responsible, and the
>>> Basilisk can be likened to his wand.
>>
>> He tells Harry in the COS he made sure Harry couldn't control it.
>
>That's just the film. While it does answer an unimportant question (why
>did Harry, in the book, never try to gain control of the Basilisk), the
>question is never raised in the book, because there it is clear in the
>moral context that the Basilisk is an evil thing, and controlling it is
>also, in and off itself, evil.

If it's that evil, then it has no free will, as it can't choose to
refuse.
Vorheriges Thema:Re: 1st of September
Nächstes Thema:FAQ: alt.fan.harry-potter Frequently Asked Questions
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 09:28:09 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09471 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered