Dumbledore an actor in league with Voldemort (James Potter)

[AccioNiffler]

I think that you are right about that theory being a little harsh for children. I also agree with you that most of us hear aren't five-year-olds, so there is no need to speak down to us. A lot of us are in highschool and college, so we understand a lot of things, even if thaey are being told to us by a college professor with a PhD. (I hope that didnt sound rude, its not supposed to )

(oh yeah, Meg, I'm in an AP English class too! )

[Gwared]

Thanks Holly






hehehe, you're welcome Gwared! but for what! All evidence has gone!!! Muh-huh-huh-huh!

Okies, I'm weird, deal with it!!!

Holly

[littlemissy]

Philosoph, must you be so patronising? 'I forgot the kind of audience I was dealing with'?!! Surely it's common sense to at least mention whereabouts in the story you are, rather than page and line-referencing it which causes problems due to differences between UK and US editions of the book. There is no need to try to make everyone else feel inferior to you by signing every post with 'PhD bla bla bla', and constantly talking about how you are concerned that the posts you make might be too complicated for us to understand.
Instead of continually emphasising your 'intelligence' and impressing us all with your extensive vocabulary , why don't you just post your theories and opinions like everyone else does? I'm sure had you posted the theory without the added 'hope the depth of it doesn't elude you' and other such condescending comments, people would have understood and reacted to it just as well. As for me, I didn't really look at the theory too much because I was distracted and annoyed by your pompous and superior tone, but I don't believe that James Potter is Lord Voldemort, for the reasons outlined above by others (for example Priori Incantatem, age of wands etc).
Apologies if my post is a little harsh, but I really felt that the tone of your post and various comments were completely unnecessary.
LittleMissy (not a PhD Yale University Lecturer)

[Meg Boyd]

I agree totally LittleMissy!!!!

Whooo hooo...

ok, sorry, that is not very professional of me...sorry...i apologize for my spurt of childish behavior...i am sorry, Philosoph, for being harsh...but that is how I feel...at school my lit teacher was just the same way (arrgghhh...don't get me started on "Jane"...) and I was a bit vexed when I came across someone acting just like her on my summer holidays...

Anyway Philosoph... since you seem just like my Advanced Lit teacher, I will have to ask you these questions because Jane would never let me live it down if i didn't...

WHO IS THE MORAL CENTER OF THE HARRY POTTER SERIES????

IS THERE A CHRIST FIGURE PRESENT, AND IF SO WHO???

IS THERE A MOTIF PRESENT, SUCH AS THE EARTH MOTHER OR JOURNEY MOTIF?????

Sorry for straying off the subject again...I had to apologize and get the Jane jokes out of my system, even though only a few will understand them...and they prolly won't even read this post...heehee

Again I am sorry if I sound like I am mocking you Philosoph, but truly I am mocking my former lit teacher...and I really would like answers to my literature based questions!!!

So have a happy day and I am sorry for any grief

Carpe Diem

Meg Boyd

[Sacred Guardian]

there are a few holes, first, why would the story be concoted about riddle, then why voldemort have killed riddle's family, and voldemorts reign of terror started when james was in school, and voldemort was the heir to slytherin, and thus could control the basalisk in book 2, and, snape wouldn't have willingly worked for james, because he did, at least at first, and the dumbledore thing has been brought up before, i stil don't think that it will work out that dumbledore is evil

[Gwared]

OK, People..everyone on this thread needs to calm down, take a step back and breathe for a second.

littlemissy; whilst you were affronted by a comment made your reply is more like to affront futher, which is not desirable, we don't want this board to descend into a bitching competition. I can't think of a better way to put this than, a more polite statement of hurt would gain more sympathy.

Meg; this topic is dealing with two specific points: is James Voldemort? Or is DD the 'bad guy'? If you wish Philosoph to address the other topics you mentioned may I suggest new topics with those titles addressed to him? The reason being is that threads become confusing with many topics floating around.

I don't intend to be mean, it's just that we all have a responsability to be polite and courteous to everyone on this board and if people become nasty their is usually a genuine reason for it, but it is important to catch these things while they are still young.

Philosoph; whilst you are prehaps the most qualified person here in literature analysis not everyone here is as young as you may think. Of course it must be frustrating to post things which appear obvious to you from your many years of experience, please try to do so in a manner which doesn't appear to 'talking down'.

I believe I have said enough, and I hope my comments will not be taken the wrong way...it is differcult to communicate to true emotional context and reasoning behing the impersonal text on a computer screen.

Ok, back to the topic.

Reasons I believe James is not LV:

James was 11 during LV's first reign of terror in the 1970's
Tom Riddle's wand was used by LV in GoF
Tom Riddle could speak Parsemouth, as can LV. It has never been mentioned for James.
Harry saw his father emerge from LV's wand. Unless LV conjured and apparition before killing Lily of James chances are LV killed him.

There are probably many more if I could be bothered.

Reasons that DD is not a bad guy:

Hmm, this one is still conspicuous by its emptiness! Arghh, I have nothing definate, still!

Philosoph, I believe that there is sufficient evidence to discout theory one (unless JK invents some wildly elaborate scheme in the next book), unless you have something to contradict me.

Theory two though, I would be grateful if you could give me some clues as to DD's evilness as a place to start for his defence.

Gwared.

[Gwared]

there are a few holes, first, why would the story be concoted about riddle, then why voldemort have killed riddle's family, and voldemorts reign of terror started when james was in school, and voldemort was the heir to slytherin, and thus could control the basalisk in book 2, and, snape wouldn't have willingly worked for james, because he did, at least at first, and the dumbledore thing has been brought up before, i stil don't think that it will work out that dumbledore is evil

*Runs off to get GoF*

Right, heres something that had me thinking earlier. It says at the start that all three members of the Riddle family were found dead. Now, is this LV's dad, dad's new wife and dads second kid or what?

[Holly Golightly]

Gwared, dont' worry, we ahve already discussed the 'who was dead' issue, so dont' believe that you are the only one who was confused!!!
(personally, at first I thought that it was Voldie, faking his own death, and his parents???)

Anyways, majority believes it was Voldie's dad, and his parents! In the first chapter I believe, they call the son grown up, and the kid that the gardner saw walking away teenage... the teenager has to be Voldie, who has just killed his remaining family, and the grown up son VOldie's dad, who went back to live with his parents after he found out that his wife was a witch, etc etc!

Holly

[Meg Boyd]

Ok..I am sorry to everyone....I was out of line...i completely apologize for my childish behavior

But anyways this post is relevent...

In GoF when is says that he killed a three of the Riddles I took it to mean LV's grandpa, grandma, and father...I thought somewhere in the book it says that after Tom Riddle Sr. learned that his wife was a witch he ran out on her and went to his parent's home...so when Tom Marvolo Riddle (LV) got powerful enough he went and killed his father and his grandparents...what i don't get is is the ministry has such tight watch on magic being used infront of muggles (or even on muggles) why didn't anyone notice the magic used on the Riddles...obviously they were killed by the AK curse...wouldn't the ministry have noticed that serious bit of magic by muggles??? hmmmmmmmmm *ponders*

[Meg Boyd]

I am sorry once again...i am strting to think maybe i shouldn't post here any more...

I am apologize because my computer is slow and it didn't show Holly Golightly's post answering the three dead riddles question so then i answered it and then holly's showed up suddenly on my poor slow computers screen...well since Holly had already answered the question and then my post looks dumb now...sorry, i'll leave this area alone now...obviously i can't handle it...lol

[Holly Golightly]

Please dont' go Meg....

The other possible thing with my reply not beign there is that it took me at least 10 mintues to write it, as I have a new puppy, and am playing with her heaps!!!

So yeah, please stay! We all luv ya here!!!

Holly (and puppy)

[Meg Boyd]

I was so totally kidding...don't ever take me seriously, you can ask zledm007 about how you can never take me seriously...except when it comes to the band room and the gymansium...lol

So but i still would like to know about how the ministry never noticed the large chunk of magic Tom Marvolo Riddle performed on his family...

[Holly Golightly]

PHEW!!! Holly is sooo relieved!!!

I'm glad to head that youa re ataying and was only joking Meg! but you do realise, that next time you threaten to leave, I am just going to mock you!!! (kidding)

Anyways, here's my theory on the MOM... they miss sooo much underage magic, ie kids mucking up at the World Cup, Fred and George experimenting all break, all the stuff Riddle did (they shoudl ahve ahd some way of tracking that!) and lots more examples, taht I think that they just keep an overly close watch on Harry, and No 4 Privet Drive!

That's my little theory anyways!

Holly

[AccioNiffler]

Anyways, here's my theory on the MOM... they miss sooo much underage magic, ie kids mucking up at the World Cup, Fred and George experimenting all break, all the stuff Riddle did (they shoudl ahve ahd some way of tracking that!) and lots more examples, taht I think that they just keep an overly close watch on Harry, and No 4 Privet Drive!

That's my little theory anyways!

Holly

I think that's a great theory Holly . It also explains why in one of the earlier books (I think it was the 1st) when Petunia is calling Lily a freak and she says something about the magic she would do over summer break (sorry, I dont have the book by me so I cant quote it) It answers my question of why Lily didnt get a letter from the ministry back then for underage magic.

[littlemissy]

OK, People..everyone on this thread needs to calm down, take a step back and breathe for a second.

littlemissy; whilst you were affronted by a comment made your reply is more like to affront futher, which is not desirable, we don't want this board to descend into a bitching competition. I can't think of a better way to put this than, a more polite statement of hurt would gain more sympathy.
Gwared.

Ok, sorry! I didn't want to appear bitchy or whatever, I just couldn't believe how patronising Philosoph's post seemed! The theories were quite interesting (even though the James Potter/Lord Voldemort one seems a little far-fetched) and had it not been for the tone of the posts, I might have thought 'oo, that sounds good, let's see why that would work/not work'. To me, all that stuff about the PhD, and the 'type of audience' on the boards was unnecessary and irrelevant, and put in only to make other posters feel stupid and inferior.
However, I will try to ignore that!!! I have wondered if Dumbledore is evil before now, but I really hope that is not the case. I think that would actually be a bad thing for the stories, as throughout them, supposedly trusted figures have turned out to be evil (Quirrell, Moody) or vice versa (Sirius). If it were to turn out that Dumbledore himself was evil as well, everything Harry had known and trusted and believed in throughout his wizarding life would be false. He would become the kind of person who is wary and distrustful of everyone, and never lets anybody become close to him, and I think that would be a BAD THING! If Harry could trust no one, he could never really love anyone either, and his ability to love (or something like that) is his great strength. 'It was your heart that saved you' etc. However, that 'gleam of triumph' does worry me!
(i'm not sure if people have already said all that stuff, so sorry if I'm repeating what others have said!)