Where Should Tie Back Hook Be

summer break

After the post last week of July, it's time to declare a summer break.

Since I have a very limited access to the Internet, activate the comment moderation. This means you will not see published soon want to leave comments. Will be retained, pending publication. Was therefore not necessary to send the same comment repeatedly.

In early September I will publish the comments, with discussion that could arise.

In mid-September will cease publication of the post schedule. The comments will continue. If this becomes some interesting discussion, I could publish again.

But the main efforts will be donated to the new blog on Tolkien, which will play a series of actions linked to the way of those in the month preceding the publication of HP7. Not so often, because it lacks the urgency, but who will be interested will find a search path to the plot of Lord of the Rings. I will try to build on the basis of accurate citations, from which I will try to draw conclusions argued.

Happy Summer!

Ho-ho Pokemon Platinum

apologia pro HP

I it is interesting to bring up a discussion that took place in the comments.

A reader mentioned an article by Edward Rialti expressing a moral condemnation of Harry Potter because it contains a call to the practice of witchcraft.

Rialti wrote in L'Osservatore Romano, to counter another article published on the same page and signed by Paolo Gulisano. As Paul says Gulisano, the Osservatore Romano editorial policy was to talk about Harry Potter without giving the impression to express an official position. I read the concern in relation to the different opinions that the Catholic faithful have in the matter. Gulisano had invited Paul to write, but his article era tanto favorevole a Harry Potter, che per conservare la neutralità il giornale ha dovuto cercare un autore disposto a esprimere la versione opposta. Hanno trovato Rialti.

Rialti ha scritto un articolo che moltiplica le citazioni del Catechismo della Chiesa cattolica per dimostrare che la stregoneria e la superstizione sono ivi condannate. Poi altri mezzi di comunicazione hanno ripreso la notizia, menzionando il solo Rialti. Titolo: l'Osservatore romano condanna Harry Potter. Sarà questo il giudizio del Papa?

La cosa ha del paradossale: Rialti era stato ospitato dall'Osservatore romano proprio per mettere in chiaro che i due saggi esprimevano soltanto l'opinione dei rispettivi autori, e non il giudizio del Papa. I media avrebbero have reported both of the articles: it would lead to a free debate between Catholics, who expressed different views on a recent book. The reader could decide which of the views expressed seemed better informed and better reasoned.
Instead the effect on the media has been the opposite. What might appear an enlightened discussion seemed a manifestation of obscurantism. Wonderful opportunity for those seeking to put the Pope in a bad light. If

Rialti is Catholic, which states, of which I have no reason to doubt, it could make him think. Is it not possible that the tone used by Rialti contains in itself something inappropriate? I think not to be less Catholic Rialto, but I appreciate Harry Potter as do many other Christians, Catholics or not. I'd rather Rialti had refrained from condemning the stegoneria sciorinare quotations taken from the Catechism. He thought maybe we did not know that Dumbledore's Army, the Christian faith has always been contrary to the practice of magic? Or perhaps he wanted to give the impression that we were inconsistent with our faith? I prefer to think that Rialti, finding writing in L'Osservatore Romano on a subject he knew little, thought it useful to read up on the Catechism. Save it because the good faith of the text. And we turn to an examination of the logic of its arguments.

Here's my note: Rialti confused with the more minor of a syllogism. Got it? Not so much. Allow me then to remember the most famous of the syllogism: 1
premise: Socrates is a man
second premise: men are mortal
conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

The premise is that a minor premise, because it contains a particular opinion, valid for the individual Socrates. The second premise is that more, because it contains a Last Judgement, delivered in such a way as to propose it as valid for all men.

Rialti thesis is that Harry Potter promotes among its readers the magical practices. The thesis is proven with arguments? No! To do so, he would have to take steps to Harry Potter. Instead of trying the minor premise, the columnist addresses his efforts to establish the major premise. To that end, the Catechism quotes, text that can be expected well accepted among the readers of the newspaper in which he writes.

The confusion between the two premises is a serious logical error, which invalidates the whole argument. Aristotle would say that it becomes a fallacy. To hide the weaknesses of the minor premise, it opens a discussion on the major premise. Hapless those who follow him on that plane.

correlative error of Rialto and the error of those among his critics have challenged the major premise, defending the practice of magic, or challenging the Church's right to express an opinion. This would have equated the Rialto, agreeing to move the debate on the morality of magic. But as the discussion can become infinite. That is what happens when you confuse the major premise and minor premise: the endless discussions and become free of the construct.

Felt Covered Hairclips

King's Cross and repulsive creature

Last January we had entertained the repulsive creature that Harry saw at King's Cross. Have been put forward various proposals for identification. Let me now offer my own.

It seems necessary since the presence of Harry in King's Cross. Obviously, this is a place outside the world they live in Ron, Hermione and other friends. In that place Dumbledore can see Harry, who is certainly dead, and talk to him. The visible figure of Dumbledore can not be his body lying dead in the white tomb. It is rather a manifestation of the staff of Dumbledore, which is expressed through an image of his former physical shape.

Harry, meanwhile, is not dead. In the dialogue with Dumbledore, it ends up saying clearly, adding that this will be ready to agree Harry. Harry's body is still in the Forbidden Forest, where he was just hit by ' Voldemort's Avada Kedavra. The image (visible, but palpable) that Harry sees himself in King's Cross is therefore not his body, but a manifestation of Harry's personal.

At this point nothing prevents the repulsive creature, like a spoiled baby, which sees Harry in King's Cross, is the manifestation of personal Voldemort, whose body is lying unconscious at the moment in the Forbidden Forest.

So there I would see the fragment of Voldemort's soul that was over in Harry's scar, and not one of the fragments that had been or were still trapped in the other horcruces . It may well be that part of the soul, horribly mutilated by the killings, which still resides in Voldemort's body.

As Harry sees himself and the new journey that could take if he died, so he sees Voldemort and the impasse which has voluntarily pulled alley cieco da cui non potrebbe più uscire, se prima di morire non provasse un qualche rimorse.

La stazione di King's Cross appare come una specie di luogo virtuale, in cui la diversa condizione morale di Harry e di Silente da una parte e di Voldemort dall'altra viene espressa in modo visibile, con il ricorso a immagini. Sembra che i miti si scrivano ancora, e si leggano volentieri, quando sono scritti bene.

Pop Tropica Games Avalanche

Kreacher, a year after

Nel giugno di 2007 avevo scritto un post riguardo a Kreacher: la fine di Harry Potter: Kreacher!

HP6 si chiudeva sul mistero di RAB. Poco tempo dopo, Wikipedia pubblicava un articolo che riconosceva in RAB Regulus Black, e il medaglione- Horcrux nel pesante medaglione Black found at home, that locket that no one could open. Regulus had taken him there. I explained that there was an error in Italian translation: "locket" was translated lock, which made the sign unreadable for the Italian reader.

Obviously, the medallion had been brought there by Regulus. But how Regulus had to overcome the protections that prevent access to the cave?

A year ago it seemed that Kreacher was the only one that could have accompanied Regulus in the cave. Just like a minor Harry, a house-elf would not be counted as a magician adult when crossing the lake on the boat. In this way, it would not be taken to prevent the protection to cross the lake in two. I assumed that he could have Kreacher drink the potion on command of Regulus.

We had also discussed thoroughly. The chapter "Kreacher's Tale" in HP7 is therefore not come as a surprise for us. Indeed, Kreacher went with Regulus to the cave to help you take the medallion.

There are also some things we did not anticipate.

The first is that Kreacher had been in the cave with Voldemort. The reason is stated as follows: "This, then, how Voldemort Was HAD tested the Defences surrounding the Horcrux: by borrowing a disposable creature, a house-elf" (HP7, p. 160 ed. Bloomsbury).

The reason some of us an excuse not to have discovered that Kreacher had been in the cave with Voldemort: it was a test of a control. Since no control is absolutely necessary to Voldemort, no one could predict.

This does not mean that the plot of HP7, the first trip Kreacher is pointless. For the purposes of the plot, the fact that Voldemort is made to explain how Kreacher from Regulus Regulus came to know the location of Horcrux. It also explains how he could think of to bring out the medallion: having heard from Kreacher Kreacher as he returned, he thought the company could be repeated.

And here, as usual, Rowling has improved since our predictions. Instead of sacrificing Kreacher, as I supposed, Regulus has wanted from the beginning to sacrifice himself, he knew that Kreacher would have been able to split himself out of the cave, while the same Regulus would remain a prisoner.

In this way the figure of Regulus comes out better, and explains the attachment of Kreacher to him, which would have been less clearly motivated if Regulus had forced to drink the potion.

It seems to me that this would open a gap: I can not explain how Regulus is able to drink the potion that Dumbledore can not drink alone. Dumbledore needed Harry to compel him to continue drinking. Regulus stand it alone.

Cigna Insurance Any Good

here we go again

stop waiting for new messages. I refrain from giving details of the book that I worked hard for several months and due for release in October, because I do reveal my identity, and even suppress, it was part of the game. Let us resume the thread of the discussion.

Now that the saga is over, you can express overall ratings on the seven Harry Potter books, without fear of being contradicted by the next volume.

Our analysis, it was time to guess the consequences of what had already been told, has focused on the plot.

The joint was more difficult to predict on the death of Harry. Somehow, that you had died and she died: he died to destroy the Horcruxes that contained in the scar, and she died in order to kill Voldemort.

guess I could do both. Between the two I had ruled out the first, because I preferred the second: I thought it was necessary to kill Harry to Voldemort.

Now we can say that Rowling is "invented" a non-death-death. Harry experiences that is dying, helpless and offered to 'Avada Kedavra . But it can not really die, thanks to the protection that the sacrifice of Lily offers him again. I must say that I did not think the same resource, already used widely in the first volume, could be used again in seventh.

The beauty is that it emphasizes the importance of the meaning we give to actions. L 'Avada Kedavra out against Harry that Voldemort has different meanings for different people. For Voldemort is a new murder and a new crime. Harry is the sacrifice of life, sacrifice is not killing, but let them be killed to save his friends. It seems very significant that both these actions remain even if Harry did not die. The act is an act of hatred Voldemort and Harry an act of love.

We were already convinced that love was the sacrifice of their lives to save Harry. I thought it would sacrifice of life already consumed by Dumbledore to save Harry. Instead of that Harry is the sacrifice to save it.

We have predicted that good until the end, Harry would not have thrown the 'Avada Kedavra . How could he do it without hate? And how could the saga end with Harry performing an act with the force of hatred?

there is only one possibility: that Voldemort was killed by his own act of hatred, which would have backfired. Precisely this happens at the end: the 'Avada Kedavra who lashed out at Harry's bouncing on him and kills him. And we can feel uplifted by the end of the threat of the Dark Lord, and at the same time we can rejoice because even then Harry has become a murderess.