Dumbledore would never plead to be alive. If he worried so much about not dying he wouldn't have drunken that potion. I think he was begging snape to kill him.

My reasons for Snape being good:

pg 34--- Narcissa says that Draco has to do something, and wants Snape to do it instead. Snape thinks he has to anyway because the Dark Lord seems to be telling him that.

pg 35---Snape is anxious aboutthe Unbreakable Vow. Agrees to make Bellatrix trust him.

pg 36--- When Narcissa asked him about taking over Draco's job if he failed (killing Dumbledore) and Snape's hands twitched like he wanted to back out of it. He had to do this in order to keep trust and remain a spy. If Dumbledore hadto be sacrificed, so be it, but maybe he hoped that the opertunity would not come. Perhaps he told Dumbledore this, which is why he pleaded with him. Therefore, Snape would not die from breaking the vow.

Although I think Harry is a horcrux, I have excellent evidence for why he is not. Remember in Book 4 when Voldemort clearly tries to kill Harry. He says Avada Kedavra and Harry only surprises because of the expelliarmus spell and the malfunction of his wand. Why would Voldemort want to kill Harry if he indeed contained 1/7th of his soul? And doesn't Voldemort try to kill Harry in Book 5, but Dumblemore deflects the spell in time?

I usually read each new Harry Potter book twice in the first few days. The first time through I 'm too excited to pay any attention to details and the second time I read more slowly, and go,"Ohhhhhh","I seeeee it now.", "NO! DON't DO IT!!!!!", or things along that line.

quote:

That long?

How long did it take you? I averaged 120-30 pages an hour.

That long?

im a harry potter geek! it took me five hours to read the book.

quote:

Originally posted by BushFan08:
Harry can't be a Horcrux...in the Ministry scene in that last book Voldemort possessed him and he couldn't take it...and somewhere in the 6th book Dumbldedore said Harry is too full of love for Voldemort to posess him.

and I thougt I was the only one who picked up on that.

I didnt read all the posts, so sorry if some one already said this. but-- didnt they find a locket no one could open when they were cleaning grimauld place? because I think I remember that happening... I own all the books (even 6) except the fifth, so I cant check...

Hmm. . . We could raid Rowling's house and find out.

Waiting: It's fine.

But the portraits sort of have a piece of the wizard's soul in them... Not like a horcrux, but something sort of different. If they have part of that person, wouldn't they be easier to control? Honestly. They have personality. They have individuality. They have human reactions. Why shouldn't they have a soul? And if something has a soul, couldn't you use the curse on them?

Oh, I just assumed since he disliked (to some extent) Sirius and his blood-betrayal that he would leak information. But, I think you're right on the headmaster thing. Why else would they all listen to Dumbledore? Wait-- no more Dumbledore. *sniff*

quote:

Yea, but I can't figure out why Phineas didn't go blab to Voldemort. I could have forgotten something, though. . .

Phineas was never in league with Voldemort. Also, the portraits have to remain loyal to the current headmaster, I believe.

Yea, but I can't figure out why Phineas didn't go blab to Voldemort. I could have forgotten something, though. . .

To me, there's something kinda sacred about portraits, in that they can't be harmed very easily or be put under a wizard's power.

I could be wrong though...

Do you think that portraits/paintings can be put under Imperius curses?

quote:

For me, I don't write for anyone else. If I did, my books would be all flowers and silver trees. But they're not. I write for one person and only one person. Guess who that is?

Makes sense. Anybody read a Tree Grows in Brooklyn?

Okay, I'm sorry for snapping. Yesterday was not a good day...

Waiting. I don't speak to anyone like they're idiots (unless they are, and you're not). If I come across that way, then I'm really sorry. It's just how I talk. I know; stupid excuse, but I'm blunt and I'm rude. To everyone.

I do agree with Nick, as well. For me, I don't write for anyone else. If I did, my books would be all flowers and silver trees. But they're not. I write for one person and only one person. Guess who that is?

quote:

I agree with Nick.

red, could this be a first? sweet...