1e92be15   
   XPost: alt.religion   
   From: DROPdraco.malfoy@countermail.comCAPITALLETTERS   
      
   On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:53:39 -0800 (PST), SPT wrote:   
      
   > DRACO MALFOY:   
   >   
   >>> She has other, similar, subversions of   
   >>>cliche that are better. Dumbledore, for instance, is not just the   
   >>>cliched "slightly eccentric genius" of popular fiction. Instead the   
   >>> "few words" of his start of term speech indicate that he is not so   
   >>> much "eccentric" as completely barking mad.   
   >   
   >>I know where you copy n pasted that from, careful.   
   >   
   > Not copied. Not pasted. If I have inadvertently written the same thing   
   > as someone else, I apologize. Wait. No I don't. Why should I? Great   
   > minds think alike.   
      
   The mind that originally wrote that stuff was 12 yoa. lol   
      
   >>This post is like soooooooo many I have read over the years from those   
   >>silly HP forums stacked to the gills with pre-adolescent BS.   
   >   
   > Yes, it's a fair cop. I am eleven years old. Well spotted.   
      
   OK, 11, I missed it by a year.   
      
   >>If you are Jewish, don't play baseball, that would be strike 3.   
   >   
   > Huh? This doesn't make any sense. You are mixing your metaphors. Or   
   > mixing them up at least.   
      
   FYI Jews and baseball don't mix. It is a sport as many sports are   
   outside of the Jewish athletic capacity.   
      
   > You tell someone "don't play poker" when their bluff fails, because   
   > bluffing is an essential part of poker. But you don't tell somebody to   
   > not play baseball when they get three strikes. Everybody gets three   
   > strikes in baseball from time to time. It is part of the game.   
      
   "From time to time"? lol   
      
   > And what would being Jewish have to do with it? Would I get a smaller   
   > strike zone or something? That hardly seems fair.   
      
   Sheesh.   
      
   > Anyway, I don't have three strikes. It's more like 70 Not Out.   
   >   
   > Moving on to the argument you are trying to make with that link, as I   
   > understand it your reasoning must go something like this:   
   >   
   > 1. Despite the fact that the Warner brothers were themselves Jewish,   
   > Warner Bros. was willing to make cartoons with Jewish stereotypes in   
   > order to make more money.   
      
   Historical fact.   
      
   > 2. Therefore Warner Bros. today must also be willing to make films   
   > with (rather extreme) stereotypes about money loving goblin-like Jews,   
   > if it makes them more money.   
      
   You betcha.   
      
   > 3. And therefore, the depiction of goblins in the films as being   
   > bankers must be anti-Semitic stereotypes designed to make money for a   
   > studio founded by and still run by Jews.   
      
   Considering that they are and that Potter has made over 6 billion $$$,   
   duh   
      
   > 4. Therefore Harry Potter is bad...   
      
   Nope.   
      
   > because JKR allowed Warner Bros.   
   > (which is operated largely by Jews) to depict her goblin bankers as   
   > stereotypical money grubbing Jews....   
      
   She started it, they didn't.   
      
   > in order to make more money for   
   > money grubbing Jews. And stereotypes are bad, therefore Harry Potter   
   > is bad.   
      
   Reeaaaaaaachinnnnnnggggggg...........projecting........   
      
   > But I suppose it is not COMPLETELY impossible. After all, Harry Potter   
   > makes a LOT of money. We're not just talking truckloads of money here.   
   > We are talking big container ships full of it.   
   >   
   > And who doesn't like money? So I guess it is not COMPLETELY impossible   
   > that a Jewish run studio would insert offensive Jewish stereotypes in   
   > a film, if that is what the people want and were willing to pay for   
   > it.   
      
   What a surprise.   
      
   > It does however seem pretty unlikely. Pretty damn unlikely. In the   
   > first place, why would anybody think that is what people want? There   
   > doesn't appear to be a lot of demand for that sort of thing.   
      
   Unlikely only to you.   
      
   > In the second place, Warner Bros. did not know that the Harry Potter   
   > would translate into a billion dollar franchise when they made the   
   > first film. A popular book does not automatically turn into a popular   
   > film series.   
      
   They wouldn't have bought into a loser on purpose.   
      
   > Thirdly, this just does not sound like something a modern corporation   
   > would do. Why would they? Surely there has to be a better way to make   
   > money.   
      
   OK, we're through for now.   
      
   Slip back into your X-Box or wtfever you came and get back to me when   
   you have an adult version of reality.   
   --   
   The fans rightly adore me !   
   https://twitter.com/TomFelton   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)