BuffettNews.com

drunkpirate66 wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

buffettbride wrote: now Voldemort is gay? SH IT!!!!!!!

Sorry, I read the spoiler wrong. I'm not an HP follower so I don't know my Dingleberries from a hole in the wall.

What if the girl in the series (I don't know her name--she has long hair, etc) was a l e s b i a n? Does that make it better? Or do you just hate the notion of gay people in general?

are you serious?

no. quite open to people and their preferences.

so then why is it pointless for a HP character to be gay? he was probably gay all along, but Ms. Rowling never deliberately spelled it out for everyone.

hate is a pretty strong word there . . . Rowling should have put it in the story as she wrote it. Would have been better that way. Coming out after takes away from it. My opinion.

now please stop accusing people you have never met of hating fictional characters . . . it makes you look silly.

you crack me up.

so, sh it like this is pointless because it wasn't included in the book, not because you don't like gay people (you're right, hate was a bit strong)? i'm just trying to clarify.

your initial post read as though you had issues with gay people (fictional or otherwise), not the fact it was a bit silly to say so after the fact.

and i look silly all the time. it's not really a deterrent for me.

I've noticed.

I have issues with clowns and eskimos but that is about it. I quite laid back with most people and most things . . .[/quote] So no face paint and fur coats for you, eh?

CaptainP wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:
Malfoy on HGH when he played Quiddich (sp?).

Wouldn't it be WGH?

I laughed out loud.

I don't know why. so lame . . . yet so funny.

drunkpirate66 wrote:

CaptainP wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:
Malfoy on HGH when he played Quiddich (sp?).

Wouldn't it be WGH?

I laughed out loud.

I don't know why. so lame . . . yet so funny.

That describes most of my jokes.


My theory is....as long as I find them amusing....

She shouldn't have said anything. I agree it was pointless. It doesn't matter if he was gay or not. Some things need to be left up to the reader. She is trying to force an agenda now and it becomes preachy. Trying to stir up excitement, as if there needed to be any more around this book. I read the first few and then got extremely bored. I can see it being great for kids, but it was a little weird when adults began going crazy over it. The first one was okay, but then she used the same exact formula for every story. Maybe it's just me, but I like writers who try to outdo their last book, not rewrite it. It was great marketing, not great writing.

OystersandBeer wrote:She is trying to force an agenda now and it becomes preachy.

Actually, no.

She was asked a question, "Did Albus Dumbledore ever find true love?"
She answered it.

To me, that means, in her mind, he was always gay. She just answered the question honestly.

That's not forcing an agenda. That's honesty. Un-neccessary? Maybe. But not forcing any agenda.

I just don't see what it does for the series. It's not like you see or even hear of any of the Professors' spouses in the series.

But wait!!! Harry Potter is back in headlines! Could that possibly mean more book sales now that people are going to go back and look for references in ALL of the books that out Dumbledore??? No, this couldn't have been a subtle marketing ploy. She wouldn't do that.

CaptainP wrote:

OystersandBeer wrote:She is trying to force an agenda now and it becomes preachy.

Actually, no.

She was asked a question, "Did Albus Dumbledore ever find true love?"
She answered it.

To me, that means, in her mind, he was always gay. She just answered the question honestly.

That's not forcing an agenda. That's honesty. Un-neccessary? Maybe. But not forcing any agenda.

I love talking about books. I actually chose to get my BA in English which, upon graduation, my 80 year old father commented, "that and 25 cents will get you a cup off coffee . . ." so I took him to Starbucks to prove him wrong.

But the point is, as silly as some might think it is to talk about a fictional character's sexual preference it DOES matter . . . on a literart level anyways . . . my original point was "this is pointless" . . . and what I meant or should've said is that IF, IF, IF it was a part of the plot to have Dumbledore in a relationship with a man than so be it. But if Rowling did it to make a political statement or to cause controverty than I would say leave it out. She did. It was no part of the story. It doesn't matter. When asked in the interview she answered honestly. I agree. But I feel that at this point she should allow her writing to speak for itself. Harry Potter is a story . . . and it has been completed. If Ron cross dressed and Draco and Crabbe were have a three way with Hagrid it wouldn't mean anything. EEEW. Sorry.

Being gay in 2007 should be a non issue. Time to move on. Is it really shocking anymore? Or controversial? Shouldn't be.

jonesbeach10 wrote:I just don't see what it does for the series. It's not like you see or even hear of any of the Professors' spouses in the series.

But wait!!! Harry Potter is back in headlines! Could that possibly mean more book sales now that people are going to go back and look for references in ALL of the books that out Dumbledore??? No, this couldn't have been a subtle marketing ploy. She wouldn't do that.

She doesn't NEED to do that!

She's the richest person in Great Britan. Richer than the Queen. She doesn't need subtle tricks to sell books.

jonesbeach10 wrote:I just don't see what it does for the series. It's not like you see or even hear of any of the Professors' spouses in the series.

But wait!!! Harry Potter is back in headlines! Could that possibly mean more book sales now that people are going to go back and look for references in ALL of the books that out Dumbledore??? No, this couldn't have been a subtle marketing ploy. She wouldn't do that.

DING DING DING...We have a winner!!!

CaptainP wrote:

jonesbeach10 wrote:I just don't see what it does for the series. It's not like you see or even hear of any of the Professors' spouses in the series.

But wait!!! Harry Potter is back in headlines! Could that possibly mean more book sales now that people are going to go back and look for references in ALL of the books that out Dumbledore??? No, this couldn't have been a subtle marketing ploy. She wouldn't do that.

She doesn't NEED to do that!

She's the richest person in Great Britan. Richer than the Queen. She doesn't need subtle tricks to sell books.

Hey P, if you see a $20 bill lying in the street, are you ever going to not pick it up because you say "Hey I have enough money, I don't need that Jackson?"

Rule #1 of economics: people are selfish!!!

jonesbeach10 wrote:

CaptainP wrote:

jonesbeach10 wrote:I just don't see what it does for the series. It's not like you see or even hear of any of the Professors' spouses in the series.

But wait!!! Harry Potter is back in headlines! Could that possibly mean more book sales now that people are going to go back and look for references in ALL of the books that out Dumbledore??? No, this couldn't have been a subtle marketing ploy. She wouldn't do that.

She doesn't NEED to do that!

She's the richest person in Great Britan. Richer than the Queen. She doesn't need subtle tricks to sell books.

Hey P, if you see a $20 bill lying in the street, are you ever going to not pick it up because you say "Hey I have enough money, I don't need that Jackson?"

Rule #1 of economics: people are selfish!!!

Oh, yeah, I'd pick it up. But I'm not going to go pull one out of someone's pocket!!!

She doesn't need to try.

jonesbeach10 wrote:

CaptainP wrote:

jonesbeach10 wrote:I just don't see what it does for the series. It's not like you see or even hear of any of the Professors' spouses in the series.

But wait!!! Harry Potter is back in headlines! Could that possibly mean more book sales now that people are going to go back and look for references in ALL of the books that out Dumbledore??? No, this couldn't have been a subtle marketing ploy. She wouldn't do that.

She doesn't NEED to do that!

She's the richest person in Great Britan. Richer than the Queen. She doesn't need subtle tricks to sell books.

Hey P, if you see a $20 bill lying in the street, are you ever going to not pick it up because you say "Hey I have enough money, I don't need that Jackson?"

Rule #1 of economics: people are selfish!!!

On Nantucket, 20$ bills are like pennies. People wall paper their houses with them . . .

drunkpirate66 wrote:

jonesbeach10 wrote:

CaptainP wrote:

jonesbeach10 wrote:I just don't see what it does for the series. It's not like you see or even hear of any of the Professors' spouses in the series.

But wait!!! Harry Potter is back in headlines! Could that possibly mean more book sales now that people are going to go back and look for references in ALL of the books that out Dumbledore??? No, this couldn't have been a subtle marketing ploy. She wouldn't do that.

She doesn't NEED to do that!

She's the richest person in Great Britan. Richer than the Queen. She doesn't need subtle tricks to sell books.

Hey P, if you see a $20 bill lying in the street, are you ever going to not pick it up because you say "Hey I have enough money, I don't need that Jackson?"

Rule #1 of economics: people are selfish!!!

On Nantucket, 20$ bills are like pennies. People wall paper their houses with them . . .

I was trying to make it relative. In this case its more like millions. My point is, especially in today's blogging age, you know there are going to be a ton of people that are now going to go buy all 7 books and scrutinize every line, then post somewhere on the internet "Hey in Book #2 on page x, Dumbledore did this! I can't believe people missed this. It's so clear that he's homosexual!"

jonesbeach10 wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

jonesbeach10 wrote:

CaptainP wrote:

jonesbeach10 wrote:I just don't see what it does for the series. It's not like you see or even hear of any of the Professors' spouses in the series.

But wait!!! Harry Potter is back in headlines! Could that possibly mean more book sales now that people are going to go back and look for references in ALL of the books that out Dumbledore??? No, this couldn't have been a subtle marketing ploy. She wouldn't do that.

She doesn't NEED to do that!

She's the richest person in Great Britan. Richer than the Queen. She doesn't need subtle tricks to sell books.

Hey P, if you see a $20 bill lying in the street, are you ever going to not pick it up because you say "Hey I have enough money, I don't need that Jackson?"

Rule #1 of economics: people are selfish!!!

On Nantucket, 20$ bills are like pennies. People wall paper their houses with them . . .

I was trying to make it relative. In this case its more like millions. My point is, especially in today's blogging age, you know there are going to be a ton of people that are now going to go buy all 7 books and scrutinize every line, then post somewhere on the internet "Hey in Book #2 on page x, Dumbledore did this! I can't believe people missed this. It's so clear that he's homosexual!"

I wonder if Dumbledore took on the "guy" role or the "girl" role in bed.

joke!

jonesbeach10 wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

jonesbeach10 wrote:

CaptainP wrote:

jonesbeach10 wrote:I just don't see what it does for the series. It's not like you see or even hear of any of the Professors' spouses in the series.

But wait!!! Harry Potter is back in headlines! Could that possibly mean more book sales now that people are going to go back and look for references in ALL of the books that out Dumbledore??? No, this couldn't have been a subtle marketing ploy. She wouldn't do that.

She doesn't NEED to do that!

She's the richest person in Great Britan. Richer than the Queen. She doesn't need subtle tricks to sell books.

Hey P, if you see a $20 bill lying in the street, are you ever going to not pick it up because you say "Hey I have enough money, I don't need that Jackson?"

Rule #1 of economics: people are selfish!!!

On Nantucket, 20$ bills are like pennies. People wall paper their houses with them . . .

I was trying to make it relative. In this case its more like millions. My point is, especially in today's blogging age, you know there are going to be a ton of people that are now going to go buy all 7 books and scrutinize every line, then post somewhere on the internet "Hey in Book #2 on page x, Dumbledore did this! I can't believe people missed this. It's so clear that he's homosexual!"

You mean on page 426 where Harry walks in on him getting a BJ from Flitwick?



I can't believe nobody caught on back then....

CaptainP wrote:

jonesbeach10 wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

jonesbeach10 wrote:

CaptainP wrote:

jonesbeach10 wrote:I just don't see what it does for the series. It's not like you see or even hear of any of the Professors' spouses in the series.

But wait!!! Harry Potter is back in headlines! Could that possibly mean more book sales now that people are going to go back and look for references in ALL of the books that out Dumbledore??? No, this couldn't have been a subtle marketing ploy. She wouldn't do that.

She doesn't NEED to do that!

She's the richest person in Great Britan. Richer than the Queen. She doesn't need subtle tricks to sell books.

Hey P, if you see a $20 bill lying in the street, are you ever going to not pick it up because you say "Hey I have enough money, I don't need that Jackson?"

Rule #1 of economics: people are selfish!!!

On Nantucket, 20$ bills are like pennies. People wall paper their houses with them . . .

I was trying to make it relative. In this case its more like millions. My point is, especially in today's blogging age, you know there are going to be a ton of people that are now going to go buy all 7 books and scrutinize every line, then post somewhere on the internet "Hey in Book #2 on page x, Dumbledore did this! I can't believe people missed this. It's so clear that he's homosexual!"

You mean on page 426 where Harry walks in on him getting a BJ from Flitwick?



I can't believe nobody caught on back then....

most people just skipped to the end apparently.

CaptainP wrote:

jonesbeach10 wrote:I just don't see what it does for the series. It's not like you see or even hear of any of the Professors' spouses in the series.

But wait!!! Harry Potter is back in headlines! Could that possibly mean more book sales now that people are going to go back and look for references in ALL of the books that out Dumbledore??? No, this couldn't have been a subtle marketing ploy. She wouldn't do that.

She doesn't NEED to do that!

She's the richest person in Great Britan. Richer than the Queen. She doesn't need subtle tricks to sell books.

Which one?

LIPH wrote:

CaptainP wrote:

jonesbeach10 wrote:I just don't see what it does for the series. It's not like you see or even hear of any of the Professors' spouses in the series.

But wait!!! Harry Potter is back in headlines! Could that possibly mean more book sales now that people are going to go back and look for references in ALL of the books that out Dumbledore??? No, this couldn't have been a subtle marketing ploy. She wouldn't do that.

She doesn't NEED to do that!

She's the richest person in Great Britan. Richer than the Queen. She doesn't need subtle tricks to sell books.

Which one?

R2

buffettbride wrote:
and i look silly all the time. it's not really a deterrent for me.

I love you Mal - and I need a new keyboard, pants, shoes - you know