Assume Quirrell is not able to model ‘good’ people well → we know he is not all powerful, and this is certainly where he is weak—witness conv with Harry on ‘give a finger of my wand hand’, ‘does it really matter what your friends think’, etc.
And each iteration with Hermione could have brought a different reason from Hermione, which was then subverted—we only saw one arc. Also H&C wanted Hermione as a willing participant, not as an NPC, much harder than simply memory charming her.
It’s very unlikely EY has used two different H&C, and there was the ‘wards keyed in’ statement of both H&C & Quirrell earlier.
Will need much stronger evidence to say Quirrell is not H&C.
Zambini’s actions during the Lake-Battle were not good for Quirrell. It did end in Harry hearing that Dumbledore acted dark, but Quirrell knows Harry well-enough to predict he wouldn’t trust that information. So if Quirrell was really H&C, he should have had Zambini serving Potter all along so that Harry would win and be more likely to rule the country.
But I also very much doubt that it’s Lucius, as he doesn’t seem to fall into the category of “clever, but not too clever.”
So if Quirrell was really H&C, he should have had Zambini serving Potter all along so that Harry would win and be more likely to rule the country.
As much as Quirrell knows to favor simple plans, I expect he also has a Xanatos Gambit or two up his sleeve. I don’t expect to be able to predict Quirrell’s actions.
You think getting Harry made Magical-Dictator-For-Life is simple? Besides, H&C’s conversation with Zambini makes no sense if it’s Quirrell. If he’s about to obliterate the kid, he hasn’t the slightest reason to keep up his charade of plotting to set the Headmaster and Defense Professor against one-another.
While none of this makes it impossible that Quirrell is H&C, I don’t think we have a good enough reason to suspect him that it’s all irrelevant.
If he’s about to obliterate the kid, he hasn’t the slightest reason to keep up his charade of plotting to set the Headmaster and Defense Professor against one-another.
Did he, though?
Blaise hesitated, but his curiosity was eating him alive. “Can I ask now why you want to cause trouble between Professor Quirrell and Dumbledore?” The Headmaster hadn’t had anything to do with the Gryffindor bullies that Blaise knew about, and besides helping Kimberly, the Headmaster had also offered to make Professor Binns give him excellent marks in History of Magic even if he turned in blank parchments for his homework, though he’d still have to attend class and pretend to hand them in. Actually Blaise would have betrayed all three generals for free, and never mind his cousin either, but he’d seen no need to say that.
The broad black hat cocked to one side, as if to convey a quizzical stare. “Tell me, friend Blaise, did it occur to you that traitors who betray so many times over often meet with ill ends?”
Downvoted for the attitude. People in LessWrong generally understand the difference between “evidence” and “indisputable proof”.
When you say that “we should let this idea die already”, are you actually claiming that the similarity of the H&C and Quirrell statements in regards to Slytherin’s monster is exactly zero evidence towards H&C and Quirrel having some connection between them? Are you really saying that the author is exactly as likely to have H&C and Quirrel use the exact same phrase in regards to Slytherin’s monster, if they were the same character, and if they were completely unrelated characters?
If you’re not saying that, then all you’re saying is that you feel it should be weighed as less significant evidence than how some people are weighing it—but a mere disagreement on how it should be weighed doesn’t justify your tone or the way you say “please let this idea die already”.
Well, it’s a historical fact that when I first saw this term-use-implies-identity idea, I rolled my eyes at it. What I think happens here is this:
The first appearance of H&C does indeed seem to imply Quirrell is H&C. He walks off after Zabini, Zabini’s lie benefited him, and so forth. And however shakily, the common use of a term could support this as well.
But. Later we find evidence that it is indeed simply a technical term—as quoted above, (but it seems to be ignored, because the first H&C incident already implies a Q=H&C—at least I think this is what people feel), and then, in Ch76 we see something more important, a strong contrast between Quirrell reading the possibly-perfect-Occlumens Snape vs. H&C failing to read Hermione to such a degree that he needs to be told how suspicious he is. It points to them not beeing the same (which seems to be also ignored, because shared term-use already implies Q=H&C).
Rather than examining the evidences independently, they all seem to be lumped into an unassailable whole.
My own currently favored theory is: U&P naq Dhveery ner qvssrerag vaqvivqhnyf ohg obgu unir n Ibyqrzbeg vzcevag. Guvf pnhfrf gurz gb or fvzvyne be vqragvpny va fbzr erfcrpgf naq qvssrerag va bguref.
Assume Quirrell is not able to model ‘good’ people well → we know he is not all powerful, and this is certainly where he is weak—witness conv with Harry on ‘give a finger of my wand hand’, ‘does it really matter what your friends think’, etc.
And each iteration with Hermione could have brought a different reason from Hermione, which was then subverted—we only saw one arc. Also H&C wanted Hermione as a willing participant, not as an NPC, much harder than simply memory charming her.
It’s very unlikely EY has used two different H&C, and there was the ‘wards keyed in’ statement of both H&C & Quirrell earlier.
Will need much stronger evidence to say Quirrell is not H&C.
Zambini’s actions during the Lake-Battle were not good for Quirrell. It did end in Harry hearing that Dumbledore acted dark, but Quirrell knows Harry well-enough to predict he wouldn’t trust that information. So if Quirrell was really H&C, he should have had Zambini serving Potter all along so that Harry would win and be more likely to rule the country.
But I also very much doubt that it’s Lucius, as he doesn’t seem to fall into the category of “clever, but not too clever.”
As much as Quirrell knows to favor simple plans, I expect he also has a Xanatos Gambit or two up his sleeve. I don’t expect to be able to predict Quirrell’s actions.
You think getting Harry made Magical-Dictator-For-Life is simple? Besides, H&C’s conversation with Zambini makes no sense if it’s Quirrell. If he’s about to obliterate the kid, he hasn’t the slightest reason to keep up his charade of plotting to set the Headmaster and Defense Professor against one-another.
While none of this makes it impossible that Quirrell is H&C, I don’t think we have a good enough reason to suspect him that it’s all irrelevant.
Zabini.
Obliviate.
Did he, though?
Fair enough. But nonetheless, H&C wouldn’t need a report if he’d been in the conversation Blaise was reporting on.
cough
Unless H&C needs to figure out (through legilimancy) who else Zabini might have told about his existence, so that he can go and obliviate them too.
Ch71:
So, maybe H&C is Padma!!1!
sigh. Can we please let this idea die already? It’s no more than common use of a technical term.
Amelia Bones, Ch55:
Downvoted for the attitude. People in LessWrong generally understand the difference between “evidence” and “indisputable proof”.
When you say that “we should let this idea die already”, are you actually claiming that the similarity of the H&C and Quirrell statements in regards to Slytherin’s monster is exactly zero evidence towards H&C and Quirrel having some connection between them? Are you really saying that the author is exactly as likely to have H&C and Quirrel use the exact same phrase in regards to Slytherin’s monster, if they were the same character, and if they were completely unrelated characters?
If you’re not saying that, then all you’re saying is that you feel it should be weighed as less significant evidence than how some people are weighing it—but a mere disagreement on how it should be weighed doesn’t justify your tone or the way you say “please let this idea die already”.
Well, it’s a historical fact that when I first saw this term-use-implies-identity idea, I rolled my eyes at it. What I think happens here is this:
The first appearance of H&C does indeed seem to imply Quirrell is H&C. He walks off after Zabini, Zabini’s lie benefited him, and so forth. And however shakily, the common use of a term could support this as well.
But. Later we find evidence that it is indeed simply a technical term—as quoted above, (but it seems to be ignored, because the first H&C incident already implies a Q=H&C—at least I think this is what people feel), and then, in Ch76 we see something more important, a strong contrast between Quirrell reading the possibly-perfect-Occlumens Snape vs. H&C failing to read Hermione to such a degree that he needs to be told how suspicious he is. It points to them not beeing the same (which seems to be also ignored, because shared term-use already implies Q=H&C).
Rather than examining the evidences independently, they all seem to be lumped into an unassailable whole.
This is how it feels like when you are using One Argument Against An Army.
I’d still write this off as unintentional except that I believe Eliezer then would have changed the wording now that it’s been brought up.
It’s still possible Quirrell was eavesdropping on H&C or vice-versa.
My own currently favored theory is:
U&P naq Dhveery ner qvssrerag vaqvivqhnyf ohg obgu unir n Ibyqrzbeg vzcevag. Guvf pnhfrf gurz gb or fvzvyne be vqragvpny va fbzr erfcrpgf naq qvssrerag va bguref.