Quirrellmort seems altogether too clever an individual to not have noticed by now that Harry is a Horcrux for him. Which means that he’d want very much to rectify that situation before killing Harry. It’d be a self-destructive act to allow that to happen.
Now, a protege—one who knew that killing his mentor would be killing himself? -- priceless.
Do we know that Harry is a horcrux in HPMoR? I’d assign a much lower probability to Quirrelmort making him one by accident than I would for the original Voldemort.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking. Are you asking if we know that Professor Quirrel is Voldemort? Ryvrmre unf nssvezrq gung gung’f gur pnfr. Vs lbh’er nfxvat fbzrguvat ryfr gura V’ir zvfhaqrefgbbq gur dhrfgvba.
You do not need to rot13 anything about HP:MoR or the original Harry Potter series unless you are posting insider information from Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).
So the solution for Desrtopa is either ROT13 the above, or remove any mention you may or may not have made that Eliezer may or may not have confirmed or denied something.
Quirrellmort seems altogether too clever an individual to not have noticed by now that Harry is a Horcrux for him. Which means that he’d want very much to rectify that situation before killing Harry. It’d be a self-destructive act to allow that to happen.
Now, a protege—one who knew that killing his mentor would be killing himself? -- priceless.
Do we know that Harry is a horcrux in HPMoR? I’d assign a much lower probability to Quirrelmort making him one by accident than I would for the original Voldemort.
Conversely, I’d assign a much higher probability of MoR!Quirrell making him one on purpose than canon!Voldemort.
Do we know that Quirrell is Quirrellmort in HPMoR?
I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking. Are you asking if we know that Professor Quirrel is Voldemort? Ryvrmre unf nssvezrq gung gung’f gur pnfr. Vs lbh’er nfxvat fbzrguvat ryfr gura V’ir zvfhaqrefgbbq gur dhrfgvba.
(rot13′ed per request.)
Ah...
Did he retract this statement? Where did he do that?
ROT13: Vg jnf znqr pyrne va gur nhgube’f abgrf gung Dhveeryy vf Ibyqrzbeg, nsgre Ryvrmre jnf naablrq gung crbcyr qvqa’g frrz gb erpbtavmr gung Dhveeryy jnf fhccbfrq gb or rivy. Vg jnf cbvagrq bhg gb uvz gung gur fgbel vf zhpu orggre vs lbh qba’g xabj gung nurnq bs gvzr, fb ur ergenpgrq gung fgngrzrag naq erfbyirq abg gb rkcyvpvgyl zragvba vg orsber vgf gvzr; vg vf abj pbafvqrerq n fcbvyre.
So the solution for Desrtopa is either ROT13 the above, or remove any mention you may or may not have made that Eliezer may or may not have confirmed or denied something.
No, though lots of people act like they know that, some of whom may or may not be the author.