This may be true. But we don't know that. If you are saying something that we dot know is true, it should be hedged. If something is true for sure then sound confident, or even better cite a source.

Comment author: Izeinwinter 24 February 2015 03:31:11PM -2 points [-]

I built up an entire theory about the curse after 108 - I may sound more confident about it than is wise, but didn't want to recap the whole thing again as that would just be tiresome. Apologies. Suffice it to say that I currently believe Voldemorts own stolen cup is fucking with him.

It's that or he is for some odd reason plotting his own downfall, because stepping in front of that mirror while under a confundus charm was just.. extremely ill advised.

Comment author: pedanterrific 24 February 2015 09:38:44PM 0 points [-]

Did you ever come up with a response to the point that the Goblet was in Hogwarts for a few centuries after Baba Yaga, before being warehoused at Beauxbatons? If the curse was in effect all that time, it would have been mentioned.

Comment author: Izeinwinter 24 February 2015 10:37:58PM * -1 points [-]

The phrasing is that nothing can be taken from anyone protected by the contract. Not that gifts or trade are forbidden, Which means that if BY drops a note to the effect that she is subcontracting her responsibilities as battle magic teacher into the goblet that particular teacher is granted forbearance. So as long as the goblet was in a place she could get at, no curse.

Izeinwinter comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, February 2015, chapter 109 - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (160)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (160)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login