All of clgroft's Comments + Replies

clgroft290

Took the vast majority. The OCEAN test seemed mostly wrong, the IQ seemed low (big shock, right? Shouldn't have raced through, I guess), and my Myers-Briggs was ENFJ, which is just bizarre.

Also, I've commented a few times, never posted.

clgroft30

The actuarial industry has a system of advancement with ten exams.

Perhaps this is the key. Instead of coming up with our own replacement certification system, maybe we need to make it easier for companies and industries to create their own. They're the ones who know what matters for their own fields.

As an entry point, one might create an online job application builder. Questionnaires are easy (and probably not worth a startup), but if the application could have "code this" questions, and the answers were checked on the server, that could be a killer feature for tech companies.

0JoshuaFox
Yes, but supervision is essential for the tests to be reliable. The basic solution to that is to set up hundreds of in-person test centers, with proctors, as Pearson has. On-site testing can be minimized with various imperfect techniques, like letting people take some tests at home with cameras showing that they aren't cheating, and then using on-site tests as final confirmation of scores.
clgroft00

While I'm no longer convinced of the Narcissa-was-a-Horcrux hypothesis, I don't buy this argument. Even if Voldie thinks of it (which, okay, that part's reasonable), it assumes that he needs an invincible army more than he needs to keep the idea of Horcruxes secret. This is wildly implausible. His non-invincible army was doing just fine.

Also, ArisKatsaris' comment.

1bogdanb
I’m not 100% convinced myself, it just seems likely. I won’t argue about the sword (nobody ever tried without it), canon is too fuzzy about the details and Eliezer explicitly said that he makes them up as he goes along. About Voldie, if Horcruxes worked that way at the very least he would have thought to make himself the Horcrux of someone else, like Bella, just to gain the benefits as a back-up (even though he had horcruxes, reviving is a chore, and at least in MoR he’d be prepared against accidental defeat). And if I was him, I’d have at least my top followers horcrux a small object that I can easily destroy and that I can keep on me at all times (he had easy access to basilisk venom and magic pouches), and Obliviate them about the process to keep the secret. Of course, we have no indication he didn’t do that, except that a lot of his followers were killed and Fiendfyre is still considered rare. But I still think such an effect would be too powerful for MoR, it’d basically remove anything but Fiendfyre and Basilisk-venom from the offensive options. (And it seems that Salazar’s basilisk might no longer available, though characteristically cannon seems to suggest that breeding a basilisk is ridiculously easy, just forbidden.) Also, if living Horcruxes are not killable by normal means, that would suggest that mean they don’t die of old age, either, which again would not quite fit.
clgroft00

Or he could just be tracking everything that happened to Draco. Q has admitted to casting alarm charms on him.

In fact, it just occurred to me that Q could very well have been using Legilimency on Draco as well. Would the Aurors have checked for that? Would Lucius?

2pedanterrific
Quirrell seems to think it's a real possibility:
clgroft00

FWIW I agree with your interpretation.

To take it further: McGonagall accompanies Harry to Diagon Alley, while (on Dumbledore's orders) learning as much as possible about him. She attempts to report to Dumbledore, but is speechless; Dumbledore may or may not be reading her mind, I don't know. Before this, he was happy to delegate the responsibility, but after this meeting, he naturally decides he'd better investigate personally. Platform 9.75 is the next convenient opportunity.

Yes, that's a lot of detail, but I think the story bears it out.

clgroft10

Interesting idea.

My pet theory for some time has been that Narcissa was a Horcrux, and that Dumbledore was destroying said Horcrux by the only means he could—Fiendfyre. Are there any obvious gaps?

(EDIT: pedantarrific below points one out.)

0bogdanb
Canon seems to imply that living horcrux anchors can be killed normally to destroy the horcrux. (Magic apparently can’t actually fix death, and a horcrux is destroyed when the anchor is “damaged beyond magic repair”.) I’m not sure MoR retains that, but it would be a huge game-breaker if it didn’t, and one that Voldie would have seen and taken advantage of: You could protect your army from all but a few arcane dark spells by having your minions horcrux each-other. Note that the rare Fiendfyre is mentioned as necessary to destroy a horcrux, but the much more common Avada Kedavra is not—which suggests that, if it were to work like that, horcruxing would make you invulnerable even to AK. (In other words, AK is not mentioned as one of the few horcrux-destroying spells because it only works on living people, and living horcruxes can be just killed normally instead of requiring advanced methods.)
3loserthree
Probably as much "not the headmaster's style" to kill someone who happened to be a Horcrux so directly instead of weaving a complex plot to something, something, something, and then something else.
4pedanterrific
Yes: why would Dumbledore allow McGonagall to think that Voldemort only had one Horcrux?
4Joshua Hobbes
Or rather, unless his really really dark side is. Which I find quite plausible, really.