Climb down off the cross before you hurt yourself, K, at this point I’m questioning far more than your ability to count. You’ve got every right to your opinion. I and others have just as much right to find it moronic and hypocritical (although painting them all as Potterheads worshipping “Rowling’s religion” is …so proving them wrong there. No, really), and this is hardly your private rant diary — posting said opinion in a public forum means you’ll likely hear from people who disagree with it. Welcome to the Internet. What I don’t actually have is endless time and word/character space to go through every bit of analysis-fail point by point, which is why I stuck to the four topics
that kept getting recycled. But okay, we’ll do it your way.

1. Let’s leave aside the issue of how it WAS, in fact, Quidditch as a game and the epic unfairness of fast brooms determining a win that was being specifically criticized earlier. I’ll take it on faith that you’re well-read enough to go back and find that post yourself. Rowling has Harry win all the important games, which is why he personally won the Cup for Gryffindor all seven years at school, right? Except for that one time in “Stone”, where Slytherin won the Cup. Oh, and that time in “Azkaban” where he lost the game to Diggory/Hufflepuff. But all the other years, Gryffindor won because of him….hang on, he got kicked from the team after the first game in “Phoenix”, yet Gryffindor still won. Well clearly he used telepathy to guide the Snitch to Gryffindor’s Seeker. Like he must have in “Halfblood Prince”, during the two games he AGAIN didn’t get to play in. I’m bored trying to follow an argument this idiotic – you seem to be equating the facts that we see Quidditch through Harry’s eyes and that he’s got natural talent with the notion that Quidditch exists for the sole purpose of making Harry look/feel good. Completely ignoring the fact that Harry has played in less than half of the games documented in the series, and of those games, you can count on one hand the number of games he’s won through that talent, as opposed to blind luck or distraction tactics. As I’m not Rowling, I have no clue why Quidditch was created the way it was, but even third graders have the ability to see that it holds up reasonably as a game whether or not Harry’s a part of it, and that any of the players, not just the Seeker, can be celebrated as the team superstars (seeing as RON became that superstar often enough in the last books. And Ron waited because a Gryffindor player – Oliver Wood – had to graduate before a spot on the team freed up, I can’t believe that needs to be spelled out).

2. In light of (1), your arguments about the point system make even less sense, because if you feel that the point system is so arbitrary, I can’t see why you take issue with the ONE way students have of influencing its outcome without teacher involvement. Of course the students will gripe that they only lost because this or that teacher hates their House. In Snape vs. The Gryffindors, this is completely true. And do you honestly imagine the Slytherins wouldn’t cry that EXACT SAME THING about Dumbledore after the first book, considering that it’s the literal truth in that case? They did only lose the Cup because Dumbledore favored the Gryffindors and had an excuse to give them extra points, and I don’t see how that indicates the system doesn’t work the same way when it’s not Harry and friends being persecuted. It’s unfair. Breaking news: most school-based extra merit systems tend to be! The Quidditch tournament seems to be a way to counter that, which is more than many real schools can say.

3. Again, I’m putting faith in your ability to go find the “Harry’s a lucky snot to not have become a teenage father, with he and Ginny getting it on every time you turned around” post yourself. People that make up pages which don’t exist for anyone else in a book, clearly got to have SOME special skills. And you’re right, it doesn’t matter whether or not they had sex, as both were hormonal teenagers and it happens. I don’t know a more clear-cut example of ‘acting like humans’ than that right there. Just saying, if one is going to condemn them for acting like hormonal teenagers, one should probably have more than a wild interpretation of “several sunlit days” to back it up.

4. And one more time, go back and read the other posts, I’m sure you’ll find something that criticized him for exactly what I mentioned. Believe me, you lot are far from being the only Slytherfen to entertain people, it’s just the complete lack of ‘getting the point’ here was more pronounced than usual. And Harry’s constantly telling Hermione she’s “incredible” and “brilliant”, that “[he’d] be dead without her.” Sending her out of harm’s way while he goes on to face what he believes is Voldemort. Incessantly encouraging his other friend during those Quidditch trials you mentioned. Handed off his Tournament money to other friends so they could start a business, and then going off to die to give them all more of a chance against Voldemort. My god, what. A. Little. Shit. He. Is. I mean, no one should ever write characters that are as fallible as real people.

5. ”
“Anyone who keeps people around for the sake of decoration like he does comes off as pathetic to me.
Had he accepted Draco’s friendship offer in book 1, we would have seen a relationship in which two people could probably challenge each other.”

I know that’s not a quote from your latest post, but in light of your comment regarding Harry’s treatment of his friends, it deserves a mention for making me laugh. Draco had already insinuated that Harry’s kind didn’t belong at Hogwarts, and then told him he’d die the way his parents did. What a beautiful start they were off to!