The Contradiction To "albus - The Time Traveller Theory "

Ok...If some one thinks that this theory of Dumbledore is correct...Youre totally wrong..and I'll tell you why :

Has anyone here heard about the "Unbreakable Vow" and its consequences ? If not ..Ill tell you..
So taking in mind the fact that the ones who vow die...And observing the part when Narcissa Malfoy asks Snape to give the Unbreakable Vow..which Snape agrees to...

And were sure that the Vow is all about helping Draco accomplishing the work Lord had given him (To kill Dumbledore)..and in doing the work himself (Snape'll kill Dumbledore if draco fails to )..if Draco is unable to (To kill Dumbledore)...how many of us see Snape dead ?

SNAPE IS STILL ALIVE...he hasnt done the work Draco was supposed to do (Killing dumbledore if we suppose Dumbledore is alive)..and seeing that snape has not done it..*HE SHOULD DIE*..

And as we can so easily see snape walking and talking...he must have done what he was supposed to do for which he had taken the vow..that is *KILLING DUMBLEDORE*..

So this proves that Dumbledore is really dead...And if not..Than Snape's ghost walked out of the school the last time we saw him..

We've been through that, too.
Snape did not promise to kill Dumbledore.
He promised to KEEP DRACO SAFE,
EVEN IF that meant killing Dumbledore.
The Vow itself is what will keep Draco safe from Voldemort.
The death of Dumbledore would have been irrelevant.

You need to read that section in Book 6, chapter One again.
I'll see if I can find the explanation around here somewhere.

==========

Nope. Can't find the thread in this club.
It was something about "Slimy Gits need love, too."
I'll have to send you to my unfinished website.
Maybe I'll finish it someday, but right now I don't have time.

http://www.geocities.com/bombleby/vow.html

Dear..dear...dear...Dont you understand ? Keeping Draco safe will only mean killing dumbledore..Thats coz Voldy will kill draco if he doesnt fulfill his wish and no Snape can save draco from the Lord...remember ....Narcissa also askes snape to complete the job if draco was unable to do it..


Dear..dear...dear...Dont you understand ? Keeping Draco safe will only mean killing dumbledore..Thats coz Voldy will kill draco if he doesnt fulfill his wish and no Snape can save draco from the Lord...remember ....Narcissa also askes snape to complete the job if draco was unable to do it..
[/b][/quote]
You see :
So we can interpret it in this way too : Regarding "And should it prove necessary" : as word of comfort ...And taking in consideration the other sentence..It shows that snape had to complete the task if draco would be unable to do it..

You didn't read that link.

Huh ? I copied those lines from that link..

If Draco fails, Voldemort will kill him for the failure.
Nothing Snape can do will change the fact that Draco failed.

I was thinking the same thing as the dark.lord. Thanks for clearing that up.

Naah..youre still wrong psyduck...coz if Draco fails then Snape will die and if Draco passes ..that means he kills dumbledore..then Snape will live to tell the story..think about it again luna and Psyduck (watch less pokemon) heh

You mean, if Draco is successful and actually kills Dumbledore himself?

==========

Is Pokemon still on the tube?
I've been using the name since my kids were little.
I see Psyduck as a misunderstood genius
with a severe headache. I can identify.

#1.Hello! >LUNA< character from Hp series, not pokemon.
#2.Psyduck has kids. They probably watch that show.
#3.Dumbledore being alive wouldn't effect Snape dying or not.
#4.Oi mei, y maliok.



And yes, Pokemon is still on, but being on this many years has been over kill. It's just probably the same storyline reapting.