Voldemort vs. Albus Dumbledore

Originally posted by quanchi112
The people who released the film believed her opinion was credible enough to release it on the special features.

Irony. My points weren't countered. You're an idiot.

And that means what? The answer is it means nothing. Why do you think statements made by Nick Guillard mean anything in Star Wars debates? Because he was the stunt coordinator for the actors and worked closely with Lucas on what their power would be and how they would fight, and gave the actors the feel that the could make statements like when Christopher Lee says Dooku is the most skilled duelist in the galaxy or how Samuel L Jackson says he's the second badest guy in the galaxy and also how Guillard statements are canon and used in debates. You see he had substance to what he said.He had a position that gave him experience, he worked with the films and closely with its creator, so he had substance. This lady has none of that. She worked on nothing with the movie or the books what so ever. She has no substance. So no her opinion is just that, her option. It doesn't prove anything, it means nothing, except what she thinks.

Originally posted by EmperorSidious2
And that means what? The answer is it means nothing. Why do you think statements made by Nick Guillard mean anything in Star Wars debates? Because he was the stunt coordinator for the actors and worked closely with Lucas on what their power would be and how they would fight, and gave the actors the feel that the could make statements like when Christopher Lee says Dooku is the most skilled duelist in the galaxy or how Samuel L Jackson says he's the second badest guy in the galaxy and also how Guillard statements are canon and used in debates. You see he had substance to what he said.He had a position that gave him experience, he worked with the films and closely with its creator, so he had substance. This lady has none of that. She worked on nothing with the movie or the books what so ever. She has no substance. So no her opinion is just that, her option. It doesn't prove anything, it means nothing, except what she thinks.

Originally posted by juggerman
You created you're own edit to the actual definition. It was sad

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, you avoided your own definition. Sad.

Wrong. You added to the actual definition to fit your silly stance. You fail yet again

Originally posted by juggerman
Wrong. You added to the actual definition to fit your silly stance. You fail yet again

Originally posted by quanchi112
You posted the def and are trying to ignore it.

Where in the definition did it say "must flee all danger"?

Originally posted by juggerman
Where in the definition did it say "must flee all danger"?

Originally posted by quanchi112
It said danger so if danger loomed then he didn't flee from it. Obviously.

Still waiting on that definition where it says "must flee from all danger"

Originally posted by juggerman
Still waiting on that definition where it says "must flee from all danger"

Originally posted by quanchi112
I just answered your post so answer mine. You avoided the definition not me. Now respond to my query.

You twisted away. One can flee a danger by going toward a different, maybe lesser danger. Ie you could flee a burning building by running out into a dangerous storm or into a street riot

So again, show me where "must flee all danger" is a requirement

Originally posted by juggerman
You twisted away. One can flee a danger by going toward a different, maybe lesser danger. Ie you could flee a burning building by running out into a dangerous storm or into a street riot

So again, show me where "must flee all danger" is a requirement

Originally posted by quanchi112
He didn't leave Albus which you claimed he did. He was right there in the same room. You aren't very good at this but come on this is starting to sound pathetic.

He actually did flee Albus. He was dueling him and then ran off and hid like a punk. You lose again

Originally posted by juggerman
He actually did flee Albus. He was dueling him and then ran off and hid like a punk. You lose again

Originally posted by quanchi112
Incorrect. He was right there. Albus was still within striking distance. Quit lying.

Ran away and hid. Cowardice.

Originally posted by juggerman
Ran away and hid. Cowardice.

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, you're simply being childish and avoiding the facts here.

Fact is he fled Albus like a punk. Then he hid. If you want to believe he didn't leave the room then you believe he hid inside Harry himself. Either way it was hiding. Cowardice

Originally posted by juggerman
Fact is he fled Albus like a punk. Then he hid. If you want to believe he didn't leave the room then you believe he hid inside Harry himself. Either way it was hiding. Cowardice

Originally posted by quanchi112
If it is included on the special features it's weighted evidence, they obviously value the opinion

Until you show me the substance of why they would value her opinion it doesn't count.

Originally posted by quanchi112
He was still there and stood right next to Albus and to Harry., Albus stood by and did nothing. That's cowardice. You claimed he was worried sick but did nothing while Voldemort stood over Harry. 😂

He didn't need to lift a finger cuz Harry served Tom all on his own in embarrassing fashion. Fact remains Tom ran scared and hid. Facts

Originally posted by EmperorSidious2
Until you show me the substance of why they would value her opinion it doesn't count.