Harry Potter's Ron Weasley: Doper

Anyone catch the new Harry Potter flick? Ronald Weasley went for the
dope and never even looked back. And he never knew he was clean.

On Jul 16, 6:11*pm, friban mungioni wrote:
Anyone catch the new Harry Potter flick? *Ronald Weasley went for the
dope and never even looked back. *And he never knew he was clean.

Amazing, there is apparently someone who saw the movie but didn't read
the book.

-ilan

ilan wrote:
On Jul 16, 6:11 pm, friban mungioni wrote:
Anyone catch the new Harry Potter flick? Ronald Weasley went for the
dope and never even looked back. And he never knew he was clean.

Amazing, there is apparently someone who saw the movie but didn't read
the book.

I can top that: I plan on doing neither!

On Jul 17, 1:18*am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
ilan wrote:
On Jul 16, 6:11 pm, friban mungioni wrote:
Anyone catch the new Harry Potter flick? *Ronald Weasley went for the
dope and never even looked back. *And he never knew he was clean.

Amazing, there is apparently someone who saw the movie but didn't read
the book.

I can top that: I plan on doing neither!

Since most people I know have a 12 year old's mentality, it was
essential reading if I was to keep up with them.

-ilan

ilan wrote:
On Jul 17, 1:18 am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
ilan wrote:
On Jul 16, 6:11 pm, friban mungioni wrote:
Anyone catch the new Harry Potter flick? Ronald Weasley went for the
dope and never even looked back. And he never knew he was clean.
Amazing, there is apparently someone who saw the movie but didn't read
the book.
I can top that: I plan on doing neither!

Since most people I know have a 12 year old's mentality, it was
essential reading if I was to keep up with them.

-ilan

Well, OK. Give me a few years and I'll catch up.

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:42:59 -0700, Fred Fredburger
wrote:

ilan wrote:
On Jul 17, 1:18 am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
ilan wrote:
On Jul 16, 6:11 pm, friban mungioni wrote:
Anyone catch the new Harry Potter flick? Ronald Weasley went for the
dope and never even looked back. And he never knew he was clean.
Amazing, there is apparently someone who saw the movie but didn't read
the book.
I can top that: I plan on doing neither!

Since most people I know have a 12 year old's mentality, it was
essential reading if I was to keep up with them.

-ilan

Well, OK. Give me a few years and I'll catch up.

Confession here. I had read through all of the Harry Dresden series
and was waiting for the next one to come out and had nothing in the
house to read and my son's SO gave my wife the entire series, so I
read them. First of all, the whole 'big book' theory really means 'big
print'. Print them like adult books and they shrink to slightly large
paperbacks. Second, like a lot of the old Asimov stuff, it is plot
driven and often poorly written in execution, so it works best if you
read fast just for plot development. Compared to any decent
fantasy/sci-fi stuff, the internal stuf 'just happens'. No
explanation, no internal logic, if someone needs to walk around
spewing pink elephants, well, why not. So the stuff truly is 12 year
old stuff. And I read the entire series...

That asshole Jim Butcher better learn to write as fast as I can read.
Now I'm reading another series, some female detective series my wife
piocked up that everyone thinks is great and it seems to hinge on the
fact that she wants to be laid by any one of three guys, but can't
really sort out the relationships. Terrible stuff. I've read the first
eleven of the series...

I'm thinking of revisiting Horton and the Who soon and then seeing the
movie. I need regression analysis.

But I do get two points for not killing the person that announced the
Harry Potter series was brilliant. I paused because I realized he
could have been a marketing person.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

In article ,
wrote:

But I do get two points for not killing the person that announced the
Harry Potter series was brilliant. I paused because I realized he
could have been a marketing person.

All the more reason to kill him.

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:42:59 -0700, Fred Fredburger
wrote:

ilan wrote:
On Jul 17, 1:18 am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
ilan wrote:
On Jul 16, 6:11 pm, friban mungioni wrote:
Anyone catch the new Harry Potter flick? Ronald Weasley went for the
dope and never even looked back. And he never knew he was clean.
Amazing, there is apparently someone who saw the movie but didn't read
the book.
I can top that: I plan on doing neither!
Since most people I know have a 12 year old's mentality, it was
essential reading if I was to keep up with them.

-ilan
Well, OK. Give me a few years and I'll catch up.

Confession here. I had read through all of the Harry Dresden series
and was waiting for the next one to come out and had nothing in the
house to read and my son's SO gave my wife the entire series, so I
read them. First of all, the whole 'big book' theory really means 'big
print'. Print them like adult books and they shrink to slightly large
paperbacks. Second, like a lot of the old Asimov stuff, it is plot
driven and often poorly written in execution, so it works best if you
read fast just for plot development. Compared to any decent
fantasy/sci-fi stuff, the internal stuf 'just happens'. No
explanation, no internal logic, if someone needs to walk around
spewing pink elephants, well, why not. So the stuff truly is 12 year
old stuff. And I read the entire series...

That asshole Jim Butcher better learn to write as fast as I can read.
Now I'm reading another series, some female detective series my wife
piocked up that everyone thinks is great and it seems to hinge on the
fact that she wants to be laid by any one of three guys, but can't
really sort out the relationships. Terrible stuff. I've read the first
eleven of the series...

I'm thinking of revisiting Horton and the Who soon and then seeing the
movie. I need regression analysis.

But I do get two points for not killing the person that announced the
Harry Potter series was brilliant. I paused because I realized he
could have been a marketing person.

When I'm looking for mindless drivel to read, it's Terry Pratchett, Neil
Gaiman, Tom Holt. There's a genre there, but I don't know what it's
called and I'm not sure Neil Gaiman exactly fits.

When my daughter was little and couldn't read yet, I read about 1/4 of
the first Harry Potter book to her before she got bored and wanted me to
read something else. I didn't understand why it was supposed to be such
a big deal. I took my kids to see 2 of the movies, which had the virtue
of being less painful than the books.

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:25:07 -0700, Fred Fredburger
wrote:

When my daughter was little and couldn't read yet, I read about 1/4 of
the first Harry Potter book to her before she got bored and wanted me to
read something else. I didn't understand why it was supposed to be such
a big deal. I took my kids to see 2 of the movies, which had the virtue
of being less painful than the books.

The movies showed progress, but they are held back by the books.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Jul 18, 4:25 am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:

When I'm looking for mindless drivel to read, it's Terry Pratchett, Neil
Gaiman, Tom Holt. There's a genre there, but I don't know what it's
called and I'm not sure Neil Gaiman exactly fits.

"Author needs to eat" genre.