What I mean is, does the letter have a date, for example. That would constitute "proof". "Pretty much proved" isn't really enough. This is a total waste of time, not to mention in entirely the wrong place.
















I know that. I am just demonstrating that you are contradicting your earlier "proof".




I am not saying they did, I am saying it is an equally plausible explanation, and that your claim that it "proves" something therefore does not hold. I am not trying to prove a position, all I am arguing is that it is not as clear as you have been claiming.



*sigh*
That is just the point. How would the owl find the house?




They fought Voldemort four times and survived. No arguments here. That meant leaving the house, of course. You are setting up straw man arguments. These were also times when they did have the invisibility cloak, for example. And before they had a child, I believe. There are any number of reasons they may have been in a different type of hiding before taking on fully fledged Fidelius Charm protection. We are talking about a short period, and whether they were necessarily covered by the charm at this point. Or, rather, I am discussing whether the things to declare "proven" are really "proven", because they cannot be "proven" if there are other plausible explanations. The fact is this part of the narrative is inconclusive. This is not surprising. It is a trait of fiction, or indeed of much writing.





Yes, we are discussing stuff from a novel. That is precisely my point. And the meaning of the words in a novel can rarely be taken interpreted in only one, unequivocal way. You are attempting to present your interpretation of events as "fact", which it is not. That is all I am disputing. I am not even trying to argue a point, as I am very aware that I do not have the books on hand, and I haven't read them in a while. All I am doing is questioning your claim to being the sole arbiter of the meaning of the words in the novel by presenting alternative interpretations of what you present as "proof".




It is not confusion. It is an awareness that language is not maths.




There may be a plot hole, but it is not pure and simple.




Jesus Christ. Do you really not understand what I am trying to say? The point is that if Voldemort were to employ that sort of tactics, it would not matter what sort of invisible the Potters were. Hogwarts was just an example. They could go to a muggle cinema, they could go to Oxford Street, they could start killing randomly. I was just demonstrating to you that your argument is not an argument.


Now, can we drop this until it becomes relevant?