@richard96: The passage of the book?
Don't have access to my copy RN, will provide it later, not that your deserving of evidence considering the shear idiocy yet simultaneous arrogance you show in this post.
Lol, it doesn’t mean sh!t. She was gifted, like Harry.
Every Auror is gifted, they have to get top grades at Hogwarts, they have to spend three years in investigative and combative magic programmes ect, there's no proof Tonks is anything other than what the series portrays her as, a low tier Auror.
Hierarchy doesn’t mean jack.
In the case of Auror's who are literally designated based on combative efficiency and intellect yes it does.
Harry and hermione aren’t even graduated, yet they are stronger than many aurors.
Based on?
The evidence of the contrary are simply her feats, like surviving Bellatrix multiple times.
And why can't that be applied to all Aurors who are intended to be the elite and Tonks was never portrayed as extraordinary.
You are either trolling or you don’t know what are you talking about. Snape and Bellatrix are clearly described as prodigies, and they are vastly above an average wizard. This ridiculous denial has to stop.
>Claims I don't know what I'm talking about for saying Auror's are only marginally below Snape and Bellatrix.
>Thinks Aurors, the elites are average wizards.
Ironic...
Have you ever heard of hype?
I mean it's not as if hype is less important than feats. Oh wait, it is. Newt was never hyped up sure but he has the feats to suggest he's a top tier.
Well, you are claiming Dumbledore or Voldemort can curbstomp in a move multiple high tiers, while Gellert can’t do the same with newt...If newt can avoid being one shotted by Gellert, multiple high tier can definitely do the same with Voldemort or Dumbledore. Just logic.
Except there's nothing that suggests that anyone here is better than Newt, nor is there anything that suggests Gellert a base is on Dumbledore and Voldemort's level, all there is is tons of evidence suggesting the opposite.
While ridiculously pre prime and taken by surprise.
A) Nothing suggests a major power increase and given all he did was teach at school for an extended period of time I'm not convinced there should be one either.
B) He was aware of the fact that Dumbledore was going to be there, he had his wand out so forgive me if I don' take that seriously.
After having fought with them for a decent amount of time,
Which I already addressed if you could actually read.
Snape and bellatrix as well as mc gonagall have far better hype than newt.
So Newt has one great feat that eclipses anything they have doe and you answer it with "muh hype".
Ah then now newt held off Gellert? Decide yourself.
Read properly, I always said he did, he however was getting tooled and had no chance of winning but parried spells from him.
Grindelwald used an high tier spell there, but yes, you are right.
Wonderful, concession accepted, moving on you've conceded a major point, it isn't looking good for your case mate.
But if the EW is a so strong amp, you are also to claim base Voldemort >> base Dumbledore.
A notion supported by the text yes.
8 high tier are comfortably above 20 average aurors.
A falsehood as I've proven by now.
Base Gellert should at least be comparable to Voldemort or Dumbledore.
You conceded that he's a far cry away from EW Grindelwald who is subsequently below either of the duo yet are now saying he's close. HMMM.
Log in to comment