Percy is a secretary. I'm pretty sure passing your newts qualifies you to answer calls, make appointments, and last but not least, suck your bosses dick.

 

In the UK, the position of undersecretary to a Minister is quite a senior position. It's not a secretarial position in the traditional sense - you're basically the second in command of that area of government.

 

If I recall correctly, during the Yule Ball, Percy even state that due to Crouch's illness and absence, he's performing most of Crouch's duties. This could be Percy's nature making him exaggerate but, as Taure stated, an undersecretary typically heads one part a government department, so it isn't to much of a stretch considering Percy's position.

 

Didn't he first start out as Crouches assistant/secretary, when Umbridge was the undersecretary. He was promoted later, after the Voldemort debacle.

Edit: you beat me to it.

 

:facepalm

Krishna... Take that cock out of your ass for two seconds and try to wrap your head around the idea that although the majority of us don't like to read slash, very few of us actually have a problem with homosexuality.

I'm tired of logging in every day to see you complaining about 'butt-sex' in your pathetic attempts to fit in. Just... fucking... stop. You are correct, DLP IS a safe-haven from badly-written slash. Everyone knows this. We don't need you to bring it up every goddamn minute.

TL;DR... You sound like a pole-smoking faggot.

 

I am seriously hurt Khaaaaaan. Guess what, I'll refrain myself from posting my opinions on this topic. I am off to a corner to cry. You hurt my feelings.

 

I wish I had a thumbs down button just for you.

 

Would the Elder Wand perform a true killing curse even without the resolve of the user?

 

A conundrum. One would immediately think yes, since it refines all spells cast into a perfect form, so to speak, but at the same time, you have to mean the Unforgivables. I think no. At most, what would actually hit the target would be a stunner, albeit with that sickly green tint.

 

I'd say, if you want to kill him, but don't have enough resolution, the wand could help - after all, it's duelling. If you don't want to kill your opponent and don't have the resolve, why are you using the spell in the first place?

 

I'm of opinion that you would leave your opponent only mostly dead, if that were the case. He could be then be brought back to life if he met a healer played by Billy Crystal.

 

(sigh) Krishna, again I refer you to my old post here.

For the love of God, shut the fuck up before you dig yourself an even bigger proverbial hole than the one you're currently standing in.

 

So much fanon.

No canon evidence that you need any kind of particular emotion to cast the Killing Curse.

1. Bellatrix was only talking about the Cruciatus curse in OotP.
2. We saw in DH that the Imperius requires no particular emotion.
3. The Unforgivables are grouped legally, not magically.
4. Harry cast the Cruciatus successfully in DH with righteous anger, suggesting that Bella may have been either lying (big shock there) or mistaken.

 

The most you need for the Killing Curse to work, going off Crouch Jr., is you have to mean to kill someone. As in, you want them dead. If you try to half-ass it, it won't work. It doesn't require any special hatred for the person (although it would help), you just have to want them dead. Or so I interpreted him as saying back in GoF.

 

Which seems to be the same for every spell: you have to intend to cast the spell (i.e. desire the effect) for magic to happen. If you wave around a wand saying incantations with no intention to cast magic, those spells don't get cast (though maybe something magical happens, like a buffalo appearing over your head).

 

The way I interpreted that is that there's a world of difference between an emotional response and a calculated desire to cause pain. I don't remember the exact wording of that scene though, so there's that. It just always seemed like it made sense in my mind--there are a few issues with it, but it seems to make enough sense for me to go "Close enough."

 

Bellatrix may not have been lying so much as relating her own experience. Sure, Harry managed to cast the spell, but he never drove anyone insane/rendered them invalid. Bellatrix may have meant that to cast the kind of Cruciatus she casts, the most effective kind, you have to "mean them."

By which, by the way, I think she was referring to all Unforgivables, not just the Cruciatus.

EDIT: Yup.

She then elaborates upon the Cruciatus specifically.

 

What about when Harry cast sectumsempra? He only had a vague idea of what the spell might do.

 

I think the main problem is you were spending at least as much time trying to express everyone's opinion as you were your own... and you're just not in a position to do that; few, if any, are.