Poll: Whom is your favorite girl with Harry Potter? Vote Now!
I am looking for a story I have read before but am unable to find now. It involves Harry finding Merlin's spell book at a non-magical library. The spells are in Welsh. Harry finds a time travel spell that takes him back roughly 100 years. If you find it, please PM me.
Unforgivable Curses, and while I cannot think of any justifiable reason for the Cruciatus Curse, the Imperius Curse does have some legitimate uses such as getting someone who is scared out of his mind to do something such as leave a burning building. The Killing Curse is a legitimate combat spell as the object of life or death battle is to ensure you live and the other guy does not. What better way than a spell that causes instant death.
I did the Gary Stu litmus test and I compared it to canonical Harry Potter, I rated him at Mega Gary Stu. Possibly even Super Mega Gary Stu.
One thing I thought was one of the biggest plot holes in Harry Potter were the blood wards but not even the wards themselves per se. If the blood wards worked as well as they did, there would be no need for an Order guard there especially as they do not interact with Harry and if the wards do not work or worse are not there then Harry is being kept prisoner in his own residence. Just one the many plot holes I came across.
I read in a few fanfictions about the magic detecting wards, and I think they are on to something. If there is a Trace put on the person, then there would have been no letter sent to Harry when Dobby used a Hover Charm. Also if it only detects magic, then it would be going off every time somebody does any magic. Also it does show that Fred and George have been doing magic in summer. All the noise in their room, the rest of the family complained about, where was their letter. So I agree with it, it used as a tool to oppress First-Generation magic users.
“Five years ago you arrived at Hogwarts, Harry, safe and whole, as I had planned and intended. Well - not quite whole. You had suffered. I knew you would when I left you on your aunt and uncle's doorstep. I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years.”
HBP 3, Dumbledore to the Dursleys:
"He has known nothing but neglect and often cruelty at your hands." ...
"The magic I evoked fifteen years ago means that Harry has powerful protection while he can still call this house 'home.' However miserable he has been here, however unwelcome, however badly treated, you have at least, grudgingly, allowed him houseroom."
What Dumbledore did was no different than kidnapping a black infant and forcing the poor child onto a family of fervent members of the Ku Klux Klan with a threat to provide the child a home. Harry received the same treatment you would expect for that poor child assuming (s)he wasn't killed outright, don't you think? Sure, he survived but as nothing more than a horribly abused slave of the Dursleys. It was stated clearly that Harry's abuse was physical as well as mental and emotional. There was mention of Petunia striking him with a frying pan (presumably hot) in the kitchen as well as Vernon's comment about nothing being impossible to "beat" out of the freak implying that beatings were common. Then of course they also encouraged Dudley's "Harry hunting" and attacks on the freak.
Dumbledore could have done something to ensure that Harry's childhood wasn't dark and difficult but instead chose not to and in so doing he proved that "dark and difficult" childhood is in fact precisely what he really wanted Harry to suffer through. The wizarding world is rife with spells and potions compelling particular behavior. It would most certainly have been preferable and much happier for both the Dursleys and Harry if Dumbledore had at the least used a compulsion ward or charm to ensure Harry was at least accepted if not loved by the Dursleys. After all, his living with them was deemed by Dumbledore to be necessary regardless of their clearly not wanting Harry. Thus he proved by forcing Harry upon them that they lacked any real free-will in the matter; that what they wanted was unimportant anyway in the much greater need for Harry's safety. (Dumbledore's howler to Petunia "REMEMBER MY LAST!" when the Dursleys were about to throw Harry out along with prior statements peppered throughout earlier books proved that Harry's residence with the Dursleys was coerced upon the Dursleys in some way by Dumbledore.) So why then didn't he take the added step to ensure Harry grew up well since the Dursley's free-will didn't matter to him anyway? In fact, his coercion absolutely ensured the Dursleys would take out their resentment and hatred upon Harry. It was abundantly clear that he fully intended Harry's sufferance through an abusive and enslaved childhood because he needed the boy (and prophesied weapon) meek, weak and fully cowed into easy control by adults.
After all, Dumbledore fully admits that he knowingly subjected Harry to more than a decade of abuse and enslavement by his relatives with no such effort to ensure Harry's well-being. Is it any wonder that Harry trashed his office afterwards? It might be puzzling to some how later Harry did an about-face and was again "Dumbledore's man" despite the evil Dumbledore knowingly inflicted upon him. But all that was needed to fully regain and seal Harry's fervent loyalty was Dumbledore paralyzing and forcing Harry into watching Dumbledore intentionally martyr himself. He was dying already but was careful not to tell Harry that. He made Harry believe that he sacrificed himself to protect Harry and thus forever sealed Harry's zealous loyalty. It is a tactic called "martyrdom" and it has been used to seal fervent and zealous loyalty to a cause or person very successfully for more than a thousand years by cultists, Islamists and also to a historically lesser extent by Christians as well. It was also the very fate he had planned for Harry - to die as a martyr.
I strongly encourage everyone to read up on the subjects of brainwashing children, the effects of neglect and abuse on a child's personality and also children brought up in cults with figures/followings (such as Dumbledore was in the wizarding world). Only then could you truly understand how horrific of a monster Dumbledore really was in not only what he did to Harry but also how he used his position as Headmaster of the premier wizarding school in Britain to ensure generations of children (and later adults) awe of him and fervent belief in his apparent goodness and infallibility. That belief allowed him to do virtually whatever he wanted (ignoring laws at whim and even enslaving the infant hero of the wizarding world to hateful and abusive muggles) with little or no question from anyone. The only one who would have questioned Harry's placement was conveniently thrown in prison without a trial by Barty Crouch of the DMLE with the ASSISTANCE of Chief Warlock (aka Chief JUDGE), Albus Dumbledore. He admitted that he gave the DMLE "evidence that Sirius Black was the Potter's Secret Keeper" to ensure Sirius was sent to Azkaban. This is interesting since any such evidence would have to have been fabricated or exaggerated by Dumbledore since not only was Black NOT the Secret Keeper but according to canon Dumbledore himself actually cast the spell to "hide" the Potters. (It was later revealed that it was the 'Fidelius Charm' that hid the Potters, so Dumbledore would have most assuredly known who was the real Secret Keeper.) It's a very poor and/or very corrupt judge that sends people off to life-imprisonment and torture (Dementors are torture) without a trial. It was awfully convenient that the ONLY suspected Death Eater that was mentioned to have been sent to Azkaban without a trial just so happened to be the legal guardian of Harry Potter and Dumbledore's only obstacle to control of the prophecied weapon. Especially when known and confirmed Death Eaters walked away free and clear without effort by Dumbledore to ensure justice for them either.
Also, particularly take note the effect and effectiveness of isolating a child that has been exposed to extreme trauma - limiting their access only to an environment of people who hate and abuse them with the sole outside "friendly" contact and source of information being the one person who wants to control them. He ordered Harry's friends to cut off all contact for "security" reasons but there was NO reason whatsoever Hermione couldn't have remained in contact via phone or muggle post or that the Order guards couldn't have passed messages on for him at Grimmauld - EXCEPT that it would have given Harry other people he could trust and rely upon in his time of need. Dumbledore couldn't have that. He needed total control over Harry and so he blocked Harry from ALL other outside "friendly" influence except his own when Harry needed friends most in order to keep Harry dependent on him.
In essence all of this proved Dumbledore to be much like a wizarding world equivalent of Charles Manson or perhaps closer to being like Jim Jones with a touch of mafia behavior in ensuring obstacles to his plans are "out of the way." The sole difference being that instead of getting his followers to murder for him like Charles Manson and Voldemort had done, Dumbledore instead got them to die for him and his cause like Jim Jones. Harry and so many others essentially committed suicide at Dumbledore's mere "asking". Anyone up for some Kool-Aid? Do you deny that Dumbledore could have convinced a significant number of people in the wizarding world (especially many of the children) to drink? (If you are not familiar with the reference, google "Jonestown" and steel yourself should you choose to view any of the images.)
BOTH Dumbledore and Voldemort fought what is called a "proxy war" where they used others (cultish followers mostly, though in Harry's case he was simply a kidnapped and brainwashed child) to fight and die for them. BOTH of them manipulated, used and endangered or outright sacrificed the lives of others, often innocents and children - without those people's knowledge or informed consent. Just because one's ends may be deemed noble does not mean that such evil methods are acceptable to reach those ends. Why is it to be any more tolerated for Dumbledore and the "Light" to commit such atrocities than the bad guys that are doing it? In fact, Dumbledore often hypocritically used that very argument to discourage anyone from using lethal force against the Death Eaters but yet most of his own actions and intentional inaction proved equally vile and evil in result, if not intent. Knowingly enslaving an innocent one year-old infant to 15 years of hatred and cruelty as a means of shaping that child's personality for easier influence and control is but only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. How about discouraging his followers from properly defending themselves but rather instead let the enemy kill them? His total insistence upon stunning and releasing torturers and murderers only allowed them to be revived or released to later go off to torture and kill someone else. Something that is far more evil than putting down the rabid dog for what it is before it could hurt someone else. Note how the Malfoys among others were walking free at the end of DH despite the murders and tortures they had done. How many others have since then likely been tortured and killed by them in the intervening 19 years before the epilogue? Dumbledore operated under the premise that the lives and well-being of everyone else, particularly future victims, are unimportant compared to his belief in giving infinite chances of redemption to murderers and terrorists. Many good people died unnecessarily all thanks to Dumbledore's cult of personality.
I think the most telling difference between Dumbledore and Voldemort though was that Voldemort's followers had the choice whether or not to serve him. Dumbledore, on the other hand, kidnapped an infant boy and then conditioned (aka brainwashed) him through years of slavery and abuse followed by manipulation into suicide for Dumbledore's cause. In other words, Voldemort's followers had a choice whilst Dumbledore enslaved innocent children into his service. You can't get much more vile and despicable than that. Ultimately Harry Potter was nothing more than a poor kid that was kidnapped and brainwashed by the "good guys" into being a suicide bomber. (I would compare Harry to Jason Bourne but Harry had absolutely no choice in the matter and no special training or preparation beyond the brainwashing to die for everyone else.)
By the end of DH there is a huge amount of suffering, blood and death on Dumbledore's hands (arguably as much or even more than on Voldemort's and his Death Eaters) for his usage of others and refusal to use his own power (magical and political/governmental) to truly stop any of them from harming or killing others. It's much like a police officer that chooses to stand by and merely watch whilst someone rapes and murders a child - refusing to help for whatever his own personal reasons. Who is the bigger monster? The sicko doing the raping and murder or the person who has taken on the title, position and responsibility - trusted by all to protect the victim - but instead refuses to do so? Dumbledore even went so far as to not only protect such monsters from being rightfully killed in self-defense or justice but even worse invited such monsters into a school full of children. Equally as horrific was knowingly enslaving children to hateful monsters as a means of brainwashing and control. Not just the Dursleys, but also Snape. Ask yourselves about the "coincidence" of the only long-term professor outright abusive of Harry just so happened to be "promoted" to teaching Harry's best magical subject the year Harry would have left his influence in Potions class because he failed to meet the minimum grade Snape required. It was blatantly clear that Dumbledore used Snape to keep Harry abused and down-trodden while at Hogwarts and away from the Dursley's abuse. Harry was never given a reprieve from the bullying and abuse because that is what Dumbledore wanted and needed in order to shape him into a martyr who believed his own life had no value and was better to sacrifice for others more deserving of life and happiness.
That is what disappointed me most about canon. Ultimately, Harry Potter was revealed to have never been a hero at all. Instead he was nothing more than a severely used and abused victim, kidnapped as an infant from his legal guardian and brainwashed into his role of suicide for Dumbledore's cause. Those who read the series should heed its hidden warnings against adults in positions of authority over children exploiting children for their own purposes/ideals and the use of children in wars by adults indoctrinating them into certain views and then sacrificing their lives for the adult's ideals/goals.
Uh - no. Canon Dumbledore does not want what is best for everyone - particularly Harry. He knew that he was putting Harry into an abusive home, but he did it anyway and didn't bother checking up on Harry for the first 11 years of his life and then continued to send him back to this abusive home. He could have easily kept everyone away from the Cerberus with an age-line, but he didn't, so he wanted 11-year-olds trying to get through the traps (though honestly JKR hadn't thought up age-lines until book 4). He kept Harry isolated for several weeks after Cedric was murdered in front of him and kept him from having any type of social support. He didn't bother getting Sirius a trial, even though he was the head of the Wizengamot. Even after Harry had been attacked by Lord V repeatedly, he did not get any type of special training or guidance - the 6th year training is utterly worthless and could have been summarized in 10 minutes with the rest of the time spent practicing new spells. He didn't bother preparing Harry and co for the Horcrux hunt, but just left them some vague hints. There are many other examples that I won't bother listing.
Dumbledore is either incompetent or he is evil/manipulative/etc. And since he is supposed to be one of the greater wizards of the generation and the head of both the domestic and international governments, the chance of him being incompetent is low.
There is no way to get a good, caring, intelligent Dumbledore out of JKR's version of him, which is one of my greatest dislikes about canon because she took a Gandalf-like figure and then destroyed the good aspects of him.
In reality, Dumbledore is not a character - he is a plot device whose existence is to get Harry wherever he is supposed to be. Which is also why the teachers at Hogwarts and most of the other adults are utterly incompetent because otherwise there would be no reason for Harry and Co to be doing their job for them.
IS Snape GOOD OR EVIL--
FROM My Gilded Life by Skysaber "Chapters 7" www.fanfiction.net/s/3695419/7/My_Gilded_Life
The sum total of all evidence in favor of Snape being a good guy amounts to: Snape says so. Dumbledore believed Snape when he said so (and we all trust that paragon of good judgment to never make a mistake. No, not ever)
Now for the evidence against: We have the testimony of every student who had him as a teacher. Even the Slytherins only like him because they feel he is a BAD guy! Every action of his we SEE, as opposed to hear about, is as foul and rotten as to cross every boundary of good conduct or decent behavior, all of which he should be expected to live up to as a school professor.
Snape joined a cult of murderers, and fit in well enough that not even their leader, who was supposed to be the most accomplished mind-reader in two centuries, and who could insist that his 'loyal' follower lower his mind shields and subject himself to examination, could find any fault with his behavior as far as loyalty to the cause. Not even after other Death Eaters had accused Snape of disloyalty and Voldemort had every right and reason to probe his mind carefully. No, a man who would kill for little or no reason found not even the slightest hint of disloyalty or 'flaws' like regret or remorse in him.
Snape killed Dumbledore, no one says he didn't, but he said he had permission . Now, what would the world be like if we let every murderer go who used the defense "he asked me to"? That is NOT a legally supportable defense! Even assisted suicide is STILL tried as murder! And that is when the victim does the deed mostly by himself and leaves behind letters and other physical evidence of his intentions, more than just the killer's word of "he asked me to"!
And most of those assisted suicide cases had terminal conditions.
On the excuse of having been mistreated as a youth, he'd then gone on to make a career out of abusing children for the rest of his life. It cannot be disputed that Snape terrorized a whole school, ruining countless children's education because he couldn't give up on his desire to inflict suffering on those who'd never done any harm to him, such as Neville Longbottom.
Neville's parents had never done anything to Snape that we hear of, so why does he terrorize Neville? Or was everybody in the world a bully EXCEPT Snape? And he was just 'getting back' at them?
Yeah, right. Like that's believable.
Every opportunity he gets to hurt the students, either individually or as a body in general, he takes.
No, Severus Snape was no more of a 'good guy' than Pol Pot, whatever Rowling said. She may have meant otherwise, but that is not what she wrote.
Actions speak louder than words. And because memories can be faked, they are no better than words: him claiming something.
Now, Snape says that James was a bad guy. What is our evidence there? Once again we are faced with the awe-inspiring force of the argument: Snape says so.
Who else agrees with him? Why, no one! Not even other Death Eaters ever had a word to say against James! Not even PETTIGREW, who had whined that he 'never meant to kill James and Lily'. Do any other teachers? No, not one of them seems to have anything but the highest opinion of James and Lily. Does ANYONE but Snape EVER say anything nasty about James or Lily? NO! Not even Dumbledore, who blindly agrees with Snape on almost every other issue.
Every other person has a AMAZINGLY high opinion of him! So did Lily, if that was the man she married!
Then, even if we take Snape's claim that he loved Lily as true, how does he treat the child she left behind? Her only legacy and the last bit of 'her' still left in this world? With total contempt and hatred, just as if Harry was all James and no Lily, or ... as if Snape's claims of love for Lily were as false as his other many other statements, say, of loyalty to Dumbledore and the Dark Lord - he had to be lying to one of them!
No, Snape may have been deluded enough to imagine that he loved her, but the evidence at hand all says he never had a clue as to what love really is. If he was not just making it up, playing 'pity party' to get Harry to forgive him.
Now THAT! sounds like a manipulative, ambitious person, doesn't it? Lay down a few plots so that no matter which side triumphs, you are on it? Perhaps claim credit for a few events you heard about, but had no part in?
No, if you say 'scheme', suddenly those out of character moments make so much sense with regard to the Snape we actually know, rather than the one we merely hear about.
Ultimately, he did so much hurt and evil during his life that, even if he DID those things he was claiming, it in no way comes close to making up for all of the bad. A rare few, tiny deposits on the good side doesn't counter the massive karmic debt he worked up being evil, hurting an entire generation of kids - and let's not even discuss his Death Eater duties, and what about Snape's claim that James and his friends were bullies, not Severus himself? Well, claims aside, every time we see Snape in the books HE is the one being a bully (or a toady). So, which do you want to believe, his claims or his actions? They do nothing but contradict each other, so it is one or the other.
Every time we see Snape 'on screen' as it were, he is an evil, self-righteous bastard whose behavior is less mature than a typical kindergarten student. And he maintained that for over a decade when there was no hint of his old boss around to impress. But we are supposed to believe it when he tells us he's really a tender old softy inside?
It can only be two things, either insanity (schizophrenia and delusions are both possibilities), or it is a scheme. Either the guy is fruitier than a nutcake, or he was lying to get off easy should the Light win in the end.
I had been an actor long enough to know that the longer you wear the mask, the less it becomes a mask. Anyone who takes on a role finds themselves slowly shifting to become it. So, even if this STARTED as a part Snape was playing... it didn't stay one for long.
There is an old saying used to comfort shy children, "Act like you are more confident, and you will be."
However, in Snape's case that quote could be modified to, "Act like an evil, self-righteous, stuck up prick, who carries childish grudges forever, and picks on those weaker than him, and you will be."
Rowling's attempt to 'save' Snape in her last book made about as much difference as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The man was evil.
A few, isolated good deeds do not make up for a lifetime spent doing harm. Adolf Hitler did favors for people he liked, but are you going to think he is a hero, and that is even assuming those deeds even happened.
No one with any sense is going to argue that Snape didn't destroy the potions education of who even knows how many students, and Potions is a required subject for both Healers and Aurors - jobs that save lives.
So, Snape was directly responsible for more destruction over a longer time than probably any other Death Eater.
And Albus helped him do it.
FROM My Gilded Life by Skysaber "Chapters 7" www.fanfiction.net/s/3695419/7/My_Gilded_Life
I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TO DO WITH YOU...RAVENCLAW!
Favorite Music: I like Taylor Swift.
Television shows: Phineas and Ferb, Big Bang Theory, Dr. Who, Stargate (all three), Castle, Bones, Fairly Oddparents, Naruto, Pokémon
Movies: Star Wars, Red Dawn, the Incredibles, Enchanted, the Producers, Percy Jackson, Brave, Frozen, Ponyo
Books: Percy Jackson, Sundays at Tiffany's
One thing about the Hermione/Ron pairing that annoys me is how their supporters say you cannot spell Hermione without Ron. I say so what. You cannot spell moron without Ron either or Dumbledore without dumb. I ask them does that make Ronald a moron or Dumbledore dumb. It is a coincidence, nothing more.
Harmonians of the world rejoice, we have finally been vindicated. Joanne Rowling has admitted that she was mistaken in pairing Hermione and Ronald and not pairing Harry and Hermione.
Ships I support:
Harry/Hermione (I reject the sibling relationship and so apparently does Joanne Rowling)
The Big Bang Theory:
Amy/Sheldon (I saw how wonderful they are together despite problems they have.)
Ships I do not support:
Draco/Hermione (They hate each other. Why would they marry? Especially as Draco would consider it sullying himself.)
Hermione/Ronald (Their constant arguing is not healthy. It especially is not UST. Besides I think he would constantly jealous of her if she does better and she will.
Hermione/Severus (Snape is rotten bigot who hates Muggle-borns. Plus the age difference.)
Luna/Rolf (I did the math Newton would have to had Rolf's father in his late thirties/early forties and same for Rolf's father. Much more conceivable would be Rolf was born in the mid to late 1940s, which would make Rolf over thirty years older than Luna. Even creepier than Nymphadora and Remus.)
Nymphadora/Remus (I dislike Remus. He was never there for Harry growing up and he was not there for him much after third year. He also abandoned his pregnant wife like a filthy coward and even said he regretted marrying her. Not too mention he is thirteen years older than her. Creepy.)
Fleur/William (The only negative I have is the age difference.)
Any slash (Homosexuality is an abomination.)
Ronald/Anyone (I do not like Ronald.)
Pairing people with others old enough to be their parent/grandparent i.e. Hermione/Remus, Hermione/Sirius, Harry/Alice, Harry/Minerva, etc. Seriously, what are they thinking, I bet in real life, they would think it is creepy.
Favorite video games: Civilization III and IV, Red Alert 2, Red Alert 3, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Medieval II: Total War, Rome: Total War, Ace Combat series, Pokémon
Colin and Dennis Creevey
Fleur and Gabrielle Delacour
Hermione JANE Granger
Least Favorite Characters:
Albus Dumbledore (It was because of him that Harry was in that abusive house he lived in. After all, he sentenced Harry to ten dark and terrible years.)
Draco Malfoy (He is whiny little child who is the archetype for spoiled brat. He deserved Azkaban. He might not have killed Dumbledore but it was out cowardice not out of morality. After all he had no problem putting the Imperius Curse on Rosmerta or cursing Katie.)
Molly Weasley (She is an overbearing woman who believes she has the right to control everything around her. She believed a proven liar about Hermione and never even apologized when she was proven to be wrong. She treated Sirius like dog crap in his own home. Just because Arthur is a hen-pecked coward does not mean anything outside the Burrow.)
Peter Pettigrew (He is a coward and traitor and I do not like either. Enough said.)
Remus Lupin (He abandoned his wife and preborn child. The only reason he returned was because of Harry. He is scum and I despise him.)
Ronald Weasley (He abandoned them but especially Harry time and time again. I do not consider Ronald stupid. He can be intelligent when he tries. His aptitude at chess being a good example. However I consider Ronald lazy. (I also believe Harry is not much better for those who think I am being unfair to Ronald. I have said it before I can think of more than few reasons as to why Harry/Hermione could not work and it is my OTP. Go figure.) but as a person he has too many flaws and insecurities. His friendship with Harry just highlights them. Also I find it interesting that Hermione's kneazle Crookshanks does not like Ronald but he absolutely adores Harry including sitting in Harry's lap and letting him pet him. Since kneazles are famous for being able to detect untrustworthy people, I find that telling of not only Ronald but Harry.)
Severus Snape (He is a spiteful excuse resembling a human being. If he really did love Lily he would have done more for Harry. Instead he let a petty childhood grudge to persecute an innocent child. Also despite what people think, he did not care if Harry (or James) died, as long as his "precious" Lily lived. It is the Deathly Hallows, Snape requested to Voldemort to spare Lily but not Harry or James, he was told by Dumbledore that was disgusting. Plus I wonder if Voldemort went after Neville, would he have given a crap. I doubt it. Snape is not a hero, no matter what Joanne says.)
Favorite Hogwarts House: Ravenclaw (I consider myself the male version of Hermione Granger. I absolutely am a bookworm who was teased for being the first to raise my hand in class.)
"It is better to have and not need then need and not have."
"Curiosity killed the cat but satisfaction brought it back."
"Stupidity killed the cat. Curiosity was framed."
Give the nice guys a chance
Holding Hands- Girls: If you want to hold his hand, gently bump into it a couple of times. Guys: Grab it if it happens more than once.
Cuddling- Girls: When you want to cuddle with him, tell him you are cold. Guys: Automatically move closer to her.
Movies- Girls: During a movie, if he puts his arm around you, tilt your head on his shoulder. Guys: Lift her chin up and kiss her.
Loving each other- Guys: When she tells you she loves you, look deep into her eyes, give her a peck on the lips, and tell her you love her too . . . and mean it.
Laying below the stars- Girls: When you are both laying under the stars, put your head on his chest and close your eyes as you listen to his steady heart beat Guys: Whisper in her ear and link your hands with hers.
Guys repost this if you agree.
Girls repost this if you think it is cute.