Timeline for Why is the Harry Potter Phoenix population so low?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 9:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:43 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://scifi.stackexchange.com/ with https://scifi.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 16, 2017 at 0:26 | comment | added | NiceOrc | It's really more of a regeneration than being immortal. | |
| Jan 15, 2017 at 17:58 | vote | accept | Matrim Cauthon | ||
| Jan 14, 2017 at 1:50 | comment | added | Invoker | Just because they are reborn from the ashes doesn't necessarily mean they're immortal. Like what the others said, what if other circumstances targeted them, excluding Avada Kedavra, like someone who eats them or others... | |
| Jan 13, 2017 at 23:30 | comment | added | Kai | Surely a phoenix could be permanently killed if they ended up an environment where they couldn't possibly survive. Like if it ended up in a vacuum or something. | |
| Jan 13, 2017 at 21:52 | comment | added | Skooba - Stands Against AI | @Michael Perhaps. They may be like cats and have "nine lives"; I provided the canon information, one can interpret that how they see fit. | |
| Jan 13, 2017 at 21:26 | comment | added | user11521 | @Skooba semantics, perhaps, but since it involves dying and being reborn from the ashes, and immortality involves not dying... | |
| Jan 13, 2017 at 20:47 | comment | added | Skooba - Stands Against AI | @PaulDraper My only hesitation is that if "immortal" was meant, it would have been said. | |
| Jan 13, 2017 at 20:08 | comment | added | Paul Draper | "when their bodies begin to fail, then be reborn" That's pretty much immortal. | |
| Jan 13, 2017 at 19:30 | comment | added | Oriol | @T.E.D. I would expect the biologically immortal meaning. | |
| Jan 13, 2017 at 19:05 | history | edited | Skooba - Stands Against AI | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Jan 13, 2017 at 19:05 | comment | added | T.E.D. | I guess it depends on what you mean by "immortal". If you mean, "can not possibly die", like a god, then that seems unlikely. If you mean "does not naturally die of old age", like a Sequoia, then it seems a good description. | |
| Jan 13, 2017 at 19:04 | history | edited | Skooba - Stands Against AI | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 110 characters in body
|
| Jan 13, 2017 at 18:44 | comment | added | Skooba - Stands Against AI | @Valorum Good point. I checked wording in canon sources and "immortal" in not used. | |
| Jan 13, 2017 at 18:39 | history | edited | Skooba - Stands Against AI | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added info on immortality
|
| Jan 13, 2017 at 18:29 | comment | added | Valorum | A very long incubation, along with phoenixes being not actually immortal would do it. | |
| Jan 13, 2017 at 18:07 | history | edited | Skooba - Stands Against AI | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
add info about eggs
|
| Jan 13, 2017 at 17:36 | comment | added | Gallifreyan | TL;DR: Observer bias | |
| Jan 13, 2017 at 17:29 | history | edited | Skooba - Stands Against AI | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 327 characters in body
|
| Jan 13, 2017 at 17:23 | history | answered | Skooba - Stands Against AI | CC BY-SA 3.0 |