This is also assuming that "wizards getting rid of a Shadow" is such a big problem that Nicodemus is not only aware of the possibility but actively working against it. Consider the events of Small Favor, where Nicodemus is caught completely off guard by the fact Harry no longer has the Shadow, plus Lash's own admission that she's never had to tempt anyone for more than a couple weeks before they gave in.

If anything, that indicates that Nicodemus isn't even aware it can be done, not that he's actively and specifically controlling information about that specific thing. Harry getting rid of the Shadow is such a rare thing that, even if it's technically possible, it's so unlikely that the one person on the planet with the most knowledge and experience with the coins completely ignores the possibility that it happened.

I honestly don't see how it's a reasonable expectation -- certainly not to the point of calling someone a liar if they don't conform to that expectation.

Michael believes that he's saying something that is true. He would not be saying it if he did not believe it to be true

When you say things you believe to be true -- to the point you're advising your best friend on a pivotal life choice without an ounce of hesitation or doubt -- do you immediately follow up with, "If I'm wrong, this won't work and you'll be worse off than if I'd never said anything"?

What you're proposing is that after Michael says something that he fully believes is true, he should immediately contradict himself and tell Harry the exact opposite of what he was just saying, otherwise he's a liar.

No, he doesn't make that claim..   The exact quote from Proven Guilty is page 459 paper back

Let's not forget that this is what Michael's own wife did to keep from becoming a warlock and it worked.   Something that is very unusual because most of the time when the line is crossed there is no going back that is why most would be warlocks get the chop.  So it stands to reason he thinks it might work in Harry's case.

However he wasn't "absolute" about it and when Harry said, "fuck that."   He didn't argue the point

But makes Michael mistaken, not a liar..

If Michael deliberately had told Harry to give up his power knowing it wouldn't work.. That would be a lie....

That isn't what he did, more importantly there is no motive for Michael to lie to Harry in the first place...

It isn't Michael's motive to get Harry to forsake his power, it is to rid him of the shadow.

The effects of iron on the Mantle and the effects of breaking Winter Law are distinct and different.

And Harry isn't surprised in Cold Days that his legs cease to work when he attempts to break Winter Law..

Remember that the only weasel in the room is Harry.  Mab has been true to her word.

I read his experience as a warning to Harry about the trying to weasel out yet again.

Possibly the leg repair is an enchantment separate from the Mantle.

Michael is not a magic dude. He's just plain not well-versed in how magic works.

So wait -- you find 3 unlikely because Nicodemus would have suppressed any information about how the Shadow works, but 1 is likely because Michael would have been able to get information about how the Shadow works?

The Doom of Damocles, as far as we know, only mandates Molly's death if Harry dies; to my knowledge, it doesn't say anything about what happens to Molly if Harry retires. After all, even if Harry doesn't use magic himself, he still has the knowledge to tell Molly how to do things.

So, to reiterate what I said before, the whole idea of his lying is predicated on him not saying an extra clause that would only bog down the sentence because both he and Harry know it obviously hasn't happened in Harry's case, so it would be pointless to bring up?

This is a conversation between two human beings -- two emotional human beings, one of whom is worried that his friend is being taken over by a fallen angel. It is not a legal brief wherein they have to exhaustively list every if, and, or but. That is just not how people talk.

When people talk and they're emotional, they get right to the point and speak directly. They typically don't bog down their speeches with extra and/or clauses that are not relevant to the thing they're saying.

That is not my claim.

My claim is that Michael is concerned about Harry; concerned with helping Harry get rid of the Shadow, and he has faith that the world will continue to spin if Harry doesn't have his magic. Michael is a small-picture guy, who believes that doing the right thing on a personal level will lead to good happening in the larger world.

He is there to help his friend Harry; he will also gladly help the rest of the world the same way he's helping Harry, but he's not making a cold, rational, tactical decision on the state of the War With [Insert Nasty Supernatural Here] because that is just not who he is.

Michael is not responsible for arguing against saving Harry's life and soul to let Harry take up dark power for the "greater good." That is the exact opposite of his personal beliefs and his calling as a Knight.

I mean, what happens if Harry goes through with it, gives up his powers, and still has the shadow? Is he just going to be fine with it? Given that Harry uses his powers to protect people (and based on the books, it is entirely likely that Harry would have to deal with innocent people dying because he refuses to use his power to save them) I think if he realized that Michael had lied to him he would be far more likely to disregard everything that Michael says/has said...and given that Harry still has Lasciel's shadow...

OK, that clears things up. I do not see them as contradictory, however.

Say, for instance, it's 1960. Someone at NASA asks, "How do we go to the moon?" and some other rocket scientist replies, "Well, we can get there by strapping three lads to a rocket and giving them a pod wrapped in gold foil to land with."

This is true. He knows that it's possible, because he -- and others -- have worked out the physics of it.

But until 1969, the statement, "No human has ever stepped foot on the moon in the last 2000 years," was also, 100% true.

Point is, people can know for sure that something is possible without that thing having actually happened before.

Everyone knows that the Swords can be unmade -- a bunch of people even appear to know the exact mechanism. But to our knowledge, the statement, "In 2000 years, no one has unmade one of the Swords of the Cross," is true.

I see this as unlikely; with how Nicodemus regularly destroys records and only two years passing between the two conversations, I find it very hard to believe Michael found new evidence on that front while he was also busy being a Paladin.

No exaggeration or misrepresentation necessary for both to be true, as above.

This, as I say above, is the simplest and most likely scenario. Remember that Michael and his whole group have a fairly direct line to up above; and, as stated, somehow the bad guys know how to unmake Michael's sword, even though that's never happened before.

Is Michael also a liar for telling Harry in Grave Peril that his Sword could be unmade by killing an innocent, even though that, too, clearly has never happened before?

I see no reason for him to lie like this. It's at best counterproductive.

Simply not in Michael's character, considering the conversation ends with Michael all but outright saying, "And if you do pick up the coin, I'll be there to take your head off."

So if I'm understanding you correctly, if Michael's line in Small Favor had been, "“Because in two thousand years, no one has rid themselves of the shadow of one of the Fallen—except by accepting the demon into them entirely, taking up the coin, and living to feel remorse and discarding it [or by giving up their magic entirely]," there'd be no problem?

How is Harry saying yes later any different from Harry saying yes now?

Michael says, “If you should change your mind about the coin, Harry, if you want to get rid of it, I promise that I’ll be there for you," so clearly he is, in fact, considering Harry changing his mind and saying, "Yes" in the future.

That's just ... not how people work or talk to each other.

If they believe something to be true, they say it as truth. It would be nice if they offered evidence, but, this might surprise you, two friends talking to each other do not operate as if they were making a legal case or a pitch to a board room full of people demanding evidence. And it is absolutely not a lie if they don't back up their own beliefs by pointing out that their own beliefs are unfounded.

That is, again, just not how people work or should be expected to work.

If Michael goes, "You can get rid of the Shadow by giving up your magic. Oh, by the way, there's no evidence of this and it's never happened," then he might as well have never said anything in the first place.

Michael isn't thinking about the whole world -- he's thinking about Harry and trusting his God that, if Harry does give up his magic, the world won't end. Michael has no responsibility to foresee the outcome of the choice Harry makes. Likewise, despite his protestations to the contrary, it is not Harry's responsibility to stop every bad thing from happening to everybody.

You're holding Michael to an unreasonable standard.

I feel compelled to ask at this point, why is it so important for this to be spun as Michael "lying"? The conversation happened years ago, and everything in it is moot at this point. Hell, the whole point of the conversation is that Michael doesn't know everything about the coins and their history and can't know everything about the coins and their history, so I really don't see the point in posing, "Michael lied, because he must have -- in both cases -- knew everything as a completely verified fact. And he also lied if he believed he was telling the truth, but didn't include a full presentation of evidence contradicting his beliefs."

How is that a lie at all? Michael believes it. He says what he says because he believes it to be true.

Are you expecting him to only assert something if he has, personally, completely verified it beyond a shadow of a doubt?

That is simply not a reasonable standard to hold anyone to.

I think it is a stretch to say that the set aside your power way is in the conversation by implication. Michael said "no one." (Emphasis original). He stressed the point. That's why I think the statements are contradictory.

And one thing no one has mentioned, Michael could have told Harry over the intervening two years between Proven Guilty and Small Favor, Michael and Harry are probably spending a lot of time together since Harry is training Molly. Michael could have easily told Harry that he was wrong about how to get rid of the Shadow.