Theoretical boundaries

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 120390


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Kneasy:
> > Just who is making assumptions here? Have I "assumed" that
> > anyone is stupid? I'm not such a fool that I think anyone who
> > disagrees with me is half-witted.
> 
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> See your post 120363. 
> 
> "If they don't have sufficient imagination or
> objectivity to put aside the real and immerse themselves whole-
> heartedly
> in the fictional, well.... I remember a fragment from another book, 
> can't
> remember which off-hand, but set in the future and old books are being
> precied and condensed. Moby Dick is categorised thus: "Nineteenth
> Century knowledge of Cetaceans was erroneous.""
> It doesn't do to shine too hard a light on the wondrous"
> 

Alla:
> Yes, to me to say that somebody does not have sufficient imagination 
> to do something is very close to calling person stupid.
> 

Kneasy:
Not necessarily the same thing.
Even the most intelligent can be blinkered, or so fixated on 
pre-conceived ideas that they ignore a wider view.

> Kneasy:
> Maybe I'm old fashioned. I consider my emotions to be intensely 
> personal. I would find it distasteful and an imposition on others to
> spread them all over a web-site. I'm of the generation that 
> considered public displays of such matters to be ill-mannered and 
> unnecessary.Others apparently think differently. 
> 
> 
> Alla:
> Yes, apparently they do.

Kneasy:
Unfortunately, yes; some posters seem to. 
Why should anyone have the slightest interest in someone else's 
emotional spasms (assuming they're genuine; not a given) about a 
non-existent youth?
It would perhaps be expected from an over-wrought 14 year old
overdosing on romanticism, but real grown-ups? Hardly.