Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 142653



> > 
> > Valky now:
> > :) 
> > 
> > Dumbledores behaviour that night would not strictly be bullying 
> > under the rules of etiquette in civil custom of 'proper' people 
> > like the Durselys. It's called, rather, pressing one's advantage, 

> lealess:  It seems a fine distinction between "pressing an 
> advantage" and bullying when the one doing the pressing is arguably 
> a superior creature, at least in power.  What choice does the 
> inferior have, except to submit?

Valky responds:
The distinction is there though, because DD does not come brandishing
a wand and making threats, he extends the Dursleys diplomatic
gestures, niceties and civilised custom. What could you expect of
Dumbledore, honestly, more than that? The fate of the world (both
Wizard and Muggle) rests on the diplomatic relationship Dumbledore
keeps between his fight for good, and these reluctant allies.
Dumbledore has spent 15 years awaiting their so called good graces,
enough is enough, there is business to attend to and Dumbledore
attends to it in an entirely civilised manner IMO. They got 15 good
years of the utmost forbearance and respect from Dumbledore it counts!
I reiterate, they are done in by their own intolerance. Dumbledore was
*supposed* to be an uncivilised unwashed crackpot, their own sense of
social right and wrong told them so. When he wasn't, when he extended
social graces of their own custom, they had no reply. It serves them
right. 
 
 
> lealess: Yes, the Dursleys are bullies.  However, the Dursleys were
> cornered by someone they feared, not by their own standards, which
> they applied hypocritically, anyway.  I would not call them 
> civilized.

Valky:
Vernon was threatening, angry, bursting with unpleasant retorts etc..
Oh, yes, he was terrified..
Petunia was shocked, but Dudley was the only frightened one there
(with fairly good reason unrelated to Dumbledore).
They did exchange frightened glances at each other after Dumbledore
conjured the mead out of thin air, but Vernon certainly found the
courage to shout "Get these ruddy things off us!" did he not?

I actually thought that it was fairly obvious Vernon *wasn't*
frightened of Dumbledore. He let Dumbledore press himself in the door
because Dumbledore's concern for everyone's safety was well founded,
in short, he was doing the right thing, what could Vernon say to that
that was not simply indecent of him? Dumbledore continued his good
faith approach even reminding Vernon of the golden rule- "If you
cannot say anything nice......" there is a pause where Dumbledore
*does* afford the Dursleys a respectful moment to make their excuses,
they do not, and time is wasting. Dumbledore is entitled to assume
that they are good people, it is, after all, what they want, right? 
Of course he is enjoying it, they are disgusted by their very own
sense of superiority because they are seeing it in him, in the
uncivilised.

:)
You can call them uncivilised, that is fine. But they do wish to be
known as civilised people, and that affords Dumbledore advantages in
their good graces. Good on him for using them when the occasion called
for it.



> > A few points:
> > 
> > Dumbledore was not trespassing, he sent a forwarding announcement 
> > of his intent to come. This is why Vernon could not say "You are
> > trespassing, get off my land." because according to *his* own
> > standards and customs Dumbledore was there on a good faith
> > misunderstanding. 
> 
> lealess: Dumbledore realizes that Harry did not tell the Dursleys 
> that he was coming that evening.  Then he steps over the threshhold 
> without being invited in.  You are saying that him sending a note to 
> Harry beforehand makes that OK?  So supposedly any correspondent 
> could invite him- or herself over, if the person sent a note 
> beforehand, and the Dursleys would have to accept it according to a 
> code they probably don't hold to anyway?

Valky:
That isn't even nearly what I said, lealess. They were afforded the
opportunity to refuse Dumbledores visit because he sent a note. Yes in
the traditions of ettiquette it is not essential that the visitor have
a reply for an informal occasion such as this. Dumbledore had every
right to assume that his visit would be recieved.
As a correspondent Dumbledore is obliged to make a customary visit
anyway, so regardless of the circumstances of this one visit, Petunia
was given more than enough time to refuse the visit over the past
fifteen years when she could have written a letter formally ending the
correspondence, and/or shunted Harry out of the home ending the
relationship. Otherwise, the Dursleys should expect that Dumbledore
will call upon them.
Finally I ask *you* now to explain *why it is GOOD manners* for them
to have refused Dumbledore entry after his efforts to maintain contact
with them, his respectful forbearance for 15 years and his journey to
call upon them that night, or as a_svirn suggested, to call a harmless
polite old man who has done the right thing in good faith a criminal
and a trespasser and scream him off your doorstep. It's easy to see
the reason they didn't was because they were minding their manners.

 
> lealess: The only example of correspondence with Dumbledore we have 
> is a Howler. If someone sends me what I see as a threatening letter,
> and then decides to drop by, I might not think that person was doing
> the proper thing.  I might want them to stay away.

Valky:
How do we know that this was a threatening letter? Is that not merely
a speculation? or do you really know what remember my last means?


> lealess:
> If you are saying that Dumbledore wasn't rude, or arrogant, or just
> plain creepy, I don't buy it.  If you are saying he was out for some
> sort of weird but pointless revenge, that seems more likely.
> <snip>  if Dumbledore was in my house, I would have considered him 
> rude, told him I really wasn't expecting him, and asked him to 
> leave.  

Valky:
In the midst of a World War? You would think it rude that he protects
you? Dumbledore gave the Dursleys a pause to make their excuses while
he stood at the doorway and they didn't. But supposing you did, what
would be your excuse in that moment. Dumbledore hadn't been rude.


Lesless:
> Dumbledore would come in anyway and lectured or laughed at me, after
> throwing me on a sofa and forcing a drink on me.  He was not a 
> polite man.

Valky:
Can I assume that there would come a time when a man like Dumbledore
would not forbear you? That you would be obtuse to the degree that
someone so kind as to try to save the soul of his would be murderer
would deem it necessary to press advantage on you? 

Please don't take that too seriously, I mean it only in a jesting
fashion. :)