Dumbledore's Magnaminity

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 142952


> Valky:
> There is no proof that Dumbledore 'calculated' his arrival to be
> inconvenient to the Dursely's due to the hour. And neither is it
> inferred that he was there at that time to deliberately cause
> inconvenience. In fact we are even assuming that it *was* so
> inconvenient to the Dursleys that he arrived at 11:00pm, even they
> don't mention it.

a_svirn:
You are confusing me with someone else. I never said that Dumbledore 
came at 11. But we do know that he came too late, because Petunia 
was wearing her night-gear. If he wasn't calculating, than he was 
careless of proprieties. Take your pick.  

> Valky:
> I think your reasoning is false here, Dumbledore does have claim on
> their hospitality. And he is not a stranger.
> 
> You say there is no reason at all Lady C shouldn't become because 
she
> is a Patroness of the Head of House's relative? What's Dumbledore
> then, a wet teabag? Dumbledore is a patron of Harry's school of
> Harry's world he is a Patron of the head of Household's relative - 
by
> your own reasoning you are agreeing with me - Dumbledore is 
obliged to
> call in. Are you now going to say that harry's relationship to the
> Dursley's doesn't exist?

a_svirn:
Dumbledore IS a stranger to the Dursleys. He has no claim on their 
hospitality because they don't want to have anything to do with his 
world and with magic. Quite unlike Mrs Bennett who was more than 
happy to claim acquaintance with Lady Catharine. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> > In fact, if it had been just a social call it would 
> > have been a very pretty gesture.
> 
> Valky:
> Then surely you can see how the same goes for Dumbledore? No?
> 
a_svirn:
Surely. Except that his is not a social call. 
 
> Valky:
> Dumbledore didn't ignore the Dursleys. All Dumbledore *ignores*, if
> you care to reunite yourself with the text, is the Dursley's
> embarassing themselves with their wanton greed and stupidity.

a_svirn:
Would you care to elaborate? 

 
> Valky:
>I can't honestly
> understand where you'd get the notion that the writer strove for 
such
> a wholly contradictory character flaw. 

a_svirn:
You shouldn't address this particular rebuke to me. I am not the one 
who wrote the book.