Dumbledore's Magnaminity

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 142961


 
> a_svirn:
> ..... because 
> they are not acquainted with Dumbledore.

Valky:
O_o This seems to be the great immovable point in this discussion.
Shall we begin the "Is too! Is Not!" 's now? <vbg> 

Lets just say that I believe they are at least established as
acquainted - it might be in the barest sense, and that might seem like
not enough to many but we mustn't forget that but Harry's life is
complicated from every angle.  The alternatives to this are far less
favourable - things like abandoning Harry to the Dursleys and
forgetting about him, letting him be tracked down and killed, placing
him in the protection of good wizarding family after good wizarding
family until they are all slowly picked off to the last .... 
I acknowledge your disagreement, but as I see it the fine thread that
Dumbledore's acquaintance with Petunia hung from IMO was hard fought
enough to warrant the respect of any full fledged diplomatic alliance,
and although that it is there may be miraculous, unbelievable even, it
is nevertheless there.



a_svirn:
> I would even go so far as 
> to say that their reasons do not interest Dumbledore. 


Valky:
I'd agree with that to a point. Since the Dursleys reasons for wishing
no acquaintance with the WW are for the most superficial, bigoted and
misinformed I see plenty of reason why they shouldn't interest
Dumbledore. OTOH I truly doubt Dumbledore wouldn't care about their
genuine reasons such as fear of the danger involved. I am sure he does
care that they fear the danger, but it is their own conflict of
interest (ie nothing Dumbledore can do for them because they confuse
themselves) that they took Harry in even with that fear. Besides which
Dumbledore is better informed than them of the danger that faces the
world from Voldemort, so even with their own conflict of interest
Dumbledore is showing his concern (for EVERYONE) by doing his best for
Harry. IOW the bigger picture just does not bear out that Dumbledore
doesn't genuinely care about them. If he appears not to care it is
always by their own obstinence that it comes to that. 


a_svirn:
> As for the 
> Dursleys' "accepting his correspondence", this is simply not true.


Valky:
I specifically said Petunia, Petunia has accepted both Dumbledore's
letters addressed to her. The other correspondence you refer to was
correspondence with Harry, The Dursleys had no obligation (or right)
to accept or to refuse it as it wasn't their's.



a_svirn:
> I'd say that their 
> desire "not to be involved" with the WW has been made abundantly 
> clear on number on occasions. 

Valky:
And I'd say that their desire to *be* involved whenever it suits them
to do so has been made abundantly clear also. They involve themselves
by taking Harry in, deliberately interfering in and attempting to
stamp out his wizardness and heritage throughout his life, taking
sudden interest in Wizard world matters if it might be profitable to
do so (eg Grimmauld place). If they really did not want to be involved
the first step would be to not take Harry, as I have said. 

I know that you and I differ on what the circumstances of that
arrangement were. I, for one, can't imagine Dumbledore making brutish
threats on them to make them do it and expect that JKR has something
far more ingenious in mind to tie up this loose end than that.
 
 
> > Valky:
> > It could be said that from Dumbledore's point of view, Petunia was
> > grudgingly willing to claim her acquaintance with the Wizard 
> > world, she did so and therefore Dumbledore is no stranger. They do 
> > have something to do with the Wizard world, and it's not clear  
> > exactly why they do so when they don't want to. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> 
> Now you leave me practically speechless. I shall have to look up to 
> the classic for assistance:
> 
> "- Contrariwise, - continued Tweedledee, - if it was so, it might  
> be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. 
> That's logic".

Valky:
:o  I get the sense that I am being insulted. <bg>

Just politely, since it would be very rude of me to assume you said
that simply for that sake of being venomous and sarcastic. Would you
care to elaborate? It seems you did not understand something I said. 
:)

> 
>  
> > Valky:
> > No, there is no determination in the text, AFAIK, that the Howler  
> > was a threat of any kind. It was precisely an ominous reminder of 
> > 'some thing' the nature of which we just do not know.
> >
> 
> a_svirn:
>  "Ominous"
 What an interesting choice of words. You know what my 
> dictionary says:  
> 
> "Ominous (adjective), threatening, suggesting or indicating that 
> something bad is going to happen or be revealed". 

Valky:
That's Ok, my mental dictionary, it appears, offered the wrong
adjective, the word ominous has a rather broad sort of meaning even in
your own dictionary. What I had meant by saying ominous would probably
have been demonstrated better by it's synonym portentous, but
portentous has two meanings one of which would throw us way off the
mark. Semantics are a nightmare aren't they? <g> In an attempt to wrap
the whole thing up I'll just say that I meant the howler was
frightening, but I hold short of translating that into an overt threat.
  


> a_svirn:
> Strange, how Harry saw it all in quite the opposite light.
>

Valky:
huh? When did he say that?