Re: I wonder if Jo...
- From: Ron Hunter <rphunter@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:00:03 -0500
Fat Sam wrote:
Sue H wrote:And even if it IS 100% accurate, many of us won't be satisfied with it.I wonder if Jo ever came to this group, read where someone asked a
question and then read all the responses where we all have the answers
to naturally and sat there, rolled her eyes and thought what a bunch
of morons we all are!
I don't know why that thought came to me except the massive amount of
posts this morning where everyone has an answer for everything and
somehow as I am reading I was thinking none of these sound absolutely
dead on...
The reason none of them sound absolutely dead on is because they're all personal interpretations.
Everyone who reads something will interpret it in a slightly different way.
It could be due to placing different inflections on words, Mis-reading punctuation, personal beliefs or faith systems, or even just the readers mood at the time of reading.
As a result, all readers will rationalise events in a slightly different way.
It's probably safe to say that none of the explanations given in this newsgroup are 100% accurate.
The only person who can deliver a 100% accurate interpretation of the books is the author herself.
But as each of the explanations given are based on a different persons interpretation, they are all valid explanations.
You have to sort through them and latch onto the one you like best, or else read the books and come up with your own explanation.
.
- References:
- I wonder if Jo...
- From: Sue H
- Re: I wonder if Jo...
- From: Fat Sam
- I wonder if Jo...
- Prev by Date: Re: Translations from UK to US
- Next by Date: Re: THIS is how to use polyjuice ;-)
- Previous by thread: Re: I wonder if Jo...
- Next by thread: Re: I wonder if Jo...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
