Seagull

[shemthepenman]

Hello, just a side note to your comment about the two lines of questions being connected. And yes, my initial comment was overly harsh. I was a bit grumpy. Because of course there is a connection (and to be fair, whenever meaning or sense is concerned, I think people can be over pedantic about 'it doesn't make sense' or, as with what I said, 'I can see no connection'; because, most of the time one does see the connection or understand the sense, but because it doesn't follow a rigid logic it is flagged as an error. And I am possibly guilty of this, in this case. But, because the lines are quite conceptual, the confusing language doesn't help. And by confusing language I mean specifically the disjunctive 'or'. I suppose my problem is that you go from a concrete physical type question (a question about a specific bird in the sky and its intentions) to an abstract question about the general principle of progress via a disjunctive which doesn't seem logically consistent. If looked at in a logical form it would sound something like this 'either the bird has some place to go or progress stands still' which is a very strange and bold proposition, but a proposition I do not think it was your intention to make. But that is just what I thought.
I heard some film critic once reviewing a time travel film and he said he was constantly questioning the plausibility of time travel, such as 'how could he be there if he came back and who is in that place while this happened...' Etc. and then it hit him, if he is watching a two hour film and all he can do is nitpick about the plausibility of time travel, then there must be something else wrong with the film.