Quote:
Originally Posted by Findegil
But that said, I at least find it a bit unfair if the supporters are demanded not to raise 'what if' arguments but the contradicter do so as freely as they will.
|
I feel that's a bit of an exaggeration,
Findegil– you seem to be referring to this exchange:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Morthoron
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landroval
If Gandalf did recognize it as such and knew that by sharing that knowledge he would risk a new war between Elves and Dwarves over the Jewel, what motive would he have to reveal this knowledge?
|
One would think that the retrieval of such an item would be important for when Olorin would return to Valinor... etc. |
In this particular case,
Landroval had asked a question that could *only* be answered in hypothetical terms.
For the rest, I hardly think you can say that the "anti" camp have been raising "what if" arguments "as freely as they will". The problem, anyway, is not simply that the "for" people put forward "what if" cases, but that that's basically *all* they put forward. Further, many of these cases, just taken individually, have serious issues regards logic and plausibility. I don't see what's wrong with pointing this out.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Findegil
P.S.: If you like, please ignore this post, since it seems I am supporting a 'illogical hypotheses' anyway.
|
I think it is illogical, yes. Please don't take that as a personal insult,
Findegil. (I mean, if you are taking that way, that is.)