The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - The Balrog as the Loathly Lady from medieval literature.

monks · 08-07-2020, 06:07 PM

monks, are you saying that you're surprised that no one else raised an eyebrow? Let me just follow your logic here.

Premise: A rational person would agree with your claim.
Observation: No one so far agrees with your claim.
Conclusion: All of them are just irrational idiots who refuse to see the truth!

Talking about plausibility, what do you think is more plausible: every single person around you is an idiot, or your premise is incorrect and your claim is in fact NOT something rational people would agree with?

People aren't saying that what you say is completely and absolutely wrong. But it also isn't completely and absolutely right. It's shaky speculation - perhaps entertaining to indulge in, but not something a rational person is willing to accept as absolute truth. I am baffled at how you can accept your conjecture as absolute truth, given that you're not exactly dealing with exact science here.[/QUOTE]

-------------------------------------
---------------------------------------

Hi, firstly, what's my conjecture? Can we please stick to the post immediately above.

I don't expect it to be accepted as absolute truth. But there is no way that a rational response to those details is to start making broad observations about the nature of predictions (in an aping manner I might add) and inferring that I'm an ego maniac. He's got the time to make those posts and yet he didn't have the time to read my long posts. D'you see what I mean? And I made the point that virtually every link I posted as supporting evidence are pictures so there was no time required. And then instead of following up on my evidence which addressed what he thought about the woman's face he ignored it and went into the ape routine. It was a single click on an image. Regards that, I've actually annotated the image now to help. It is a woman because you can see her hair which veil her eyes. The subject is the dance of the 7 veils.

http://www.thewindrose.net/wickednesswoman/

The two eyes are obvious. The lower eye is her mouth. You can see that he has put a little notch to suggest her nose and the line under the eye-mouth is her chin. The left side of the face is also suggested with pencil marks. You can even see the two eyes to either side of her eye-mouth to be a pair of ear-rings- because this is intended to be a gypsy woman. This is a medieval symbolic landscape (all of his material is)- it's not just riddling. It has a serious purpose and source in the Arthurian Romances.

Anyway...keeping to the post.

In total, the odds of those details above indicating that *I might well be onto something* are too great for that to be a reasonable response. Simply from a probability point of view. And the clickbait response is totally risible yes. As far as I'm concerned he has behaved like an idiot *in that instance*.

What you are essentially saying is how can several (how many?) people 'all' be wrong about something, and I be right? Even when those people probably have not EVEN READ my supporting evidence or clicked on the links. If they haven't read it, then yes they can certainly be wrong. And if 100 people behaved like that, ditto. He's not even read my predictions and he's able to dismiss all 102 made over 15 years in a few days. That's absolutely risible too. 15 years, literally 1000s of etymologies in text and he's banging on about Samurai and thinks he can seriously counter that in two days off the top of his head with no reference to the etymologies in Tolkien's text whatever. Seems legit. It's a complete joke. The Loathly prediction just by itself is very compelling evidence that my reasons for making the prediction are sound. Let's go through each prediction one by one- which is what I intend to do until he is persuaded. If it takes time to accumulate the weight of evidence so be it. Well isn't that the nature of research and new ideas? There is nothing unusual about a position of being right and lots of other people being wrong. It DOES happen. And note it's not about the predictions, it's about proving that the system I'm saying Tolkien has, which makes him predictable, exists.

Here's an illustration of how Huinersoron's mind is working.

Me: "Tolkien has his own personal system of numerology influenced by Dante and it can be found in the Chain of Angainor. Stanza lengths of his poems use it."
Hui: "Numerology is subjective."

In other words he didn't listen to what I said. He had already seized upon 'numerology' as some kind of Dan Brown view of the world. This is..let me repeat...TOLKIEN'S OWN PERSONAL SYSTEM.

I have a friend. He started out being completely unconvinced by every thing I said to him. After 12 months he is totally convinced about everything I'm saying and is now involved in my research. Because I have demonstrated to him the consistency of argument and all of the evidence over a long period. And that's what I'm trying to duplicate here. In my last post to Huinersoron I'm trying to establish a ground zero with a simple starting point of one prediction. And in this case it happens to have developed a little history with the update on the Balrog.

I think the details of my previous post above speak for themselves.

I'm not falling out with anyone- yaknow...but I think this has all spiraled out into a nonsense exchange. :-)

monks

08-07-2020, 06:07 PM	#23
monks Animated Skeleton Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 35	monks, are you saying that you're surprised that no one else raised an eyebrow? Let me just follow your logic here. Premise: A rational person would agree with your claim. Observation: No one so far agrees with your claim. Conclusion: All of them are just irrational idiots who refuse to see the truth! Talking about plausibility, what do you think is more plausible: every single person around you is an idiot, or your premise is incorrect and your claim is in fact NOT something rational people would agree with? People aren't saying that what you say is completely and absolutely wrong. But it also isn't completely and absolutely right. It's shaky speculation - perhaps entertaining to indulge in, but not something a rational person is willing to accept as absolute truth. I am baffled at how you can accept your conjecture as absolute truth, given that you're not exactly dealing with exact science here.[/QUOTE] ------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Hi, firstly, what's my conjecture? Can we please stick to the post immediately above. I don't expect it to be accepted as absolute truth. But there is no way that a rational response to those details is to start making broad observations about the nature of predictions (in an aping manner I might add) and inferring that I'm an ego maniac. He's got the time to make those posts and yet he didn't have the time to read my long posts. D'you see what I mean? And I made the point that virtually every link I posted as supporting evidence are pictures so there was no time required. And then instead of following up on my evidence which addressed what he thought about the woman's face he ignored it and went into the ape routine. It was a single click on an image. Regards that, I've actually annotated the image now to help. It is a woman because you can see her hair which veil her eyes. The subject is the dance of the 7 veils. http://www.thewindrose.net/wickednesswoman/ The two eyes are obvious. The lower eye is her mouth. You can see that he has put a little notch to suggest her nose and the line under the eye-mouth is her chin. The left side of the face is also suggested with pencil marks. You can even see the two eyes to either side of her eye-mouth to be a pair of ear-rings- because this is intended to be a gypsy woman. This is a medieval symbolic landscape (all of his material is)- it's not just riddling. It has a serious purpose and source in the Arthurian Romances. Anyway...keeping to the post. In total, the odds of those details above indicating that I might well be onto something are too great for that to be a reasonable response. Simply from a probability point of view. And the clickbait response is totally risible yes. As far as I'm concerned he has behaved like an idiot in that instance. What you are essentially saying is how can several (how many?) people 'all' be wrong about something, and I be right? Even when those people probably have not EVEN READ my supporting evidence or clicked on the links. If they haven't read it, then yes they can certainly be wrong. And if 100 people behaved like that, ditto. He's not even read my predictions and he's able to dismiss all 102 made over 15 years in a few days. That's absolutely risible too. 15 years, literally 1000s of etymologies in text and he's banging on about Samurai and thinks he can seriously counter that in two days off the top of his head with no reference to the etymologies in Tolkien's text whatever. Seems legit. *It's a complete joke.* The Loathly prediction just by itself is very compelling evidence that my reasons for making the prediction are sound. Let's go through each prediction one by one- which is what I intend to do until he is persuaded. If it takes time to accumulate the weight of evidence so be it. Well isn't that the nature of research and new ideas? There is nothing unusual about a position of being right and lots of other people being wrong. It DOES happen. And note it's not about the predictions, it's about proving that the system I'm saying Tolkien has, which *makes him predictable, exists. Here's an illustration of how Huinersoron's mind is working. Me: "Tolkien has his own personal system of numerology influenced by Dante and it can be found in the Chain of Angainor. Stanza lengths of his poems use it." Hui: "Numerology is subjective." In other words he didn't listen to what I said. He had already seized upon 'numerology' as some kind of Dan Brown view of the world. This is..let me repeat...TOLKIEN'S OWN PERSONAL SYSTEM. I have a friend. He started out being completely unconvinced by every thing I said to him. After 12 months he is totally convinced about everything I'm saying and is now involved in my research. Because I have demonstrated to him the consistency of argument and all of the evidence over a long period. And that's what I'm trying to duplicate here. In my last post to Huinersoron I'm trying to establish a ground zero with a simple starting point of one prediction. And in this case it happens to have developed a little history with the update on the Balrog. I think the details of my previous post above speak for themselves.* I'm not falling out with anyone- yaknow...but I think this has all spiraled out into a nonsense exchange. :-) monks Last edited by monks; 08-08-2020 at 06:11 AM.