![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#11 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 430
![]() |
![]() Quote:
[spoof]This 'poor sod', is so very 'sodden' about the 'sod' who would need to use the word 'sod' to make a rather 'sodden story' about misprocessing posts. Of course, that was exactly ShelGoliant's vomit, Unlighted, friendliness. It's so very Morgothian-isatation and welcome-Un-warmingly, a bit like, "I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve". Thank for your - cause - to have me - smiling - again as I post, and read as I write. The -- need -- to personalise -- by -- group alliancing -- is of course, a bit like primate politics. Wait ![]() Lighten up - is it 'wench''missus''mister'sir, Sirius or Ungoliant....And seriously: (next post) serious means 'topical materials for context of the [/spoof] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OH MY GOD, I have a HEADACHE hahaha, I've been researching, Morathon, and have actually, been idiotically dumb enough to actually really find -- a whole day-- to research a response I have a headache hahaha, but "I did it just for you" hahahaha (as in, I really am laughing--at ? myself? I hope so? Because you/re not actually 'ere. It's just text, my 'dear' um, (oh I don't want to be patronising), um what word is best, erm, 'kind morothon?" um -erm I just don't quite know how to 'thank you' for all your lovely words of welcome. So, I've entertained myself. Stopped caring. Researched it. And I'm going to write some of the finding up. *coughs* ahhh, there's some 'each way' (ie it's not at all as you've surmised,yet not entirely is wise, to downgrade ur wisdom, moragon, entirely. Similarly, as I've always said about textual-posting modes, context of authorship counts. You have - squarely - distorted my position. However, I'm quite smilingly well about it. I will begin with the--short--correction and - outpouring of 1. A review of Tolkien's letters, in chronological order, against the truant dates in question (1937 onwards) 2. What we know about what Tolkien did and didn't say, about "The Ring" and certainly only "a ring" not "a Ring" at all in The hobbit, yet ver-ily hahaha nonetheless morthgoroan 3. Context - there certainly IS substance to matters in my materials, even though I'm the 'idiot' hahaha who purportedly idiotically didn't give rat's behind about part of your point, and did indeed care about part of your points. Have I made my point? It's just fun, right? Wait 3. UT and materials about Rings and Necromancers and SauronS (plural - Tolkien was rather 'dual-personality-ed' about things. Names evolved. Mythology shifted. 4. The correct point I made about 'pre-Hobbit Lore'. 5. The Hobbit version I have (I never claimed it was 'the original', nor did I ever care to ponder finding a dusty 1933 Hobbit version hahahaha. Back to The Future, please. 6. And six (as in the 'devil's number' hahaha) a book a found in my library, termed Master of Middle Earth, in a delightful return and review of materials. Last edited by Ivriniel; 12-04-2015 at 12:07 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |