[Aiwendil]

It's most unfortunate that we can't seem to come to an agreement (or anywhere near one) on this matter. I would certainly be very sorry to see you simply shouted down by the majority.

As for myself, I am still far from certain about what I think should be done. My oft repeated vote to keep "Rog" is one made reluctantly, after great hesitation.

There is certainly little good in repeating the same arguments over and over. But I think some clarification of my views is in order.

Findegil, I can understand not wanting to lose a serious chunk of text due to an outdated word, but from the start, the goal with the FOG was to keep in as much as could be adapted to the canon - and eliminate that which can not.

I agree with this completely. Losing a large chunk of the story ought not to be one of the things to consider with regard to keeping or rejecting "Rog". It certainly is true that losing this chunk leads to serious textual problems and throws much of the story into disarray. This would prove rather inconvenient. But if we exercise self-discipline we should not consider this, a merely textual difficulty, in dealing with an issue that should be abstract and independent of any specific text.

I can think of no clearer case of something that simply can not truly fit in a post LotR Silm.

I must say that I know what you mean. At least, I feel like I know what you mean. But when I ask myself what it is about "Rog" that makes it not fit in a post-LotR Silmarillion, I can't identify any specific reason. There is nothing about the later Legendarium that makes it impossible for a character named "Rog" to exist.

As I see it, the name was lost. The legendarium and the languages in particular evolved, and Rog did not. His name [not to mention the hordes of Balrogs] is a fossil imbedded in an archaic text.

I think we need to be very clear here about the distinction between the internal texts and the external texts. Externally (in the real world and in the real texts of JRRT), Rog's name was, in your sense, lost. But this does not say anything about whether internally, in the tradition passed from Pengolodh to Rivendell to Bilbo, etc., the name was lost. Regardless of whether Rog was lost from Tolkien's texts, it is fan fiction to say that he was lost from Numenor's texts.

There is just to much 'editing' needed at every turn

Again, I agree with the sentiment. But if we are to concern ourselves with the amount of editing needed, then we run into even greater difficulties if we remove a vital segment of the plot.

capped off with the name that CJRT is 100% confident [which as HoM-E foot note/Commentary readers no is a pretty rare assertion] Rog would not have made the cut.

This is, for me, the real difficulty. I essentially agree with Christopher Tolkien about this. But another distinction is needed here. The question of what Tolkien would have done is very different from the question of what we ought to do. Tolkien would, for example, have rewritten the mythology with a round earth cosmology; we are not doing that. So Christopher Tolkien's conviction, even if it is absolutely unquestioned does not necessitate the elimination of the name.

I am not so foolishly optimistic as to think that these arguments will bring us closer to an agreement. But I wanted to make sure, if we are going to be left with a disagreement, that it not involve a misapprehension of anyone's views.

I am still far from satisfied with the situation. Perhaps it would be best to accept the name Rog for now, with the provision that we will at some point in the future come back and look at it again. This may seem like a mere delay that will accomplish nothing, but I have certainly found in other matters relating to the project that the passage of time has given me a new perspective or different view.