[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galin

You're obviously entitled to your perceptions about the thread Jallanite, and I think I have already responded to what you perceived to be innuendo. And as for presenting data mostly 'correctly'... for example have I misrepresented the data with respect to my commentary about Uinen and Osse above? I don't think so (and I certainly didn't intend to if I did), but my presentation is different from that found in AR in any case, and which would be part of a notably different presentation in general (in theory), when dealing with the same data.

In short, claim you have already answered. And the only words I intended to apply to your discussion of Uinen and Osse were complimentary. That I am to some extent entitled to my perceptions of this thread or anythng else should also go without saying. And no, I have not edited my perceptions of this thread, except to note that you no longer so free to put forth your inferences as facts.

I was just pointing out (in reaction to the way you chose to phrase something) that I am not alone in my reaction to the way the argument is presented in Arda Reconstructed. I realize that the fact that others share my opinion in no way makes me right and others wrong; nor would even the majority opinion, if it could be known, automatically make those who hold it ojectively correct. That said, I likely never would have posted on the subject if I had been the only person to have reacted to Arda Reconstructed in this way, as I would be very strongly second guessing my personal reaction...

Then why point out something that you admit does not really support the supposed correctness of your position that Doiuglas Charles Kane was wrong not to have stated openly in his book that he believed (without evidence one way or the other) that Christopher Tolkien was not pushing a misogynous viewpoint.

Is it because you do not anything better to use?

... so let's say: for what it's worth, despite that for you 'Galin' raised this possibility (and Galin alone in that context, as you chose to put it), again, someone else raised it well before I did.

And neither is worth anything beside the real question which is whether this possibility is true, which you avoid discussing because you have no evidence at all outside empty inferences.

Well if it's subjective, I note that I asked Doug Kane for a more complete list (out of the 11 female characters) of who he thinks cannot be called a minor character.

And Kane answered what comes down to the same answer I gave.

He certainly doesn't need to answer, even if the reason is simply that the expects me to disagree with him about some example and doesn't want to discuss the matter further.

More innuendo.