[Galin]

Originally Posted by jallanite

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 don't agree I have put forth inferences as facts.

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.

That is an incorrect characterization of my position Jallanite.

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, you posted earlier:

I don’t see any point in continuing this

You are not going to change your opinion so far as I can tell. And I am not going to change my opinion from anything said here.

I've already posted my opinion about Doug's presentation, and I largely agree with Carl Hostetter's points with respect to the 'evidence' in Arda Reconstructed.

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

Which answer in no way means one cannot arrive at an opinion about who is, or who is not, a minor character.

Galin wrote: 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.

Jallanite responded: More innuendo.

innuendo: 'an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.'

There was no negative intent behind my statement Jallanite, in any case.