Bilbo´s treachery

[Ivriniel]

1.Precursor Short Comment on Context for an 'Overall' Statement about the Mythology

From the book, Master of Middle Earth, authored by Paul Kocher.

"Tolkien's technique of purposeful ambivalence is well shown too in the Mumak of Harad which Same sees fighting on the side of the Southrons against Faramir's men in Ithilien: '…indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him does not now walk in Middle Earth; his kin that live still in the latter days are but memories of his girth and majesty'". That, is the author goes on to interpret that – extending ambiguity as implicit in the 'what' any beast or artefact of Lore. The author goes on to adapt that to dragons and says, for example, "Tolkien is especially evasive about Angmar's huge winged steed" and "all these half-mythological creatures of Middle Earth are meant to subsist partly in our world, partly in another in which the imagination can make of it what it will".

and

He has a "…lifelong interest in Astrology…" which the author ascribes to Tolkien's calendars (Appendix D) Menelvagor (the Swordsman –Orion) Red Borgil, in The Sickle – Mars", in a modern heliocentric account of Arda (p. 6 Mater of Middle Earth, author, Paul Kocher).

Context materials are for the reader to hold in the background whilst perusing subsequent materials.

2. Chronological Review of The Hobbit's Publication in Second Context:- the Pre-Hobbit Materials Grounded in the Silmarillion - The Professor's Multi-Decade Obsession

Certainly, originally intended as a children's story--in context. It was not written in a mythological vacuum and certainly, there were predating themes very clearly driving Tolkien's mental and imaginary processes, at the time he wrote the Hobbit (the first one). Prima facie as put in Master of Middle Earth

"The Hobbit as being drawn irresistibly towards towards the materials he had been assembling for several years past to tell the history of the earlier ages of Middle Earth So much so that glimpses crept into 'unbidden of things higher or deeper of darker than its surface: Durin, Moria, Gandalf, the Necromancer, the Ring.' For the most part Tolkien manages to keep unobtrusive these 'unbidden' incursions of serious historical matter not properly germane to the children's story, but they do colour the tale and perhaps help to account for those graver, more adult touches we have been discussing. Contrariwise, the writing of The3 Hobbit may well have served to crystallize Tolkien's thoughts about th3e historical materials, and particularly seems to have supplied a num er of ideas that found their way, transformed, into his epic.".

However, the themes elaborated upon in LotR drew on what Tolkien himself has stated that were joining themes. In particular Letter 153 dated the 7th of June 1955. The Necromancer and The Ring were--inevitable--choice of links. The germ of the story was the Necromancer and The Ring. He does say, in a letter that the Ring was not originally high in his thinking or central to the LotR mythology when the original version was written {however, see below. It is not clear where his mind exactly was when made the statement--Hobbit dates are diabolically varied--see below}. In addition, in Letter 35 he took this path, it states, partly because readers had clambored for “more about the Necromancer” (2nd of February 1939).

However, Character transmutation and lore transmutations are -- rife -- in the mythology, and, for example, I recall even on his death bed, (I forget the citation at this time) he commented on the Celeborn and Galadriel, in a latter intended addendum. I can't remember if this one went 'Celeborn was of Eldamar and grandson of Elwe' or 'Celeborn wasn't', I forget). In any case, the argument is that as he writes, ideas morph, and certainly, even in current published tomes, this transmutation is apparent in characterisations--implicitly--in multiple locations. No doubt, for example, the 'Strider' we all know as was introduced, was not the same 'man' in Tolkien's head, by the time he completed the narrative. Clearly, the Hobbit did belong in Middle Earth where his 'precious' Silmarillion also belonged, and clearly, the Hobbit was not intended as 'a prequil' but nevertheless was a quarry for materials for the professor in any case for LotR, and *also* by 'back to the Future-reverso-ramas' -therefore - a joiner also for the FA. This was really, editorial pressure that forced his hand, and because he loved his mythology so very much, the man invented means to use a tool -- a book, the Hobbit that he really didn't foresee as 'the tool', yet tool it was--to bridge works.

Yes, in the first Hobbit, Chapter 5 was a variation on the Chapter 5 in subsequent publication. And it is not correct to say that the Ring itself was not 'the possession' of the Necromancer in -- not correct to say 'the first edition'. It is correct to say that the Ring was made to belong to the Necromancer -- even in the first edition -- very early after the completion of the Hobbit. Stated another way, The hobbit was a seriocomic adaptation, but nonetheless, it served the purposes of bridging anyway. Two tools: the Necromancer and the ring, very quickly The Ring, and even for which version? 1938. There is actually more to this story as well. That is, no, the '1938' version was not 'all there is dates that are relevant'.

Here in 1933 4 -

C.S. Lewis writes to lifelong friend Arthur Greeves about The Hobbit. He said "Since term began [on January 15] I have had a delightful time reading a children's story which Tolkien has just written . . . Whether it is really good (I think it is until the end) is of course another question: still more, whether it will succeed with modern children" (They Stand Together, collected letters from Lewis to Greeves, ed. Walter Hooper, No. 183).

Now, in October of 1936,The Hobbit is retyped, Allen and Unwin read the manuscript in Decemer and suggest he complete it. Then, in September of 1937, and in fact, December of 16-19 - Tolkien starts writing the first chapter of the "New Hobbit", which will later become The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien submits The Father Christmas Letters and The Silmarillion for publication but they are rejected. December of 1937

There is a triple-lock of FA, Hobbit, Revisions and Ring-LORE in 1937 WITH precursor Hobbit writings in 1933.

So - when we interpret from Letters that (see upstream) his 'original' Hobbit ring, was a ring, not a Ring, it is quite already diabolically difficult to disentangle which 'Hobbit' we mean when the Professor makes the concession that he didn't have a link between the Ring and the Necromancer in mind, at first rendition.

Further, he does give us some materials to pacify us. For example, in the 1966 Prologue of The Hobbit, (Second edition) he provides the variation "Of the Finding of the Ring, " stating the 'Bilbo lied to his friends' addendum and Gandalf as very 'strange and suspicious' which seeded the doubt that the Ring was innocent. Of course by this time, we all know that Gandalf knew the story of Sauron's ring. This was about the wondering of the cause of Bilbo's deceit and to connect it dimly with the Ring (part of my materials for the longitudinal analysis, which is pending).

3. What Tolkien said about the 'Schizophrenic' Two Versions of the Hobbit (I'm aware that psychosis and schizophrenia are the correct use of the term. I'm borrowing colloquial licence.

Letter 128, 1st of August 1950, and about Chapter 5, the new version of Chapter 5, "Riddles in the Dark" hits the shelves. Apparently, this came as a suprise to Tolkien (see the Letter). Tolkien wrote the first version of LotR with the UNmodified Hobbit in mind. He had not heard from publicists (again, indications of his weariness about the ongoing struggle with publicists), and so, without the Hobbit being revised, Tolkien went ahead with LotR and adapted the original Hobbit to it. The sequel now depended on the earlier version. The revision, if published, would entail much rewriting of the sequel. It seems that the FORMER was his original intention, even though the second variation (revised Hobbit) could provide a more convincing joiner.

4. Three More Letters, Highlighting the "Transmutation Hypothesis"

Letter 26, dated 4th of March 1938, Turning to his own works, Tolkien said that he had reached the end of the third chapter in the sequel to The Hobbit, but that the story had taken an unpremeditated turn (Three is Company. That is but one chapter beyond the Shadow of the Past and again his mind was evolving the narrative. Then, In letter31 (24th of July 1938), he states the book should have come in in 1938 not 1937 for time for the sequel in 1939. And that the Hobbit was not intended a prequil, because he was preoccupied with the Silmarilloion. However, the context, always with his communications to the Publisher was about anxiety about delays, appeals to understanding, tacit complaint because his loved Silmarillion was not published. Then on the 31st of August, 1938, letter 33. About LotR flowing along.

5. The Silmarillion. What part of which bit was published or ready pre Hobbit.

The Lay OF Leithian was first published in 1928. It had 557 lines by August 23, 1925. The next date appearing is is two and a half years later, 27-8 March, 1928, at line 1161. Afterwards, it was written fully to 1769 lines, up to 2929. Apparently the dates are for copying out of the manuscript, not for their writing, so Tolkien may well have had quite a number of additional passages or concepts earlier before he put them together. It was abandoned in September 1931. However, in 1930 he completes a full draft of The Silmarillion, which is later printed in The Shaping of Middle-earth.

Edit: I edited 'sequil' to 'prequil' in the second last paragraph (I HATE HAVING TO BE THIS PRESCRIPTIVE I ***HATE IT***).

[Ivriniel]

The information is incomplete. I have a social life and have to head out. I'll be back. There are quite a number of additional materials bearing upon my thinking in relation to the 'what' Tolkien 'did and didn't' have in his mind, at time of 'first' Hobbit.

Clearly, overall, however, we have FA materials bouncing about in his head. That means, reaching for inference beyond 'The Hobbit' about the ring, Ring or Rring or rRing *eyes crossed* is relevant.

Also, the "Longitudinal Hobbit Change" materials are not yet put down.

Enjoy your evenings.

and one re-quote of something important

The anxiety in the Prof's letters about this, strikes me ***again*** as I review Letters, and I'm really surprised the point needs to be made.

Given such a background of anxiety and tussling with Allen and Unwin, for a Professor at a University, where you know very well there are significant torsions upon the self to present, argue, publish, write in a manner that very often deviates from how the core-self seek to write, are you saying that that background pressure was (not) operative (as) he wrote the Hobbit? I cannot -- support -- that tenet.

Ergo, why I interceded to introduce the background mythology

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

[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 I'm a primate, I'm referring, or um, refereeing to myself, or. errrm, uuuum, just enjoying making myself --laugh--Who has a sense of humour, would I suppose as well, unless, Morgaron, it's going to be the --idiot-- who would --seriously??? take it so --seriously--that there is -- a seriously, serious ---need --- to um, UnAttack hahahah poster.

You know, if you didn't like that, maybe you should have began by not ridiculing Morth's screen name. Just saying.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

I've got about 300 posts here.

Given that this thread does not yet top 100, this hyperbole seems a little over the top.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Anyone who's read any of them, knows very well, that I so very seldom --care--to ground an argument in a specific date, or particularly narrow range of dates.

Sadly that's true, but I still can't see why others should suffer because of your lack of argumentation - with dates or otherwise.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

You know, if you didn't like that, maybe you should have began by not ridiculing Morth's screen name. Just saying.



Given that this thread does not yet top 100, this hyperbole seems a little over the top.



Sadly that's true, but I still can't see why others should suffer because of your lack of argumentation - with dates or otherwise.

Galardriel, not too bad tonight.

Have a look at some of the comments said about me -- apparently --being a troll. (would you really like me to find the URL's? was it morgaron? I honestly DON"T CARE.

As you can see, I am not. I am merely trying ***very*** hard to simply post light heartedly, and do have a literary foundation and deep love of the mythology. I have seen Morgathon's various attempts to - I don't know - seriously, I don't know what on earth she/he is doing, and why there is the repetitive insistence from that poster about --apparently--my ignorance, dumbness, or abjectly stupid minded incapacity to be a ....troll.

Troll, no. I love the mythology. I have a lot to say about it. I've read a great deal. Must I prove that I know at least some things? And how long further must all this go on, until I'm just allowed to simply enjoy posting a random fun comment, without it being ultra dissected and turned into an excuse by I don't know, whatever.

Who cares

Let's just have fun

Kind regards to you

[Legolas]

Let's keep discussion based on these wonderful texts and our interpretations, and not allow the thread to be consumed by petty jabs at people that disagree.

(Or chat speak and memes.)

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

We never find out what measure of Bilbo's treachery was motivated by the then hold the ring exerted over Bilbo

We don't know whether or not he would have conceived the plot to place the dwarves on the back foot had there been no ring

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

it's your two assertions I'm testing, as The Ring doesn't have immediate influence over a bearer, and secondly, that The Ring wasn't conceived as a malevolent artefact in The Hobbit.

Ivriniel,

My replies, following the post where William C. Hicklin refutes your assumptions, were in accordance with his refutations. The incredibly circumlocutious posts that you offered later, while they belabored the thread in both a longitudinal and latitudinal manner, are not cogent to the refutations, nor do they in any way bolster your original assumptions. Any reference to the One Ring or the effects of the One Ring were added in afterthought and are not part of The Hobbit as originally published, and The Hobbit had to be revised to make the appropriate plot points, and a backstory (i.e., that Bilbo lied about the "present" and the riddle game) was provided -- after the fact, as all documentation indicates.

The thought of Bilbo's magic ring did not have any significance to Tolkien beyond it being a folkloric motif, a handy device, for the furtherance of the original story. In fact, Tolkien says as much:

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 23, 17 February 1938, to C.A. Furth, Allen & Unwin

The Hobbit sequel is still where it was, and I have only the vaguest notion of how to proceed. Not ever intending a sequel, I fear I squandered all my favourite 'motifs' and characters on the original 'Hobbit'.

Even after slogging through an incredibly rambling and obtuse series of posts (with various internet jargon asides, acronymic oddments and Ungoliantine fulmination that makes much of what you write impossible to read), I can say without equivocation that you have not unearthed a single jot or tittle to aid in the furtherance of your point.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Ivriniel,

My replies, following the post where William C. Hicklin refutes your assumptions, were in accordance with his refutations. The incredibly circumlocutious posts that you offered later, while they belabored the thread in both a longitudinal and latitudinal manner, are not cogent to the refutations, nor do they in any way bolster your original assumptions. Any reference to the One Ring or the effects of the One Ring were added in afterthought and are not part of The Hobbit as originally published, and The Hobbit had to be revised to make the appropriate plot points, and a backstory (i.e., that Bilbo lied about the "present" and the riddle game) was provided -- after the fact, as all documentation indicates.

The thought of Bilbo's magic ring did not have any significance to Tolkien beyond it being a folkloric motif, a handy device, for the furtherance of the original story. In fact, Tolkien says as much:


Even after slogging through an incredibly rambling and obtuse series of posts (with various internet jargon asides, acronymic oddments and Ungoliantine fulmination that makes much of what you write impossible to read), I can say without equivocation that you have not unearthed a single jot or tittle to aid in the furtherance of your point.

This is quite untrue, and not at all refutation or contra-indication of the various points put about dates. I see only a summation post in elaborate well structured vocabulary, that yet does not summarise, respond to or tackle any of the materials, Morthoron, I have unearthed.

I will add, there is now a day and a half of research in ongoing discoveries, and those materials speak for themselves.

Kind Regards-

Is it rude of me to kindly ask you to please bear upon my presence here with some welcoming? Perhaps something to greet, or to thank, even if the arguments you cite and your opinion vary?

I would appreciate that at this point.

[Ivriniel]

And this for Morgothrond before I post the 'next bit' about Longintidinal de-The Hobbit-isation-of-the*r*-ing (ie Bilbo bearing the 'R'ing, not 'r'ing) hypothesi.....erbole.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Ivriniel,

My replies, following the post where William C. Hicklin refutes your assumptions, were in accordance with his refutations. The incredibly circumlocutious posts that you offered later, while they belabored the thread in both a longitudinal and latitudinal manner, are not cogent to the refutations, nor do they in any way bolster your original assumptions.

Really?

The thought of Bilbo's magic ring did not have any significance to Tolkien beyond it being a folkloric motif, a handy device, for the furtherance of the original story. In fact, Tolkien says as much:

This one gets two 'reallies'.

Really Number one: Really - I haven't already said this, about as many times as Queen Beruthial had cats? and

Really Number two: Really, you really want to really say that, rather than an Unreally? (i.e. to borrow a Tolkien-ean fun way of 'backup up/out' of a dead end argument. As I often say, Feanor was UNfriends with Galadriel--forever (which pre-Facebook used to sound really hilarious to me n my kin, and friends who read the mythology. We used to laugh until crying about some of the linguistic nuances of the works, and Ungoliant's UNlight was 'verily or nigh' (choose one or the other) example.

Even after slogging through an incredibly rambling and obtuse series of posts (with various internet jargon asides, acronymic oddments and Ungoliantine fulmination that makes much of what you write impossible to read), I can say without equivocation that you have not unearthed a single jot or tittle to aid in the furtherance of your point.

Particular nuances and efferfecence-es (spelling mistake for fun--Baggins-es) I think you'll find Morthoron that many of my 'incredibly rambling and obtuse (you know OBTUSE means 'STUPID' not 'TANGENTIAL' don't you) have some little echo of what I loved about Tolkien's etymological and linguistic sense of humour.

And, yes, I'm the 'intelligent idiot' aren't I for labouring - just for you - to actually get out a cogent (sorry, it's cogent, Morgathrond) position statement. I'll summarise the heuristic.
"

...put a lid on the monolithic assumption that 'first publication' [of The Hobbit] means the same thing as 'first conceived' as a Ring [in the absolutist sense, as NOT BEFORE December of 1937]...

Guache self-quote, I confess, though, I do wish to highlight the important point 'stupidly' that I developed in the post series. And I add, that the donging-on-the-head of the --assumption-- does NOT preclude the conjoint, co-existence of the concurrent assumption, that

the ring was a ring in the ring that Bilbo found, in Hobbit Version minus 1000, written 3500BC (ie the 1937 Hobbit) and became a Ring (temporal causalisty loops give me a headache (*Captain Janeway, Voyager--omg, my brain hurts) by DECEMBER of 1937.

This, in my 'stupid' argumentative series means that -- contrasting the two assumptions -- there is a six year window of ***DOUBT*** about which (oh my god, my head hurts) hypothesiss-es hobbitses applies. That is, the Hobbit was READ by CS LEWIS sometime in or around or prior to 1931. We do not know 'which' 'Hobbit' Tolkien was referring to when he states that his ring was the ring not the Ring in LETTERS, for example (and I have QUOTED which LETTER he did say what he did).

Kind Regards to you, Morthoron. Thank you for the fun.

[Ivriniel]

6. The Quest for Erebor

I've highlighted this entry, separately because it reveals somewhat of Tolkien's thinking and imaginary motivation that he bore upon writing LotR, after the Hobbit was released to the shelves. Chris states in UT that there are three variants of The Quest for Erebor, although no dates to any of the manuscripts are given. The letters "A", "B" and "C" he designates and in seeming chronological order. He states that the earliest version is complete and is entitled The History of Gandalf's Dealings with Thrain and Thorin Oakenshield, although it is "rough" (p. 327, George Allan and Unwin, 1980 Edition), but is a "much emended" manuscript for "complex and hard to unravel" (p. 327). From this manuscript B was made which had a "great deal of further alteration, though mostly of a very minor kind" (p. 327). B is entitled The Quest of Erebor, and also Gandalf's Account of how he came to arrange the Expedition to Erebor and send Bilbo with the Dwarves. Manuscript C, untitled tells

"...the story in a more economical and tightly constructed form, omitting a good deal from the first version and introducing some new elements, but also (particularly in the latter part) largely retaining the original writing. It seems to me to be quite certain that C is latter than B, and C is the version that has given above, although some writing has apparently been lost from the beginning, setting the scene in Minas Tirith for Gandalf's recollections.

The opening paragraphs of B (given below) are almost identical with a passage in Appendix A (III, Durin's Folk) to The Lord of the Rings, and obviously depend on the narrative concerning Thror and Thrain that precedes them in Appendix A; while the ending of 'The Quest of Erebor is also found in almost exactly the same words in Appendix A (III), here again in the mouth of Gandalf, speaking to Frodo and Gimli in Minas Tirith. In view of the letter cited in the Introduction (p.II) it is clear that my father wrote 'The Quest of Erebor to stand as part of the narrative of Durin's Folk in Appendix A.

Although dateless, the materials cited yield particular clues upon which I can continue to research and trace a little more about 'what Tolkien had bouncing around in his head, about the FA and his 'precious' (pardon pun) Silmarillion, in his multi-decade long obsession to publish that -- wonderful -- tome.

First of all, Gandalf did disappear for term when the Dwarves and Bilbo were moving through Mirkwood. Second, materials again support the Transmutation Hypothesis (see upstream) in relation to the prof's most vivid and evolving imagination, meaning and ideas about characters. Importantly, we should trace the history of the author's narratives about -- The Dwarves -- as well. Exactly 'what' he says about them in the Silmarillion, is quite relevant. We know the 'Aule' story. How much of the history of the Seven Fathers was rattling around inside his mind at the time he wrote The Hobbit is unclear. I have a feeling though, that if I review Dwarvish manuscripts, etc, and the tomes and their dates (sometimes the prof did supply dates), that I will unearth more about when he first decided The Ring-S were part of the Silmarillion mythology.

It seems to me also though that anything "Appendix A-ish" might be bridging materials assembled post hoc (in relation to the Hobbit). The 'might be' is important as, of course, quite a lot of the Appendices point to the background mythology and the Silmarillion. As always it is extremely difficult tracking anything down to a clear, crisp conclusion, but I suppose the research itself is the fun.

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

You know, if you didn't like that, maybe you should have began by not ridiculing Morth's screen name. Just saying.



Given that this thread does not yet top 100, this hyperbole seems a little over the top.



Sadly that's true, but I still can't see why others should suffer because of your lack of argumentation - with dates or otherwise.

Galadriel, this is what you state is the case, even as late at the subsequent 6 items, headed upstream. You also seem to have dismissed, misprocessed or fused information I put down about dates for 1937. It seems you have --implicitly--asserted (not explicitly, implicitly, or tacitly) that I sustained a ring not Ring position for post 1937. Can you please find where I have said so. And just in case an argument then reads 'no no no, that's not what I said', then, alternatively.

Where is it that I seem to be disagreeing with in relation to the main point (made on the thread by -- not just me, but several --), about 50 posts prior, about rings, not Rings and when this [transition of ring to Ring] occurred? Am I making myself clear? I wonder if I am or not. After I hear from you (I'll wait a day or so) and if I haven't, I'll go on to take off where I left off:

The Longitudinal 'Hobbit Character Shift' theory (and I realise it's just a fun idea, and I'm not really married to it. It's just having fun. I actually have very much enjoyed researching because it's delightful reading Tolkien's words about the Ages in the various Tomes I have in my library.


Kind Regards

And I apologise to the readers.

Really, it was Ungoliant who ate the Silmarils, not Morogoth. And that Erebor was chained to Thangorodrim (when Fingolfin cut off his hand above the wrist), Erebor was rescued, resolving the blood feud between the Dwarves and the Elves. That's why Finarfin DID move house to -- MORDOR -- and it's all a trick.

Sauron's real name is Frodo Baggins. Laugh at me please. Because I do. I couldn't possibly enjoy any posting of this kind of technical nature without underscoring, that it was Fatty Bolger who was the Wight at Carn Dum. Technical posts are really HARD to read and enjoy. So enjoy Unreading them. Silmarien married Ar Pharazon, but what happened was, they had a fight, and so, Ar Pharazon got miffed and thought he was leaving Silmarien, but he accidentally headed West, hence Silmarien made it to Elendil, just in time. Back to the Future she went.

And really - that's kinda how Tolkien wrote. If you think about enjoy

[Ivriniel]

I have some specific questions for Morthoron

1. Were you aware that the Hobbit had a pre-1937/8 variant as evidenced by CS Lewis's letter?
2. Were you aware about the state of the Lay of Leithian by 1933?
3. Were you aware that Tolkien's first adaption of LotR used the ***original*** Hobbit as its foundation.
4. Do you assert that the Prof didn't have ongoing anxiety and pressure from Allen and Unwin about publication deadlines (LotR), about despondency for repeated rejection of the Silarillion.
5. Were you aware that the Prof had a pre-Hobbit Silmarillion model?
6 The Devil's Number Do you assert that the 1933 version (typed and read by CS Lewis) or latter version was the one that Tolkien dissociates the ring from the Ring?

7. Did you known that Shelob ate the Silmarils? Or that Ungoliants wanted to eat the Silmarils, or do you assert that Earendil's refuse on Vingilot (what does he eat up there?) has Silmari 'glow' as he tosses out his bowel movements over Vingilot over Arda?

And Morthoron, I'm going to go back to the thread where I was accused of being a 'Troll', and after it, I received a PM pointing out that someone had been PM'd stating that someone else had gone too far.*

I don't remember if it was you who said 'I was a troll', but at the time, actually, I didn't even read it ahahahahah.

as I said, get a sense of humour and seriously, the funniest question: please respondS [Gollum] to number 7

Kind Regrds

[Edit]*names and stones and fixed up tomes, and words that do not break bones[/edit]

STAVROS