Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!not-for-mail
From: grimgard <grimg...@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien
Subject: Re: The Truth About Balrogs - Volume 6
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:09:32 -0400
Organization: Prodigy http://www.prodigy.com
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <3B166CBC.89C4B3F6@prodigy.net>
References: <d_DQ6.49710$t12.3845528@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <3B140B21.61C96906@prodigy.net> <KFVQ6.51199$t12.4004294@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <3B155A51.B98A45DC@prodigy.net> <9f42ks$8q9$1@usenet.otenet.gr>
NNTP-Posting-Host: a010-1285.laur.splitrock.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com 991325493 4117541 209.156.49.15 (31 May 2001 16:11:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 16:11:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en



Aris Katsaris wrote:

> grimgard <grimg...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:3B155A51.B98A45DC@prodigy.net...
> >
> >
> > Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
> >
> > > > Personally, I find it to be a very weak argument, but it was
> > > > brought up with surprising consistency during the Great Debates.
> > >
> > > Actually, it is a very strong argument... just easily countered.
> > > If the Balrog was NOT too wounded to fly it certainly should have
> > > either when it first reached the peak or, if it had decided to stop
> > > fleeing and fight, then certainly when it was falling to its death...
> > > only inability (either constant or brought on by wounds) can excuse
> > > not flying in that case.
> >
> > Hmmm, either I don't seem to be communicating my points of view too well
> > or I'm having problems understanding others'.  In my book, an argument
> > that is easily countered is a weak one.
>
> Easily countered doesn't necessarily mean *well* countered.
>
> Sure, you can say that the Balrog didn't fly because he was injured or
> exhausted.
> You countered it quite easily.
>
> But you didn't counter it well, because you had to manufacture that reason
> with
> no supporting evidence. Simply plucked it out of thin air.
>
> Overuse of that would be arguing backwards - having reached a decision and
> trying to skew the evidence so that they fit into your theory, rather than
> vice-versa.
>
> Aris Katsaris

I disagree on all counts.  After a long protracted battle with Gandalf, during
which Gandalf suffered injuries and/or exhaustion so severe that he died from
them, the Balrog was tossed off the top of the mountain.  It seems to me
fairly clear that he probably wouldn't have had the strength to stand upright,
let alone fly away.  Flight requires not only the use of undamaged wings and
undamaged muscles to operate the wings, but also a rather signifigant
expenditure of energy.  Now while I can't prove definitively that the Balrog
was so damaged as to be incapable of flight, I really don't have to.  The
argument put forth by many in the 'no-wing' camp is that the only reason the
Balrog didn't fly when Gandalf cast him down is because he didn't have wings.
All I have to demonstrate is that it is quite possible, even probable, in
fact, in this case, that the Balrog may well have had wings and may well have
been capable of flight and still have been unable to fly in this situation.
My side of the argument is absurdly easy, which is why I consider this
particular 'no-wing' argument to be a weak one, probably the weakest one
presented, for that matter.  There are, in my opinion, far better 'no-wing'
arguments which are far more convincing.

grimgard