He so very much doesn't. Back in the days of Usenet, Michael was one of the best-read experts in our discussions, and I admired him for that a lot. There weren'

He so very much doesn't. Back in the days of Usenet, Michael was one of the best-read experts in our discussions, and I admired him for that a lot. There weren't that many of us who could go toe to toe with him in a debate about Middle-earth lore. (There certainly were a few! And honestly, intense debates with him did a lot to hone my own expertise in this stuff: it was fun, especially if you could avoid provoking too many flames.) That said, he also had a strong tendency to reach some conclusion on a controversial topic and then defend it to the death, even when most of us felt that the ultimate answer seemed unknowable or even fairly firmly different than what he claimed. His arguments were based on immense textual knowledge, followed up with emphatic assertions of truth if you dared disagree, and intense flames if you gave him the slightest excuse to get personal. He said, at times, that the rest of the newsgroup had a grudge against him and that people arguing against him were rejecting Tolkien's words or not arguing in good faith. For quite a while I remained on cordial terms with him and with everyone else, but at some point he decided that doing that constituted me enabling what he viewed as their toxic behavior, and we haven't interacted as friends since. All that is to say: the guy knows his stuff, and unless you're a top-tier expert he'll argue circles around you, but I still don't trust his conclusions on controversial topics. If anyone wants a more balanced look at the Elf-ears question (from the same era when Michael wrote this FAQ, I think, or at least compatible with it), I've got an essay by Conrad Dunkerson on my site: http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/Ears.html http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/Ears.html