Back in our Usenet days (wow, around 20 years ago now), Michael was firmly in the pro-wing camp: he insisted that Tolkien was using a rhetorical technique where

Back in our Usenet days (wow, around 20 years ago now), Michael was firmly in the pro-wing camp: he insisted that Tolkien was using a rhetorical technique where vagueness gave way to clarity, and there were definitely wings, and anyone who said otherwise was flat out rejecting Tolkien's words on the matter (or entirely failing to understand plain English). After years of lengthy debate, I eventually recognized that much of the argument boiled down to nothing but different definitions of "wing", and I championed a consensus position (as described here: http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/Creatures.html#BalWings http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/Creatures.html#BalWings). As I recall, Michael's response was to say more or less "Yes, that's obviously what I mean, but you're misrepresenting everyone on the 'no wings' side, who would never agree to such a statement." Of course, most of the 'no wings' folks also said, "Yes, that's what I've meant all along" (and yeah, some of them said, "But I know Michael would never agree with that"). It was pretty satisfying! (And all these years later, it's nice to see that Michael is being reasonably explicit about that issue in his own writing on the topic. It's interesting to compare this 2010 archive link to the current version on his site: after he says "Yes, the Balrog had wings", he's now added a clarification that "The wings were simply shapes made of darkness." Though in the link later in this thread, he evidently can't resist one final jab at anyone who disagrees with him: "I like the book the way it is without all the rewriting and propaganda". And he describes other people trying to discuss the topic as "long-winded nonsense essays". Honestly, I haven't missed those bits of interacting with him.)