Here we go again, Owain doing his "La La La, I can't hear you" schtick.

You have two approaches to ignoring things you don't like:

One, you apply ever-increasing standard of proof. Like in this case, you are asking for ridiculous amount of detail. Not even Tolken in The Silmarillion was that detailed.

Two, you pick interpretation that suit you, no matter how far-fetched and convoluted, and refuse to even acknowledge that other interpretations are possible.


In what book, save for a book listing prime numbers, every account can be verified to the level you insist? Wolff published journalistic account of events supported by interviews. Nobody so far managed to successfully sue him for libel or make him retract anything he wrote despite all the bluster. Until that happens, it is reasonable to assume that what he wrote is mostly accurate.

Your position on this book, just like most of things you post, is unjustified. So just like Trump, you are all bluster with a big dose of denial.

Now tell me you are right because you have a good brain.