Tolkien and Inheritance

[jenius]

I don't get paid for my dad's work, I have no sympathy for Chris Tolkien. If you were to tell me the original writer were being screwed my heart would bleed but otherwise who cares?

[Hurin]

I don't get paid for my dad's work, I have no sympathy for Chris Tolkien. If you were to tell me the original writer were being screwed my heart would bleed but otherwise who cares?

I think you're failing to make a distinction between being paid for your father's work and being paid for something that your father created, owned, and copyrighted.

If your father was a grocery store clerk, of course you wouldn't expect to benefit from what he did. But if he was an inventor that created a new patent. . . that's a different story.

But yes, Tolkien did suffer under the deal while he was still alive prior to his death in 1974. . . and I would think he would be very upset today knowing that people have made billions off of his intellectual property that he foolishly licensed away (though under duress). . . and his progeny hasn't seen one dime.

Had Tolkien invented a new widget, should his family not benefit from the patent? Or does the patent die with him? Ah, heck, why not outlaw inheritance altogether!

[jenius]

Yeah, I still just don't have any sympathy here. If I make a crappy business move, my bad. Bill Gates told his kids they're going to be comfortable but they're going to have to earn their own. Do you feel terrible for them? No, you say good for them, I hope they aren't spoiled poops and will be driven to be as successful as their father was.

[Hurin]

Yeah, I still just don't have any sympathy here. If I make a crappy business move, my bad. Bill Gates told his kids they're going to be comfortable but they're going to have to earn their own. Do you feel terrible for them? No, you say good for them, I hope they aren't spoiled poops and will be driven to be as successful as their father was.

Well, good for you.

If someone is in trouble and has to sell something worth billions for a relative pittance. . . I tend to think that's a shame. You obviously don't. I get that. Not sure why you're so hell-bent on demonstrating that you don't care. Though, just taking a wild guess, you seem to have an axe to grind against the concept of inherited wealth.

P.S. Bill Gates is a bad example. "Comfortable" means that they're going to be just fine. He's just not giving it *all* to them. But I'm not sure why what Bill Gates decides to do privately with his own money is at all relevant.

[jenius]

It's not that I have an axe to grind with inherited wealth entirely, I kind of think of it like winning the lotto. You've done absolutely nothing to earn this money but here, it has been heaped upon you. I'm certainly a bit jealous of that. When people adopt an attitude that someone DESERVES to win the lotto I just kind of have to shrug. The Bill Gates thing is relevant in that he's a guy who has done a lot (I'll try to avoid arguments to his merits/demerits) for an industry but has stated he doesn't want his children essentially winning this tremendous lottery much the way Tolkien's child(ren?) didn't win the lotto. I don't view either as a travesty. Nobody is winning the lotto here... they get to join the ranks of the other 1,999,999,999 of 2,000,000,000 who have to earn their keep. That said, if someone were to suddenly give the Tolkien estate their lottery winnings I still would just shrug. The guy who did the work is dead, any sins committed against him aren't about to be fixed now.

You're definitely going to need to explain to me how five or six sentences represent "hell bent." I've added some more for you to help you gain some credibility on that statement. Also, take note that I'm saying I don't care about Tolkien's kids receiving money but I do care to defend my reasons as for why and I am interested in both Tolkien's works (to a much lesser degree than yourself) and the topic of inherited wealth.

[eugimon]

I gotta agree with Jenius. While it would have been nice to kick some of the massive earnings of LoTR films to the estate as a "thank you", the estate didn't really do anything, did they? I mean, it's not as if we're still hand copying books in little huts on the highlands of Scotland by candlelight, right?

Ultimately, i just don't care... I would care if JRR was still around and didn't get his just deserts, but his kid? Meh.

[Hurin]

I'm not sure why the phrase "hell-bent" has gotten you so butt-hurt to the point that you feel the need to demand "explanations" as to why I would use such a phrase. Though I do thank you for giving me "credibility" that I was so obviously lacking. Mighty generous of you.

I said that you're "hell-bent" on making sure that we all know that you don't care or are unsympathetic. It's always sorta odd to me that folks take time to post about how little they care about something. . . repeatedly. Most of the time, it's later revealed that they actually have some axe to grind or the topic actually does push one of their buttons (often in an unanticipated way). I'd say, based on your latest post, that this is the case here.

Now, I could just leave it at your stating that you do feel "jealous" of people who inherited their wealth. As I think that explains a lot right there. And, for the record, I've inherited no wealth personally (unless you count a currently still-kicking father and mother that were able to put a roof over my head and assist with college).

The problem with your repeated use of the lottery analogy is that lottery winnings are indeed random. They happen to someone out of the blue. . . not to someone whose fore-bearers earned the lottery winnings. Indeed, while speaking so much about who "DESERVES" what and how nobody should feel "entitled" to winning the "lottery," you don't ever even brush up against the concept that the folks who earned the money in the first place should have some say over what happens to it. There doesn't seem any room in your analysis for the hard work, ingenuity, or daring demonstrated on the part of the person who created all that wealth in the first place and what right he has to determine what should be done with it.

Your feelings on the matter seem to be all about the recipients and whether they are "deserving" or might be "spoiled". . . but to me that's largely irrelevant. It's much more about the wishes of the person who originally earned the wealth.

Or, to put it another way: Christopher Tolkien isn't entitled to winning the lottery. But his father (under normal circumstances) is entitled to see that the wealth he generated be passed on to those he loves.

Now, in this particular circumstance, Tolkien sold away something that eventually turned out to be worth billions. So Tolkien's family did not benefit from something that he created (ex nihilo) that was truly wonderful and valuable. Again, I consider that a shame. But, then again, I don't look at wealth as a zero-sum game where whatever wealth Tolkien generated must have necessarily come at the expense of someone else. So, had Tolkien not sold away the rights and the Tolkien Estate been able to live like kings off the proceeds of the movies, there would be no need for me to feel envy towards them.

But I think I now have a more full understanding of why you feel compelled to pop in just to say that you have no sympathy for someone like Christopher Tolkien. Though, to be honest, I guessed pretty accurately from the beginning.

Can we move on now?

[jenius]

I'm not sure why you insist on using over-blown rhetoric like "hell bent" and "butt-hurt" but hey, to each their own. It's nice though that you can dismiss opinions contrary to yours as being symptomatic of an argument that can't possibly be about the topic at hand... it's a neat trick. You think it's a shame, I don't. I'm sure Tolkien, being dead, doesn't care much about what happened to the money... that's the nature of being dead. He'd probably be thrilled, could he be capable, of how many people have access to his stories though... so that'd be cool. Had his family held the rights it's possible the movies might have never been made. Circling around, meh. Yes, we can move on.

[Twoducks]

Too bad Tolkien had to sell the rights, it was a bad move but he didn’t have a crystal ball. He needed money and got money for them and that is that.

Whatever the studio wins using the rights it bought belongs to the studio; after all, they took the risk of investing big money shooting three big @ss movies, not the Tolkien family.

His descendants won the lottery when they were born in his family and not in another. Christopher can scrap together his father's grocery lists and make a book about them to make some good money any day unlike the rest of the world.

That said, I hope the Hobbit does well and we get some epic Silmarillion trilogy or something. Difficult to translate into film but one can dream of some Melkor Vs Elve action

[Hurin]

I'm not sure why you insist on using over-blown rhetoric like "hell bent" and "butt-hurt" but hey, to each their own.

Your definition of "over-blown rhetoric" is a bit peculiar.

It's nice though that you can dismiss opinions contrary to yours as being symptomatic of an argument that can't possibly be about the topic at hand... it's a neat trick.

Actually, what you are doing is "dismissing an opinion contrary to yours." I wrote several paragraphs directly engaging and analyzing your opinions and giving some of my own. That's the opposite of "dismissing." On the other hand, your response is indeed dismissive as you do not address a single one of my points but instead try to pretend that I'm somehow engaging in "over-blown rhetoric" and disingenuously claim that I'm somehow "dismissing" your opinion. Though, I'm at a loss to understand what you're talking about when you say that I'm somehow "dismissing" your opinion as being "symptomatic" of an argument that "can't possibly be about the topic at hand?" Uh. . . we swerved into inherited wealth. You brought us there. . . and then you said. . .

but I do care to defend my reasons as for why and I am interested in both Tolkien's works (to a much lesser degree than yourself) and the topic of inherited wealth.

So, you brought up inherited wealth. . . expressed your views on it and how that relates back to your feelings (or lack thereof) regarding Christopher Tolkien. . . then even expressed interest in further discussing it. . . but when I directly addressed all of these points for several paragraphs and pointed out where you weren't taking certain things into account, your only response is to (somewhat lamely) assert that I'm pulling some "trick?" Yet, I haven't "dismissed" anything as being symptomatic of anything. I've addressed (in detail) what you've said. You don't seem to be comfortable with that.

Man, if you don't want to discuss it anymore, just say so.

[Wes]

From what I get from you jenius you're saying it doesn't matter who get's stinking rich off of the stuff because the creator can't. What I'm getting from Hurin is that he was pretty much cheated out of a very valuable commodity, because he got so little money where so much was made. I got to say I agree with Hurin on that.

[Phyrox]

All I gotta say is, who fukin' cares about the rights? Tolkien's family is doin' fine, whoever bought the multimedia rights is doin' fine. We get to enjoy the movies and read the books, so we're all fine too.

Jeezus.

That said, I never really dug the Hobbit so I can't say I'm that excited about this movie news.

Maybe it'll surprise me.

[eugimon]

okay, could someone explain to me how tolkein was "cheated" out of his rights to LoTR?

[jenius]

Jesus Hurin, you are just unabashedly contrarian aren't you? Can't let someone simply disagree with you without dragging it out for a few pages huh? Well sure, I'll play along. By the way, if you read our discussion thusfar aloud with a mock speech impediment (the kind the stereotypical Internet troll has) it is f'ing hilarious and I highly recommend you try it... might lighten your mood a bit.

Your definition of "over-blown rhetoric" is a bit peculiar.

Care to elaborate? Saying someone is "hell bent" after non-chantly disagreeing with you, and responding to your retorts, that smacks of over-blown rhetoric to me. If it seems like simply rational and realistic word-choice to you then I suggest perhaps opening a window and getting some sunlight.

Actually, what you are doing is "dismissing an opinion contrary to yours."

Oooh nah-uh, you did it first! Really, did you bring it to that level. Sigh, I thought you'd do better. I coulda sworn you said:

Most of the time, it's later revealed that they actually have some axe to grind or the topic actually does push one of their buttons (often in an unanticipated way). I'd say, based on your latest post, that this is the case here.

Now, here's my paraphrase of that "You're just disagreeing with me because really something other than my opinion is what's bothering you." Thus sparking my retort: It's nice... that you can dismiss opinions contrary to yours as being symptomatic of an argument that can't possibly be about the topic at hand... it's a neat trick." Hopefully when it's laid out in that context you can get a better vibe for where I was heading. I say "This whole thing with Tolkien's family doesn't matter." You say, "Yes it does, you just hate inheritance laws and that's the only reason you're disagreeing." I say, "Nah, I just don't think it matters."

Beyond that I thought, and think, the conversation is kind of done. This is a thread on The Hobbit, which will likely be a fantastic movie I'm sure we're all looking forward to. It's not a thread for Hurin and Jenius to debate inheritance, intellectual property law, or what have you. Hurin feels for Chris Tolkien, Jenius says too bad but them's the breaks. My intent was never to PROVE to you that you must be wrong, I was just voicing my opinion that it doesn't matter (to me). I'll gladly give whoever is making money off the Hobbit my dime and never think twice about how Chris Tolkien isn't getting a quarter of one percent of it.

[eriku]

Can't we all just sit down on the grassy hill, smoke some pipeweed and watch Gandalf's famous fireworks?

Edited December 20, 2007 by eriku

[eriku]

The greatest adventure is what lies ahead....

Carry on Lemmiwinks or you'll soon be dead!

Lemmiwinks will save this thread!

That reminds me I need to get the Mr. Slave figure just so I can get the little Lemmiwinks that comes with him.

[Hurin]

Jesus Hurin, you are just unabashedly contrarian aren't you? Can't let someone simply disagree with you without dragging it out for a few pages huh? Well sure, I'll play along. By the way, if you read our discussion thusfar aloud with a mock speech impediment (the kind the stereotypical Internet troll has) it is f'ing hilarious and I highly recommend you try it... might lighten your mood a bit.

I wasn't aware that trolls had speech impediments. I've never actually heard one speak. I'm surprised that you have.

Care to elaborate? Saying someone is "hell bent" after non-chantly disagreeing with you, and responding to your retorts, that smacks of over-blown rhetoric to me. If it seems like simply rational and realistic word-choice to you then I suggest perhaps opening a window and getting some sunlight.

My goodness! I didn't realize we were in the House of Lords. Such demands for decorum! Anyways, my point is that you are exquisitely sensitive and apparently very fragile. Either that or you'd rather talk about someone's word choice rather than actually address what they've said. Actually, it's pretty clear that the latter is the case.

Oooh nah-uh, you did it first! Really, did you bring it to that level. Sigh, I thought you'd do better.

Wow. Just wow. How intellectually dishonest --and sloppy-- of you. You accused me of dismissing your opinion while what you were engaging in was an obvious attempt to do just that. . . and then you actually have the temerity to write the above. Yet, in fact, I'm not saying "you did it first". . . I'm saying that I didn't do it at all. . . and that there is irony in that you are falsey accusing someone of what you're actually attempting to perpetrate at that very moment yourself.

What's that? You haven't been dismissive? You haven't ignored inconvenient points or arguments?

Well. . . let's summarize, shall we?

Hurin: It's a shame.

Jenius: No it's not! I don't get paid for my dad's work! I have no sympathy for him. Though I'd feel differently if it were the author himself.

Hurin: Actually (1) Tolkien himself did suffer under the arrangment. And (2) We're not talking about someone who was a grocery bagger. . . we're actually talking about something tangible. . . like an intellectual property, an invention, or a patent.

Jenius: (Ignoring both points and just moving on) I still have no sympathy. Hey! Let's talk about Bill Gates even though what he's doing with his money is entirely voluntary!

Hurin: Well, since you've ignored my prior points and just started talking about Bill Gates, I guess I should point out that he's not really relevant. But even if he were, he's still giving a sizable portion to his kids.

Jenius: Inheritance is like winning the lottery. I'm jealous of them. Now I'll merely assert that Bill Gates is relevant even though I totally fail to acknowledge your point that what he's doing with his money is entirely up to him, the person who earned it. And now I will demand that you justify your use of the word "hell-bent!"

Hurin: Inheritance isn't like winning the lottery. At no point do you make any mention of where the person who earned the money's will comes into play. Rather you focus only on the recipient and how deserving they are. Here, I'll go to great pains to explain why the will and rights of the original generator of the wealth is an important part of the consideration. Also, you might want to reconsider being jealous of someone like Christopher Tolkien since the wealth his father generated and that would have been given to him and his family didn't cost anyone else their wealth.

Jenius: I will now ignore those points as well and instead disingenuously accuse you of putting words in my mouth. Despite giving many indications that I have an issue with people inheriting wealth (indeed, outright admitting jealousy and never once saying a charitable thing about the recipients and in fact doing the opposite over several posts), I'll now play coy and accuse you of a cheap "trick" where you are merely dismissing my opinions when in fact, you have clearly addressed every point I've made while I've never actually addressed even one of yours. How's that for irony?

So. . . are you getting the point? Not once did you address any point I've made. Unless you count saying "it is so relevant" regarding Bill gates. Yet you somehow manage to accuse me of merely dismissing your arguments?

Now, here's my paraphrase of that "You're just disagreeing with me because really something other than my opinion is what's bothering you." Thus sparking my retort: It's nice... that you can dismiss opinions contrary to yours as being symptomatic of an argument that can't possibly be about the topic at hand... it's a neat trick." Hopefully when it's laid out in that context you can get a better vibe for where I was heading. I say "This whole thing with Tolkien's family doesn't matter." You say, "Yes it does, you just hate inheritance laws and that's the only reason you're disagreeing." I say, "Nah, I just don't think it matters."

Here's the problem with all of that: You're grossly mischaracterizing what you said. You claim that you just non-chalantly dropped in to say only "it doesn't matter" and that I had no basis to think that you might have a problem with inheritance. Yet. . . that's not nearly all you said. . . even initially. Your very first comment was: "I don't get paid for my dad's work, I have no sympathy for Chris Tolkien. If you were to tell me the original writer were being screwed my heart would bleed but otherwise who cares?"

Now, if you want to (disingenuously) claim that this does not betray some feelings about inheritance. . . or that this merely constitutes you saying "who cares?". . . then you're either being willfully obtuse or intellectually dishonest. That statement contains both what you think and gives a reason why you think it. It's not merely a statement of opinion. . . it's an argument. So, pardon me, but your entire paragraph above and this lame attempt you've been making in your last few posts at trying to paint me as putting words in your mouth is plainly horsesh*t.

And, as already pointed out, your apparent feelings on inheritance were only made more clear from that point onward. And, by the way, don't think others haven't noticed that you're intellectually dishonest enough to accuse me of putting words in your mouth while not actually disavowing the views that I've attributed to you based upon your own words. If you want to say that I've pegged you wrong, go ahead. . . but given what you've written already, that would be pretty difficult for you to do. . . which of course, is why you haven't done so. Again, that's intellectually dishonest.

But, again, I've made point after point in response to you. Not once have you actually substantively addressed even one of them. But instead, you just skip to some new, barely coherent, and sometimes totally irrelevant attempt at a valid point. . . which I then address. . . and then we rinse and repeat.

And now, quite honestly, you're just engaging in childish taunting. Because you've got nowhere else to go.

[jenius]

I wasn't aware that trolls had speech impediments.

Seriously, you have never heard someone mock Internet trolls? C'mon, seriously?

My goodness! I didn't realize we were in the House of Lords. Such demands for decorum! Anyways, my point is that you are exquisitely sensitive and apparently very fragile.

It's just never enough. I'm neither "exquisitely sensitive" (very odd adjective choice) nor very fragile. I just tend to recognize that when someone uses overblown rhetoric they really have far less to say then they'd have you believe...

So. . . are you getting the point? Not once did you address any point I've made. Unless you count saying "it is so relevant" regarding Bill gates. Yet you somehow manage to accuse me of merely dismissing your arguments?

Now, if you want to (disingenuously) claim that this does not betray some feelings about inheritance. . . or that this merely constitutes you saying "who cares?". . . then you're either being willfully obtuse or intellectually dishonest.

You're using the fact I said I'm jealous of lottery winners and people who make a ton of money from inheritance as some HUGE issue. You're not jealous of those people? What's the big deal? Again, if you want to get into an argument over entitlement, intellectual property law, etc why not just send me a PM?? I gave you a big "Meh, he didn't earn anything, who cares?" and you got all butt-hurt about it (like how I did that?). I also said that if the writer himself were being screwed I would care and tempered that with the acknowledgement we're all responsible for our own bad business deals. Where is the argument here that I'm getting so obtuse on?

So. . . are you getting the point? Not once did you address any point I've made.

What is your point? You think it's a shame, I don't. These are opinions.

And, by the way, don't think others haven't noticed that you're intellectually dishonest enough to accuse me of putting words in your mouth while not actually disavowing the views that I've attributed to you based upon your own words. If you want to say that I've pegged you wrong, go ahead. . . but given what you've written already, that would be pretty difficult for you to do. . . which of course, is why you haven't done so. Again, that's intellectually dishonest.

I'm not even sure I follow that all. I'm not really sure you've even pegged me wrong. I disagree with you. Sure, we can talk for days about why we disagree but why would we? Honestly though, I am completely lost on the meaning of those sentences so if it seems that this response is intellectually dishonest (?) then um, I'm sorry?

But, again, I've made point after point in response to you. Not once have you actually substantively addressed even one of them. But instead, you just skip to some new, barely coherent, and sometimes totally irrelevant attempt at a valid point. . . which I then address. . . and then we rinse and repeat.

Point after point? This discussion has been tiny, how many friggin' points have I dodged? For a man who is so in the right all the time thou doth protest entirely too much. If you honestly think you have some sort of valid argument that is going completely unaddressed and I am just totally skirting you and giving crazy answers then send me a PM, take as many lines as you need, and let's discuss the virtues of all of your points I seem to have missed here. I'm not unreasonable and honestly, maybe I did miss the direction you were heading in some reply. I'm not trying to be a jack@ss here, I'm just sticking to my opinion that I don't friggin' care about Chris Tolkien making money. That should be what we're talking about right? I'm not trying to convince you that you need to NOT care. If we just edited every post from you to say "I care about the Tolkien's not making money" and mine to say "I don't care" I'd be fine with that because somehow from that childish bickering we've managed to spill far too many words. Is that intellectually dishonest to say because so many of those words have been spilled by me? Is that ironic? I dunno. I stick by my argument though, I still don't care.

Please, I don't want to engage a mod in the derailing of an entire thread about a potentially really cool subject. If this absolutely needs to be fought more just send me a PM.

Edited December 20, 2007 by jenius

[Hurin]

I'm neither "exquisitely sensitive" (very odd adjective choice)

What's so odd? I quite like the construction. I'm surprised you haven't heard it used before.

You're using the fact I said I'm jealous of lottery winners and people who make a ton of money from inheritance as some HUGE issue.

You're setting up a straw man here and hoping nobody notices. Note that you say this in response to an argument of mine that makes absolutely no mention of your admission of jealousy. Very odd.

Rather, I pointed out that you were mischaracterizing your initial post (a charge which, as usual, you entirely ignored). I pointed out that you were trying to say that (a) you only said that you didn't care and therefore (b) I had no basis to assume any other positions on your part. And further, by extension ©, because you merely stated your opinion that you don't care, anyone who has taken issue with you in this thread is behaving poorly. But, of course, you were grossly mischaracterizing what you said, as I demonstrated in my post above (and you, again, ignored).

Again, you keep claiming that you just popped in to say that you aren't all that concerned about Christopher Tolkien. That would be a fine --if somewhat vapid-- opinion to state with nothing else to support it. And were it your only motivation to merely say "I don't care". . . you could have just left it at that and not felt compelled to post again. But that isn't at all that you said. You made an argument. You stated that you didn't care about Christopher Tolkien because you never got paid for the work your father did. In later posts, you went on to say that those who inherit wealth did nothing to earn or deserve it. And you expressed sentiments of jealousy towards those recipients. You also provided Bill Gates as a laudable example of someone not turning over his wealth (in its entirety) over to his kids. And so on. . .

Clearly, even from your first post, you're making the argument that Tolkien's family shouldn't feel entitled to benefit from the lucrative creation of their fore-bearer. How else is one to interpret your given reasons for why you have no sympathy for Christopher Tolkien?

I'm not even sure I follow that all. I'm not really sure you've even pegged me wrong. I disagree with you. Sure, we can talk for days about why we disagree but why would we? Honestly though, I am completely lost on the meaning of those sentences so if it seems that this response is intellectually dishonest (?) then um, I'm sorry?

You accused me of a "neat trick" where I dismissed your argument (I did no such thing) and merely attributed your views as being a "symptom" of your feelings regarding inherited wealth. Yet, as demonstrated above, you brought your views on inherited wealth into the discussion as justification for your lack of sympathy. If you feel that I have attributed those views to you unfairly, then say so and clarify what those view actually are. Otherwise, well. . . pipe down already.

But the fact of the matter is that you brought your views on inherited wealth into this discussion as justification/support for your position. So it's rather lame to now try to (a) say that addressing such reasoning is somehow a "neat trick" and (b) simultaneously (and dishonestly) assert that you just came in and merely said "I don't care." You said far more. And I addressed the parts of it that seemed flawed to me. Which brings us to. . .

Point after point? This discussion has been tiny, how many friggin' points have I dodged? For a man who is so in the right all the time thou doth protest entirely too much. If you honestly think you have some sort of valid argument that is going completely unaddressed and I am just totally skirting you and giving crazy answers. . .

I do. And you are.

Indeed, I provided a neat little summary up there in my last post. It follows a pretty clear-cut pattern: I make a point. You ignore it and move on to something else. I address what you said. You ignore it and move on to something else. . . But just for brevity's sake. . . here's an abbreviated list:

1. Tolkien himself was affected (you said this would "make your heart bleed." Yet when it was pointed out, you ignored it).
2. Your point about not benefiting from your father's work isn't really relevant because we're talking about tangible inventions, intellectual properties, etc. Not an hourly wage at the local Jiffy Lube.
3. Your reference to Bill Gates isn't relevant because he's voluntarily not giving all his wealth to his progeny. Whereas we're talking about a far different situation here.
4. You only address the recipients and to what they should be entitled. At no point do you mention the rights and wishes of the person who generated the wealth.
5. Wealth is rarely a zero-sum game. Especially in the case of Christopher Tolkien (were he to have inherited the rights normally). The wealth generated by Tolkien did not come at the expense of anyone else. . . so why be jealous?

Each and every one of those points was utterly ignored. Well, you did manage to muster a meek "it is too relevant" regarding Gates but failed to address my point otherwise (substantively). Heck even since I compiled that summary in my last post, there are already a whole bunch of new inconvenient things that you conveniently fail to acknowledge. Such as where you taunted me and accused me of saying: "Oooh nah-uh, you did it first!" But, as I pointed out in my last post, I never even came close to any such childishness but was rather pointing out that I never engaged in the behavior you attributed to me. Which is far different than saying "well, I did it! But you did it first!". . . but that didn't stop you from saying in your haughty way: "Really, did you bring it to that level. Sigh, I thought you'd do better." So not only do you engage in childish taunting, but you do so while addressing something I never said.

Honestly, it comes down to this. You made it clear that you have no sympathy for Christopher Tolkien. And (despite your current bizarre contentions) you gave reasons why you felt that way. As these reasons fell under increasing scrutiny and did not fare well, you decided to focus on word choice, taunting me, and eventually just began to dishonestly mischaracterize what you've been saying up to this point. . . probably in the hopes that I will notice. But since I'm still here, typing away and pointing it out, you're now saying: Hey! I'm a good guy! Let's take it to PM.

Well, it's funny. . . nothing has been stopping you from PMing me this whole time. Indeed, you could have sent that last post to me via PM. Why didn't you do so? You're certainly welcome to send any follow-up to this post to me via PM!

[Twoducks]

For the love of God!

Jenius, forged about Hurin. Please.

Hurin, if it still hurts you so much that someone said that he doesn't care if Cristopher isn't getting paid for the work other people are doing with the rights they bought from his father, then PM him and save us more rants.

And, BTW, the Tolkiens ARE seeing money from the whole experience. All the other work Tolkien has that he didn't licence away has gotten TONS of free publicity thanks to the movies. And getting half the world Tolkien horny isn't cheap. No one would think of asking the Tolkiens to pay if New Line's investment in the films had failed.

Now, if you have some Hobbit lore, then please share, if not use the PM button

Back on topic:

I loved this movie version as a kid. Saw it a hundred times on the Disney channel when I didn't have a clue about english. Remmember it being very dark and scary... and almost a musical. Don't know if it has aged well, but a movie that could make me feel the same would be great.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Twoducks

[jenius]

Tolkien himself was affected (you said this would "make your heart bleed." Yet when it was pointed out, you ignored it).

I said two things, 1) If the man himself were affected my heart would bleed for him but I think we can both agree that's completely irrelevant when discussing how little I care about the state of Chris Tolkien's wealth. 2) I said we're all responsible for our own bad business decisions.

Your point about not benefiting from your father's work isn't really relevant because we're talking about tangible inventions, intellectual properties, etc. Not an hourly wage at the local Jiffy Lube.

My point was that Chris Tolkien did nothing to earn any money, it was his father who did it. Furthermore, you knew I felt this way from my saying my heart would go out to the actual writer but that's pretty much it.

Your reference to Bill Gates isn't relevant because he's voluntarily not giving all his wealth to his progeny. Whereas we're talking about a far different situation here.

I was simply pointing out that there are kids all over the world not getting rich off their parents work, even kids you would swear ought to, so why be upset about Chris Tolkien? There is no grave injustice here, a bad business decision was made. No one stole anything. Perhaps this wasn't the best argument to bring up though. Obviously you full-heartedly disagree. That's cool. I am okay with you not liking the analogy and disagreeing with it. I'll accept it's imperfect.

You only address the recipients and to what they should be entitled. At no point do you mention the rights and wishes of the person who generated the wealth.

This was addressed by my cursory "he doesn't care, he's dead." Besides that, he made the deal didn't he? I also said he'd be thrilled to see how wide an audience his works have reached so who knows how much he'd be kicking himself over what went to his child. There's no way he imagined all this wealth being generated by his story when he died.

Wealth is rarely a zero-sum game. Especially in the case of Christopher Tolkien (were he to have inherited the rights normally). The wealth generated by Tolkien did not come at the expense of anyone else. . . so why be jealous?

I'm jealous of people who win the lottery or are otherwised gifted or bequeathed huge sums of moolah. I'm sorry if this exposes my deep character flaw of enjoying money and the things it can buy.

Okay, so now we can both say we're done right? I asked you to send the PM because you were finding more issues with my statement of "I don't care" then I find with your statement that you do. My PM to you would still just consist of "Meh, I don't care" and I imagine at this point you'd take that as goading.

So again, if you see everything above, and still think we need to discuss it further, please PM me about it. I'm not trying to egg you on in anyway, I'm just trying to clear the air and I think other MWers would appreciate us moving the discussion (if it requires to be discussed further).

PS - one of the South Park characters has an older sister whose speech impediment is almost the typical Internet troll speech impediment. If you haven't heard it you should look it up because it makes reading forum posts sometimes out loud just way too damn funny.

[Hurin]

Hurin, if it still hurts you so much that someone said that he doesn't care if Cristopher isn't getting paid for the work other people are doing with the rights they bought from his father, then PM him and save us more rants.

The irony is that I don't really care all that much myself. And, in fact, despite your simplification, I have no problem with people disagreeing or having "no problem" with the Tolkien estate's situation. Indeed, those that have said (essentially): "Meh, he has enough money" or "There are bigger things in my life to worry about". . . I've let be. . . because I largely agree.

What caught my eye about Jenius's post was not only that he took the time to post that he had "no sympathy". . . but then also went on to state a reason. Now, first, people are seldom motivated to post about something that they really don't care about. And the reason he gave for his "lack of sympathy" seemed indicative to me of his real impetus for posting. So I pointed out what I considered to be a flaw in his reasoning. Now, if his only point was that he just didn't really care either way, or that Christopher Tolkien already has enough money, or that there's more important things in the world to worry about, you'd think he'd just say: "Ah, good point I guess. . . but I still really don't care." But instead, he continued to put forward his feelings about inherited wealth. Only to then begin obfuscating and somehow accusing me of a "neat trick" when I attributed his opinion about the Tolkien situation to his underpinning (and increasingly obvious) views about inherited wealth. Saying that this is a "neat trick" seems pretty odd considering he originally stated those views himself in order to support his opinion on the Tolkien situation. Yet I'm not supposed to link them?

But really, this all stemmed from the fact that I was intrigued because I've rarely before seen anyone "not care" so strenuously or repeatedly.

Anyways. . . to spare you and others from further thread derailment, I'll be moving these posts with apologies to those who would like their Hobbit thread "inheritance argument-free."

But, on to Jenius. . .

I said two things, 1) If the man himself were affected my heart would bleed for him but I think we can both agree that's completely irrelevant when discussing how little I care about the state of Chris Tolkien's wealth. 2) I said we're all responsible for our own bad business decisions.

Again, as I said before you even got involved: "The law is the law." Of course everyone is responsible for their bad business decisions. But that doesn't mean that you can't feel pity or take regretful note of the circumstances under which a "bad business decision" was made or even forced upon someone (by circumstances). Nor does this really address why you feel nothing for Christopher Tolkien. Surely if you feel bad for Tolkien himself, and Tolkien felt bad that his children would not see the benefit of his works in other media, then you'd think some of that "heart bleeding" sympathy would filter down to his progeny. Yet, in your case it doesn't. Your sympathy just stops there. And you've made it pretty apparent why: Your views on inheritance essentially put a "brake" on your sympathy at that point. But more on this later. . .

My point was that Chris Tolkien did nothing to earn any money, it was his father who did it. Furthermore, you knew I felt this way from my saying my heart would go out to the actual writer but that's pretty much it.

Note here that you still fail to address my point while merely repeating your own (that C. Tolkien didn't earn anything himself). My point was that we're not talking about earnings, or wages, or "benefit" from what your father did. We're talking about ownership of something (in Tolkien's case, an intellectual property) and whether said ownership can/should be passed down to family members (inheritance). Indeed, this isn't just about Tolkien. . . I didn't earn my father's car. . . but do I get it when he passes? How about his house? This is the real point, which you conveniently continue to avoid. "Bad business decisions" and the Tolkien situation aside, you still fail to make a distinction between the recipient failing to "earn" anything and/or be "deserving" and the right of someone to pass their property on to whomever they choose. So your point that Christopher Tolkien didn't "earn" what his father would have bequeathed to him is, again, not very relevant unless you actually want to finally argue that people shouldn't be allowed to inherit property.

I was simply pointing out that there are kids all over the world not getting rich off their parents work, even kids you would swear ought to, so why be upset about Chris Tolkien? There is no grave injustice here, a bad business decision was made. No one stole anything. Perhaps this wasn't the best argument to bring up though. Obviously you full-heartedly disagree. That's cool. I am okay with you not liking the analogy and disagreeing with it. I'll accept it's imperfect.

Well, again, nobody is saying anything was stolen. And nobody is taking issue with the fact that a bad business decision was made. Those are straw men you keep repeatedly setting up. But I do take note that you seem to bop back and forth a little too freely between "he (CT) didn't earn anything" and "it was a bad business decision." The first seems to indicate that you have a problem with inherited wealth. The latter seems to indicate that you accept that wealth can/should be inherited, but that "the law is the law." But these two views aren't easily reconciled. So which one is it? If you want to argue the latter, that's fine. As I've said, I agree that CT isn't legally entitled to anything. But it's the former view (that CT didn't earn it) that both seems hostile to the idea of inherited wealth and seems to make you immune to any sense of sympathy for CT's situation. So, in some sense, you are satisfied that Tolkien managed to inadvertently screw his family out of immeasurable wealth, because it seems to jive with your views on inheritance and how those who receive inherited wealth are not "deserving." Yet, oddly, when I try to point this out, I'm engaging in some "neat trick."

This was addressed by my cursory "he doesn't care, he's dead." Besides that, he made the deal didn't he? I also said he'd be thrilled to see how wide an audience his works have reached so who knows how much he'd be kicking himself over what went to his child. There's no way he imagined all this wealth being generated by his story when he died.

Saying: "He doesn't care, he's dead" in no way addresses (with any substance) the point that the will and rights of the property holder (again, I'm talking in general here and not about Tolkien in particular) should also come into play. Indeed, if I may engage in some light hyperbole: It's a bit disconcerting to me that you consider the death of an affronted party to somehow mitigate all ethical concerns. Indeed, by that logic, we can give a deceased person's wealth to whomever we want. After all, the owner is now dead and their progeny are totally undeserving, right? Actually, now that i think about it, that does seem to accurately represent your point, though you've been loathe to just come right out and say it: Progeny have no rights to the wealth of their fore-bearer.

But obviously, we can't go much further there without also exploring your views on property rights (etc.). Obviously, someone who takes issue with the concept of private property will have no problem with there being no means of someone passing their wealth on to the person of their choosing. But, seeing how difficult it has been up to this point to just get you to own up to your own views on inheritance and how they inform your so emphatically and repeatedly stated "lack of sympathy" for someone like CT, I'd be entirely loathe to strike up yet another "debate" with you as I don't think you communicate your views in good faith or with adequate intellectual honesty.

I'm not trying to egg you on in anyway

No, you're not now. But you definitely did your share of taunting and flame-baiting initially. So this "I'm a good guy who just wants to take this to PM. Why are so mean!?!" act is a bit hard to swallow. And oddly, my PM inbox remains empty. I find it intriguing that you keep replying here publicly and then asking me to respond privately. As always, my PM inbox is open to all. I find it interesting that you still have made no use of it despite your repeated assertions that you'd like to take this to PM.

[Hurin]

Actually, the more that I think about it. . . were I not an Admin, the original thread might have been locked by now and each of us given a warning to stop derailing things with an increasingly off-topic argument.

But I did promise to move the posts out of the thread so that it wouldn't be locked or further derailed. Yet why should we get our own thread to just continue an argument when the average member can't ask for or be granted such a thing?

So, to me the only fair thing is to move the posts, and lock this new thread. Normally, I'd be wary of locking a thread after getting the last word. But since my esteemed partner in derailment here has repeatedly called for this discussion to be moved to PM, this should give him ample motivation to actually do so.

Apologies to all for the "Hobbit Thread" derailment.

[jenius]

As for those "encouraging" you. . . keep in mind that people will know you by the company you keep. In threads like this that take this turn, it has always been quite common for those who haven't fared well in prior arguments/disagreements with me to take the opportunity to take a pot-shot or two. Doesn't trouble me much. Especially given the hypocrisy of it.

OH c'mon, you created a new thread, gave yourself the last word, locked the thread and then claim I was the one that wasn't doing well? I didn't go locking any threads on you. Now you're bringing up that ultimately cowardly act, not me, to prove I have a bone to pick with you? If I had a bone to pick don't you think I'd be the one bringing that up instead of consistently encouraging you and DND to move on? Point out where I'm wrong in this one for me. Have you not been long-winded and made all your posts in the hope of subtly encouraging more arguments?

Misterryno, this isn't high school, even if Hurin thinks you're going to get stuck in a "click" with me I wouldn't pay it much mind. We're all practically anonymous Internet entities. Feel free to be on "my side" today and call me an idiot tomorrow... I won't go thinking you're backstabbing our click (in that particular example, I would just wonder how you could be so wrong )

[Hurin]

OH c'mon, you created a new thread, gave yourself the last word, locked the thread and then claim I was the one that wasn't doing well?

No, the contents of the thread itself is evidence of you not "doing well." When you weren't whining about word choice, you were coyly trying not to have your point of view pinned down. It took a very long time for you to even lay out your point of view because you preferred to take issue with people gleaning your point of view from what you had already said (as was done accurately, btw). You repeatedly mischaracterized what you had said (just like your new friend) in order to sway things, and when you were called on it, you began childishly taunting. . . until. . . finally. . . with nowhere else to go and after repeated requests, you actually addressed some points. . . and revealed that all the earlier "gleaning" that had been done was essentially accurate.

I didn't go locking any threads on you.

Fine, it's open again. Have at it. But your tone sure was different in your PM to me shortly thereafter.

Now you're bringing up that ultimately cowardly act

LOL. I explained my rationale for locking it. You had no complaints at the time. And, indeed, as I said, you had been repeatedly telling everyone in that thread that you wanted to take it to PM. Yet you were never willing to be the first to do so. So why would you be upset if I locked it? You could just PM me. Could it be that you're one of those types who constantly has to get the last word even as you hypocritically scream at everyone else that they should be PMing you their responses?

If I had a bone to pick don't you think I'd be the one bringing that up instead of consistently encouraging you and DND to move on?

Again, this is another perfect example of you being dishonest and just recharacterizing your past statements to paint you in a better light now in hopes that nobody will actually remembe what you have said. I remember:

I refuse to believe Hurin took a simple post and made a huge deal out of it. That's just crazy talk.

I get it, so you're BOTH melodramatic. Problem solved.

And some will keep talking about it long after it should be let go in long-winded and unnecessary responses subtly meant to encourage more arguing...

Which ones of those were actually encouraging us to move on? And which ones were subtle, sarcastic digs? They all look like "fuel for the fire" to me.

Point out where I'm wrong in this one for me. Have you not been long-winded and made all your posts in the hope of subtly encouraging more arguments?

You interpret them that way because you don't value honesty or taking responsibility for your own words. I naively think that people should own up to what they've said instead of ignoring it or disingenuously recasting them as soon as they become inconvenient for them or uncomfortable. When people who are intellectually honest take part in a disagreement, usually some form of understanding can be reached. That's not the case here (or in our prior discussion) because you and those like you don't actually own up to your words or what they actually mean. Instead, you constantly obfuscate, dodge, and weave as soon as things start getting uncomfortable.

Misterryno, this isn't high school, even if Hurin thinks you're going to get stuck in a "click" with me I wouldn't pay it much mind. We're all practically anonymous Internet entities.

That's the problem. I think you would take fairness, honesty, and the intellectual rigor of your points of view more seriously if you weren't anonymous.

Feel free to be on "my side" today and call me an idiot tomorrow... I won't go thinking you're backstabbing our click (in that particular example, I would just wonder how you could be so wrong )

Well, note that you're the first to bring up "clicks" [sic] and "high school." I merely pointed out that I wasn't suprised by your commenting here given our recent discussion. And that he should possibly consider that it is less about what he's saying than it is about some animus on your part. Perhaps I'm wrong. But then again, considering your outburst here, perhaps I'm not. Heh. . . "cowardly". . . how long have you been harbouring that?

[jenius]

Woohoo, I will have to get back to this when I'm off of work! for a quick shot now, other than the obviously mocking you in the first sarcastic quote (which is also funny to anyone who reads your posts and sees what you did here) the other two clearly is an effort at saying "Jeebus guys quit your whining" and both call it as it is in a pretty straight forward fashion.

I merely pointed out that I wasn't suprised by your commenting here given our recent discussion. And that he should possibly consider that it is less about what he's saying than it is about some animus on your part.

I was pretty sure you warned him who he associated with:

keep in mind that people will know you by the company you keep.

as if this were high school and we were all in clix. How intellectually dishonest <TM> are you to then ignore that you made this seem like high school only to then accuse me of first being the one to do so?

perhaps I'm not. Heh. . . "cowardly". . . how long have you been harbouring that?

Your actions just struck me as cowardly... how long have you had this thread bookmarked? LOL... had I thought we'd ever see this thread again I would have had a new response ready to go! d'oh!

[misterryno]

Jenius,

I am down to take anyones side that's not a prick. You and I have had our spats in the past as well as me and a few others....and everyone so far I still talk to. I think Hurin is just a big baby and is doing exactly what he said he would'nt do and using his Mod powers to move things and lock things and all that. If this guy thinks that he is all knowing and all that...then I will be MORE THAN HAPPY to put him in his place in real life if I ever have the chance (hint hint MW Con 08) BE THERE OR BE SQUARE!

[miriya]

J

...then I will be MORE THAN HAPPY to put him in his place in real life if I ever have the chance (hint hint MW Con 08) BE THERE OR BE SQUARE!

Damn! Them be fightin' wordz!!!!

As long as you are both naked and fighting in either jello or mud then I will happily video record it.

Edited March 4, 2008 by miriya

[misterryno]

Damn! Them be fightin' wordz!!!!

As long as you are both naked and fighting in either jello or mud then I will happily video record it.

Yes those are fightin' wordz....

Well.. ....OKAY!!! For you Miriya.....I prefer Orange or Strawberry Jello though

[jenius]

Simmer... MWcon attendance is going to plummet to just Miriya and a tripod if all this naked grudge match talk continues.

Edited March 4, 2008 by jenius

[misterryno]

Simmer... MWcon attendance is going to plummet to just Miriya and a tripod if all this naked grudge match continues.

how'd you know tripod is my nickname

[Hurin]

Jenius,

I am down to take anyones side that's not a prick. You and I have had our spats in the past as well as me and a few others....and everyone so far I still talk to. I think Hurin is just a big baby and is doing exactly what he said he would'nt do and using his Mod powers to move things and lock things and all that. If this guy thinks that he is all knowing and all that...then I will be MORE THAN HAPPY to put him in his place in real life if I ever have the chance (hint hint MW Con 08) BE THERE OR BE SQUARE!

Interesting. So, again, you had nowhere rehetorically to go in your argument or point of view. . . so now you're just blatantly calling names and possibly even threatening other members (I'll leave that to the interpretation of the staff). Jeez dude. . . I note that you began taking this tac just as soon as it was pointed out that you weren't being terribly honest regarding your mischaracterization of your prior posts. As usual, rather than acknowledge it, you just starting getting more and more personal and begin the flippant, taunting posts. Again, typical.

It's sad that you can't just "put me in my place" now with some well-reasoned words. Instead, we get veiled references to physical violence. How utterly pathetic.

I was pretty sure you warned him who he associated with. . . as if this were high school and we were all in clix. How intellectually dishonest <TM> are you to then ignore that you made this seem like high school only to then accuse me of first being the one to do so?

I concede that I did say that he would be known by the company he keeps. So you've got a valid point there and I had overlooked it since the rest of the paragraph went on to focus on a different concept entirely. However, in your rush to try to paint me with my own brush, you overreach in that I don't really think that my warning someone that their "supporter" may not actually have their best interests or their point of view at heart (but is rather motivated by a prior grudge) is really about cliques or "hight school." That's your interpretation that you're retroactively placing back on me.

As for "intellectual dishonesty". . . both of you practice it in spades without even knowing it. Jenius, for example, loves to say that what he said doesn't necessarily mean something. . . but then spends the next several posts dodging any attempt to get him to actually then say what he did mean. Until finally, we discover that we pretty much had him pegged all along.

Too many of you guys treat arguments and disagreements as a game. Instead of stating your position and marshalling reason and evidence to back it up, addressing conflicting views, and reasonably and honestly debating the merits of each point, you seem to think the point is to avoid having your position explicitly spelled out or just wishing away your points when they are no longer convenient for you. And whenever these avoidance techniques eventually fail you, then you just start bashing the guy who's finally cornered you or pointed out the flaws in what you've argued or the dishonest way you're now recharacterizing it.

All of that is very clearly on display above. Repeatedly.

Best,

H

Edit:

Here's another good example. Jenius would have us believe that he had only posted repeatedly for the purpose of "consistently encouraging you and DND to move on?" When I quote himself back to him and point out that the content of his posts doesn't match that characterization. . . without skipping a beat, --while just dimissing the snarkiest/sarcastic/aggressive quote-- he merely re-fashions his characterization of his prior posts as "Jeebus guys quit your whining" as though that was how he originally characterized them. That's essentially just trying to subtly "move the goalposts" by not acknowledging that there is actually a distinct difference between encouraging people not to fight and stating: "Jeebus guys quit your whining." It's classic misdirection and yet another in a long line of examples of how you can't have a reasonable, honest debate because you have no interest in actually owning up to your words or being honest regarding their meaning.

Edited March 5, 2008 by Hurin

[bsu legato]

Jesus....take it to PM, ladies. Stop wasting MW bandwidth on this shite. Every time one of you replies to this thread, it pushes another, potentially more interesting and far less annoying thread off of the front page.*

* and don't bother pointing out the irony of me replying to this thread and doing the same thing.

[misterryno]

Jesus....take it to PM, ladies. Stop wasting MW bandwidth on this shite. Every time one of you replies to this thread, it pushes another, potentially more interesting and far less annoying thread off of the front page.*

* and don't bother pointing out the irony of me replying to this thread and doing the same thing.

You are absolutly correct bsu, and I apologize that you have had to deal with this. Maybe others will apologize to for their part in this. But they will prob. instead give some long long long drawn out speech...which seems to be the popular thing these days . Again bsu...you are right. We are bickering like biatches.

[JsARCLIGHT]

OK Hurin, I'm going over your helmet.

This is me locking this thread and not Hurin. If anyone has to blame someone, blame me. This serves no real purpose at this point other than as a dick measuring contest.