home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!kimbark!mss2
- From: mss2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
- Subject: Re: The ARKENSTONE
- Message-ID: <1993Jan21.071025.8203@midway.uchicago.edu>
- Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
- Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
- Organization: University of Chicago
- References: <C164D5.5yM@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> <20JAN199321170245@juliet.caltech.edu> <1jlg63INNqrt@gap.caltech.edu>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:10:25 GMT
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <1jlg63INNqrt@gap.caltech.edu> damiens@cco.caltech.edu (Damien Sullivan) writes:
- >In article <1993Jan20.014144.14531@midway.uchicago.edu> mss2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
-
- >After all, there are more
- >>precious stones in the earth than the one remaining Silmaril, and the
- > Come again?!!? This is the SILMARIL! Containing the last light
- >of the Two Trees in pure form (leave the Sun and Moon out of this), and
- >which is of a type with the Morning/Evening/Messenger/whatever star,
- >Earendil. (I'm not saying that the Arkenstone==the Silmaril, just
- >poiniting out that there WOULDN'T be any stone more valuable.)
-
- My phrasing was ambiguous. I meant it in the sense that there
- are other stones, not more valuable ones. I.e. there are more
- *precious stones*, not *more precious* stones, if you see what I mean.
- Sorry 'bout that. I'll freely grant that a Silmaril is more valuable
- (if only in the number of lives paid for it), though since none is
- likely to go on the auction block the question of comparative value is
- sort of moot.
-
- Mike
- --
- Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS "I decline utterly to be impartial
- mss2@midway.uchicago.edu as between the fire brigade and the fire."
- mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu -- Winston Churchill, July 7, 1926
- mschiffer@aal.itd.umich.edu
-