|
On December 22 2011 07:37 Boonbag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 07:36 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:34 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:34 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:33 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:28 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:21 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:18 Whitewing wrote:On December 22 2011 07:14 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:08 rapidash88 wrote:
I'm guessing the movie is going to involve Gandalf and the wizards more when it comes to the Necromancer? (AKA Sauron) that would be coooolio Sauron is a Mayar, like Gandalf There are no *necromancers* in tolkien's world You need to reread the books, during the events of the Hobbit, a powerful dark wizard known as The Necromancer took over the abandoned fortress of Dol Goldur in southern Mirkwood. The council of the wise later found out that it is was in fact Sauron. Only deads under sauron's influence are the 9 kings that are bounded to him through the rings, and they're not exactly dead they're more like immortal ghosts realm of the dead are under valar's influence Sauron is a corrupted Valar hand, not a wizard lol He's a spirit, like gandalf, just his master used to be morgoth before he was vanquished edit : pretty sure sauron is still asleep when hobbit takes place Sigh. No. In the Hobbit, he is called the Necromancer, and the reason Gandalf is away all the time is that he is driving him out from Dol Guldur together with the council. At least do some research before refuting the same thing twice. See for instance the Wikipedia article on Sauron under "The Necromancer of Dol Guldur". you should go read the article for yourself Sauron didn't reincarn and never did until the end of lotr that's his presence they drove out it's different It was still Sauron... no it's different, its the will, not Sauron as in the 2nd age war But it was still Sauron. He did not have the same form, but it was him. Bah forget it.. there's a big difference edit : he didn't have a "form" that's the whole point, and thus, that's not "him", but only "his will" it's a pretty big distinction in middle earth's history / lore
Then I don't understand why the appendix of Lotr (the one that Tolkien wrote) calls this being for "Sauron" also at the the time of the events of the Hobbit. See for instance the timeline at 2850, 2939 and 2941.
"2850 - Gandalf enters Dol Guldur and confirms that the evil thereby found is indeed Sauron returned"
And by "form" i meant manifestation. He had some kind of recognizable presence. It didn't have to be physical.
|
On December 22 2011 07:48 Maginor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 07:37 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:36 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:34 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:34 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:33 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:28 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:21 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:18 Whitewing wrote:On December 22 2011 07:14 Boonbag wrote:
[quote]
Sauron is a Mayar, like Gandalf
There are no *necromancers* in tolkien's world You need to reread the books, during the events of the Hobbit, a powerful dark wizard known as The Necromancer took over the abandoned fortress of Dol Goldur in southern Mirkwood. The council of the wise later found out that it is was in fact Sauron. Only deads under sauron's influence are the 9 kings that are bounded to him through the rings, and they're not exactly dead they're more like immortal ghosts realm of the dead are under valar's influence Sauron is a corrupted Valar hand, not a wizard lol He's a spirit, like gandalf, just his master used to be morgoth before he was vanquished edit : pretty sure sauron is still asleep when hobbit takes place Sigh. No. In the Hobbit, he is called the Necromancer, and the reason Gandalf is away all the time is that he is driving him out from Dol Guldur together with the council. At least do some research before refuting the same thing twice. See for instance the Wikipedia article on Sauron under "The Necromancer of Dol Guldur". you should go read the article for yourself Sauron didn't reincarn and never did until the end of lotr that's his presence they drove out it's different It was still Sauron... no it's different, its the will, not Sauron as in the 2nd age war But it was still Sauron. He did not have the same form, but it was him. Bah forget it.. there's a big difference edit : he didn't have a "form" that's the whole point, and thus, that's not "him", but only "his will" it's a pretty big distinction in middle earth's history / lore Then I don't understand why the appendix of Lotr (the one that Tolkien wrote) calls this being for "Sauron" also at the the time of the events of the Hobbit. See for instance the timeline at 2850, 2939 and 2941. "2850 - Gandalf enters Dol Guldur and confirms that the evil thereby found is indeed Sauron returned"
it's the will's influence of the sleeping mayar that has no more shape or form
whole thing about Sauron plot(s) in lotr/3rd age is him trying to get back into his old shape and getting enough power to come back sorta
hell, his "will/mind" isn't even complete without the One, so, it's reaaaaally far away from 'Sauron' as in what he really is
edit : the misleading thing is that 3rd age protagonists are pussies and weak sauce, always scared about every single thing, so they make things appear "big", when they're far from actually beeing "big"
just like screaming "it's sauron omg !" when it's a half assed mid awaken nazgul without any backup that guards an abandonned gate at some remote non strategic location
|
On December 22 2011 07:53 Boonbag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 07:48 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:37 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:36 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:34 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:34 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:33 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:28 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:21 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:18 Whitewing wrote:
[quote]
You need to reread the books, during the events of the Hobbit, a powerful dark wizard known as The Necromancer took over the abandoned fortress of Dol Goldur in southern Mirkwood. The council of the wise later found out that it is was in fact Sauron. Only deads under sauron's influence are the 9 kings that are bounded to him through the rings, and they're not exactly dead they're more like immortal ghosts realm of the dead are under valar's influence Sauron is a corrupted Valar hand, not a wizard lol He's a spirit, like gandalf, just his master used to be morgoth before he was vanquished edit : pretty sure sauron is still asleep when hobbit takes place Sigh. No. In the Hobbit, he is called the Necromancer, and the reason Gandalf is away all the time is that he is driving him out from Dol Guldur together with the council. At least do some research before refuting the same thing twice. See for instance the Wikipedia article on Sauron under "The Necromancer of Dol Guldur". you should go read the article for yourself Sauron didn't reincarn and never did until the end of lotr that's his presence they drove out it's different It was still Sauron... no it's different, its the will, not Sauron as in the 2nd age war But it was still Sauron. He did not have the same form, but it was him. Bah forget it.. there's a big difference edit : he didn't have a "form" that's the whole point, and thus, that's not "him", but only "his will" it's a pretty big distinction in middle earth's history / lore Then I don't understand why the appendix of Lotr (the one that Tolkien wrote) calls this being for "Sauron" also at the the time of the events of the Hobbit. See for instance the timeline at 2850, 2939 and 2941. "2850 - Gandalf enters Dol Guldur and confirms that the evil thereby found is indeed Sauron returned" it's the will's influence of the sleeping mayar that has no more shape or form whole thing about Sauron plot(s) in lotr/3rd age is him trying to get back into shap and getting enough power to come back sorta hell, his "will/mind" isn't even complete without the One, so, it's reaaaaally far away from 'Sauron' as in what he really is
Yes, I never claimed otherwise. I just stated my right to call it Sauron since that is what Tolkien does consistently in the Lotr appendix. I would therefore claim that the name Sauron is tied to the core of the being and not the manifestation. What we saw in the 2nd age was one manifestation of Sauron. What we see in the 3rd age is another, weaker and different one.
|
On December 22 2011 07:55 Maginor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 07:53 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:48 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:37 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:36 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:34 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:34 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:33 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:28 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:21 Boonbag wrote:
[quote]
Only deads under sauron's influence are the 9 kings that are bounded to him through the rings, and they're not exactly dead they're more like immortal ghosts
realm of the dead are under valar's influence
Sauron is a corrupted Valar hand, not a wizard lol
He's a spirit, like gandalf, just his master used to be morgoth before he was vanquished
edit : pretty sure sauron is still asleep when hobbit takes place Sigh. No. In the Hobbit, he is called the Necromancer, and the reason Gandalf is away all the time is that he is driving him out from Dol Guldur together with the council. At least do some research before refuting the same thing twice. See for instance the Wikipedia article on Sauron under "The Necromancer of Dol Guldur". you should go read the article for yourself Sauron didn't reincarn and never did until the end of lotr that's his presence they drove out it's different It was still Sauron... no it's different, its the will, not Sauron as in the 2nd age war But it was still Sauron. He did not have the same form, but it was him. Bah forget it.. there's a big difference edit : he didn't have a "form" that's the whole point, and thus, that's not "him", but only "his will" it's a pretty big distinction in middle earth's history / lore Then I don't understand why the appendix of Lotr (the one that Tolkien wrote) calls this being for "Sauron" also at the the time of the events of the Hobbit. See for instance the timeline at 2850, 2939 and 2941. "2850 - Gandalf enters Dol Guldur and confirms that the evil thereby found is indeed Sauron returned" it's the will's influence of the sleeping mayar that has no more shape or form whole thing about Sauron plot(s) in lotr/3rd age is him trying to get back into shap and getting enough power to come back sorta hell, his "will/mind" isn't even complete without the One, so, it's reaaaaally far away from 'Sauron' as in what he really is Yes, I never claimed otherwise. I just stated my right to call it Sauron since that is what Tolkien does consistently in the Lotr appendix.
Lotr / Tolkien lore have alot of incoherencies
Like the full powered up witch king beeing murdered in plain sight by a pubescent hobbit with a 3rd age human chick
Well the hobbit had one nice dagger tho
edit : nono 2nd age is true sauron, after beeing defeated he never came back, he's not taking "different forms"
|
On December 22 2011 07:59 Boonbag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 07:55 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:53 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:48 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:37 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:36 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:34 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:34 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:33 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:28 Maginor wrote:
[quote]
Sigh. No. In the Hobbit, he is called the Necromancer, and the reason Gandalf is away all the time is that he is driving him out from Dol Guldur together with the council. At least do some research before refuting the same thing twice. See for instance the Wikipedia article on Sauron under "The Necromancer of Dol Guldur". you should go read the article for yourself Sauron didn't reincarn and never did until the end of lotr that's his presence they drove out it's different It was still Sauron... no it's different, its the will, not Sauron as in the 2nd age war But it was still Sauron. He did not have the same form, but it was him. Bah forget it.. there's a big difference edit : he didn't have a "form" that's the whole point, and thus, that's not "him", but only "his will" it's a pretty big distinction in middle earth's history / lore Then I don't understand why the appendix of Lotr (the one that Tolkien wrote) calls this being for "Sauron" also at the the time of the events of the Hobbit. See for instance the timeline at 2850, 2939 and 2941. "2850 - Gandalf enters Dol Guldur and confirms that the evil thereby found is indeed Sauron returned" it's the will's influence of the sleeping mayar that has no more shape or form whole thing about Sauron plot(s) in lotr/3rd age is him trying to get back into shap and getting enough power to come back sorta hell, his "will/mind" isn't even complete without the One, so, it's reaaaaally far away from 'Sauron' as in what he really is Yes, I never claimed otherwise. I just stated my right to call it Sauron since that is what Tolkien does consistently in the Lotr appendix. Lotr / Tolkien lore have alot of incoherencies Like the full powered up witch king beeing murdered in plain sight by a pubescent hobbit with a 3rd age human chick Well the hobbit had one nice dagger tho
Well, then you can use that to discredit any argument about the lore, including yours.
|
On December 22 2011 08:00 Maginor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 07:59 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:55 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:53 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:48 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:37 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:36 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:34 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:34 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:33 Boonbag wrote:
[quote]
you should go read the article for yourself
Sauron didn't reincarn and never did until the end of lotr
that's his presence they drove out
it's different It was still Sauron... no it's different, its the will, not Sauron as in the 2nd age war But it was still Sauron. He did not have the same form, but it was him. Bah forget it.. there's a big difference edit : he didn't have a "form" that's the whole point, and thus, that's not "him", but only "his will" it's a pretty big distinction in middle earth's history / lore Then I don't understand why the appendix of Lotr (the one that Tolkien wrote) calls this being for "Sauron" also at the the time of the events of the Hobbit. See for instance the timeline at 2850, 2939 and 2941. "2850 - Gandalf enters Dol Guldur and confirms that the evil thereby found is indeed Sauron returned" it's the will's influence of the sleeping mayar that has no more shape or form whole thing about Sauron plot(s) in lotr/3rd age is him trying to get back into shap and getting enough power to come back sorta hell, his "will/mind" isn't even complete without the One, so, it's reaaaaally far away from 'Sauron' as in what he really is Yes, I never claimed otherwise. I just stated my right to call it Sauron since that is what Tolkien does consistently in the Lotr appendix. Lotr / Tolkien lore have alot of incoherencies Like the full powered up witch king beeing murdered in plain sight by a pubescent hobbit with a 3rd age human chick Well the hobbit had one nice dagger tho Well, then you can use that to discredit any argument about the lore, including yours.
no, i'm using post Lotr lore Tolkien published afterwise
it's more like, what he published later (tho he did write everything but the hobbit, about the same time) doesn't sync so well with Lotr that has alot of weird things in it that don't always fit in the world he designed
edit : goes like this > the hobbit > lotr > silmarillon / unfinished tales
|
On December 22 2011 08:02 Boonbag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 08:00 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:59 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:55 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:53 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:48 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:37 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:36 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:34 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:34 Maginor wrote:
[quote]
It was still Sauron...
no it's different, its the will, not Sauron as in the 2nd age war But it was still Sauron. He did not have the same form, but it was him. Bah forget it.. there's a big difference edit : he didn't have a "form" that's the whole point, and thus, that's not "him", but only "his will" it's a pretty big distinction in middle earth's history / lore Then I don't understand why the appendix of Lotr (the one that Tolkien wrote) calls this being for "Sauron" also at the the time of the events of the Hobbit. See for instance the timeline at 2850, 2939 and 2941. "2850 - Gandalf enters Dol Guldur and confirms that the evil thereby found is indeed Sauron returned" it's the will's influence of the sleeping mayar that has no more shape or form whole thing about Sauron plot(s) in lotr/3rd age is him trying to get back into shap and getting enough power to come back sorta hell, his "will/mind" isn't even complete without the One, so, it's reaaaaally far away from 'Sauron' as in what he really is Yes, I never claimed otherwise. I just stated my right to call it Sauron since that is what Tolkien does consistently in the Lotr appendix. Lotr / Tolkien lore have alot of incoherencies Like the full powered up witch king beeing murdered in plain sight by a pubescent hobbit with a 3rd age human chick Well the hobbit had one nice dagger tho Well, then you can use that to discredit any argument about the lore, including yours. no, i'm using post Lotr lore Tolkien published afterwise it's more like, what he published later (tho he did write everything but the hobbit, about the same time) doesn't sync so well with Lotr that has alot of weird things in it that don't always fit in the world he designed edit : goes like this > the hobbit > lotr > silmarillon / unfinished tales
Give me concrete sources written by Tolkien that say that this being should not be called 'Sauron'.
|
On December 22 2011 08:04 Maginor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 08:02 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 08:00 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:59 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:55 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:53 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:48 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:37 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:36 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:34 Boonbag wrote:
[quote]
no it's different, its the will, not Sauron as in the 2nd age war
But it was still Sauron. He did not have the same form, but it was him. Bah forget it.. there's a big difference edit : he didn't have a "form" that's the whole point, and thus, that's not "him", but only "his will" it's a pretty big distinction in middle earth's history / lore Then I don't understand why the appendix of Lotr (the one that Tolkien wrote) calls this being for "Sauron" also at the the time of the events of the Hobbit. See for instance the timeline at 2850, 2939 and 2941. "2850 - Gandalf enters Dol Guldur and confirms that the evil thereby found is indeed Sauron returned" it's the will's influence of the sleeping mayar that has no more shape or form whole thing about Sauron plot(s) in lotr/3rd age is him trying to get back into shap and getting enough power to come back sorta hell, his "will/mind" isn't even complete without the One, so, it's reaaaaally far away from 'Sauron' as in what he really is Yes, I never claimed otherwise. I just stated my right to call it Sauron since that is what Tolkien does consistently in the Lotr appendix. Lotr / Tolkien lore have alot of incoherencies Like the full powered up witch king beeing murdered in plain sight by a pubescent hobbit with a 3rd age human chick Well the hobbit had one nice dagger tho Well, then you can use that to discredit any argument about the lore, including yours. no, i'm using post Lotr lore Tolkien published afterwise it's more like, what he published later (tho he did write everything but the hobbit, about the same time) doesn't sync so well with Lotr that has alot of weird things in it that don't always fit in the world he designed edit : goes like this > the hobbit > lotr > silmarillon / unfinished tales Give me concrete sources.
go read silmarillon / unfinished tales
although silmarillon contains most of it
edit : and is much more entertaining than lotr is
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
This argument is oh so pointless. Gollum is both Gollum and Smeagol. Gandalf is both Gandalf and Olorin. Morgoth is both Morgoth and Melkor. The formless and diminished spirit of Sauron is still Sauron. He is not exactly the same Sauron of the previous ages, but he retains the essence that makes him him.
|
On December 22 2011 08:04 Boonbag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 08:04 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 08:02 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 08:00 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:59 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:55 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:53 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:48 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:37 Boonbag wrote:On December 22 2011 07:36 Maginor wrote:
[quote]
But it was still Sauron. He did not have the same form, but it was him. Bah forget it.. there's a big difference edit : he didn't have a "form" that's the whole point, and thus, that's not "him", but only "his will" it's a pretty big distinction in middle earth's history / lore Then I don't understand why the appendix of Lotr (the one that Tolkien wrote) calls this being for "Sauron" also at the the time of the events of the Hobbit. See for instance the timeline at 2850, 2939 and 2941. "2850 - Gandalf enters Dol Guldur and confirms that the evil thereby found is indeed Sauron returned" it's the will's influence of the sleeping mayar that has no more shape or form whole thing about Sauron plot(s) in lotr/3rd age is him trying to get back into shap and getting enough power to come back sorta hell, his "will/mind" isn't even complete without the One, so, it's reaaaaally far away from 'Sauron' as in what he really is Yes, I never claimed otherwise. I just stated my right to call it Sauron since that is what Tolkien does consistently in the Lotr appendix. Lotr / Tolkien lore have alot of incoherencies Like the full powered up witch king beeing murdered in plain sight by a pubescent hobbit with a 3rd age human chick Well the hobbit had one nice dagger tho Well, then you can use that to discredit any argument about the lore, including yours. no, i'm using post Lotr lore Tolkien published afterwise it's more like, what he published later (tho he did write everything but the hobbit, about the same time) doesn't sync so well with Lotr that has alot of weird things in it that don't always fit in the world he designed edit : goes like this > the hobbit > lotr > silmarillon / unfinished tales Give me concrete sources. go read silmarillon / unfinished tales although silmarillon contains most of it edit : and is much more entertaining than lotr is
I have read Silmarillion. It calls Sauron for Sauron also at the time when he is in Dol Guldur.
|
|
|
On December 22 2011 08:05 Telcontar wrote:
This argument is oh so pointless. Gollum is both Gollum and Smeagol. Gandalf is both Gandalf and Olorin. Morgoth is both Morgoth and Melkor. The formless and diminished spirit of Sauron is still Sauron. He is not exactly the same Sauron of the previous ages, but he retains the essence that makes him him.
Arguing about Tolkien lore is never pointless when you role player-ed it twice a week for years :D learning maths through it's masochist rocket science combat rules
|
this isn't LOTR though 
|
"IM GETTING NERD CHILLS BILBO"
Hope this is good  I've read the Hobbit twice, hope they make it as awesome as the book
What a pointless argument though. Sauron is referenced as the Necromancer in the Hobbit.. they are the same guy! 'Strider' isn't different than 'Aragon' just because of what they're called.
|
On December 22 2011 08:00 Maginor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 07:59 Boonbag wrote:
Lotr / Tolkien lore have alot of incoherencies
Like the full powered up witch king beeing murdered in plain sight by a pubescent hobbit with a 3rd age human chick
Well the hobbit had one nice dagger tho Well, then you can use that to discredit any argument about the lore, including yours. And you also have to realise that Tolkien's universe virtually has no superheroes. Everyone can be killed relatively easy. A stab in the face by a sword is deadly. It's better this way because it doesn't create DBZ scenarios where one character is completely powerless against another.
|
On December 22 2011 08:16 hnQ wrote:this isn't LOTR though
i still remember the day our game master decided it was time to get my 1st age elf killed along with the rest of the party
I felt like a part of me died there
oh well best things had to come to an end eventually >.>
|
On December 22 2011 08:19 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 08:00 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:59 Boonbag wrote:
Lotr / Tolkien lore have alot of incoherencies
Like the full powered up witch king beeing murdered in plain sight by a pubescent hobbit with a 3rd age human chick
Well the hobbit had one nice dagger tho Well, then you can use that to discredit any argument about the lore, including yours. And you also have to realise that Tolkien's universe virtually has no superheroes. Everyone can be killed relatively easy. A stab in the face by a sword is deadly. It's better this way because it doesn't create DBZ scenarios where one character is completely powerless against another.
witch king of angmar is still a fucking upset
|
The Hobbit, the film, based on the book. It's coming out, in a year.
I'm going to like the parts where the hobbit does things and there are other things happening as well like talking fauna and plants.
I enjoyed the hobbit book and now there's a film.
I watched lord of the rings in the cinema with my friends.
I enjoy threads about james bond movies and the hobbit too.
I am finally happy
|
Now I need to buy another full extended blu ray edition T_T
|
On December 22 2011 08:23 Boonbag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 08:19 Thorakh wrote:On December 22 2011 08:00 Maginor wrote:On December 22 2011 07:59 Boonbag wrote:
Lotr / Tolkien lore have alot of incoherencies
Like the full powered up witch king beeing murdered in plain sight by a pubescent hobbit with a 3rd age human chick
Well the hobbit had one nice dagger tho Well, then you can use that to discredit any argument about the lore, including yours. And you also have to realise that Tolkien's universe virtually has no superheroes. Everyone can be killed relatively easy. A stab in the face by a sword is deadly. It's better this way because it doesn't create DBZ scenarios where one character is completely powerless against another. witch king of angmar is still a fucking upset
Well, he overextended himself, attacked too carelessly and fell victim to a brilliant flank.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
