Of course we did they look great

I bet those bounce and shake nicely

But for who? Just him?

Not to just keep replying to you but it's also very doable online if you can't find players where you are

While reading this comment I had the thought of a stoic warrior type that was very much an outsider to the society he was mostly operating in but very open to learning about the things that are new to him. Occasionally he would really embrace some part of that culture and make his own references to it.

I'd probably call him Jaxson and get away with it until he said indeed.

I didn't want to come off dismissive asking how often you're talking about those specific kinds of plants but maybe it's a relevant question after all lol

I think you and I have very different experiences. I rarely see that kind of correction if ever.

When you're in a public space you never know when your words are being consumed by an ESL speaker. I think the best approach is natural yet accurate. They're going to encounter contractions when dealing with native speakers, but the difference between it's and its, for example, can be tricky so try to use them as taught.

Spelling mistakes can absolutely be an issue. It's already hard enough to figure out English spelling without native speakers making it worse. Add on to that the difficulty in any added language of working out near homophones, let alone actual homophones.

I knew someone who was pretty decent with English as their third language but had trouble keeping Texas and taxes straight. I know another guy who is American and uses no in place of know. That one threw me for a while before I figured out what he was trying to say.

I will admit, I do like that "technically" the plural for octopus is "supposed to be" octopods (pronounced like oc-tip-o-dees) but that's a fun "fact", not a correction I've ever tried to make.

Why a man whose counterpart grew a beard recently in comparison has also done the same in very different circumstances.

Sure, we're told that, but we're not shown it. I've heard that a given person is the only one that can do a thing and it's rarely true. While these are not ordinary circumstances by any means, just being told such is just that. And if we want to get very technical we would need to acknowledge Tom Bombadil.

Sam was tempted, sure, but Frodo was already being tempted before they left the Shire. Hiding behind a tree with a Nazgûl leaning over I don't believe for a moment it was Frodo wanting the ring on and I think the way he snaps back supports that. The Ring grew stronger as they grew closer. It's like chronic pain. If you deal with a certain kind of pain every day it's tiring but you get accustomed to it. If someone just going about their life gets sudden pain to the same level it might bring them to their knees. It doesn't mean anything accept that you've had time to adapt and they have not.

Do you honestly believe that Frodo's sense of sense of goodness, humility, and self-sacrifice is greater than that of Sam or really most of the fellowship? If that's what it comes down to then he would need to be far more advanced in those than everybody else. I think Sam easily demonstrates as much if not more of most if not all of those. If you think about it Frodo isn't shown to have much holding him to the Shire apart from Bag End. Sam has a life, hopes, and dreams. He left all that to go with Frodo, and was prepared to drown to continue to do so when Frodo was going to set off on his own. If there's not mountains of goodness and self sacrifice there I don't know where there is. And I really don't think I need to give examples of humility in Sam.

If goodness and self sacrifice are such a huge part of it too then how was Gandalf so readily susceptible? He may not be as humble as a Hobbit but he was clearly prepared to give his life for the fellowship.

I think we are to accept that there's a quality to Hobbits and the lives they choose to lead. I think, in fiction, the biggest part of Frodo entering the journey is the fact that he inherited the ring. As we know the ring chooses who carries it I think it's not unreasonable that it could have had some influence on moving to Frodo. Bilbo having second thoughts doesn't change that. Bearers from Isildur to Gollum didn't want to give it up. If anything the fact that he could may demonstrate the ring's influence. Surely it wouldn't choose someone it thought could destroy it. Without Sam I think it's pretty clear to say that's accurate. Frodo nearly fails more than once but Sam gets him back on track. The Ring cab choose its bearer, but not the people around them.

To me Frodo being the single most important part of success is a lot like so many people who think Romeo and Juliet is a romance. We're not shown that Frodo is unique or special in his ability to carry the ring to Mount Doom (especially since he clearly couldn't on his own) but that we can accomplish great things by working at them together. Tolkien's life before he wrote it feels like an important piece of support for that idea.

There's something perversely amusing, given the conversation, how you seem to expect me to answer your question without seemingly being willing to answer mine.

I'll answer, but not until you've extended the courtesy of doing so yourself with the questions you've already been asked.

How so?

Are they going to go just because you say they have to, or will action be required?

Assuming it's action does that happen with apathy or do you have to care?

Caring a "whole awful lot" does not start and stop with green initiatives by the people.

The "do you care" flow chart boils down to two directions:

• No > then it doesn't matter
• Yes > then what are we going to do about it

Which branch gets to what you're talking about?