The statement you mention above:  I have responded to it repeatedly.

Once again:  The statement you refer to is pretty much true, but beside the point. You raising it again and again is the straw man I'm talking about- I have never claimed that Tolkien has a copyright on the phrase "That would be folly". Disproving a claim that I have never made (but sounds close to one that I have, straw man) doesn't buttress your position.

Tolkien has rights to story/theme/etc. which has been deliberately invoked by the guy who placed the ad (Kylotan).  Maybe it's improper use, maybe it isn't, but your refrain about copyright not protecting phrases etc utterly fails to address the claim you continue to present it in response to.

The fact that copyright does not protect short phrases in and of themselves does not imply that short phrases are always legally incapable of creating an infringement by conjuring up material which IS protected.  Several precedents reviewed here demonstrate that fact.

Your first post, and subsequent posts, have failed in their stated goal of proving that there is no improper infringement based purely upon the length of the material quoted.

Stilton

No, it's 7 pages of people arguing legal issues, on a legal forum. That's not really any different from people arguing building issues on the builders forum, or coding issues on the coding forum. If you don't want to read about legal issues, then I have to wonder what you're doing reading the "Legal Issues" forum.

However I think the discussion has gone about as far as it can, at least as far as I'm concerned - I don't feel I've anything to add that I haven't already said.