Oh dear, Shadow Minister, you're really not very good at this, are you old chap?

My name is Craig Minns: a quick google search will reveal many things about me and about the things I have made statements about. A google search for "Shadow Minister" reveals nothing about you or about any of the grandiose claims you've made. I'll leave the reader to decide who is the "troll"...

Oh, by the way, you might like to have a look at the OED, your grasp of English could do with some improvement.

If that's too hard, here's a simpler version from Wiktionary

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/earnt

An extract:

"Verb

earnt

(chiefly British) simple past tense and past participle of earn  [quotations ▲]
2005, Andrew Milner, Literature, Culture and Society:

An exceptionally popular commercial writer can even become rich from royalties: immediately prior to the release of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, J. K. Rowling was reported by The Times to have earnt some £280 million from the sale of an estimated 200 million copies of her books worldwide combined with royalties from the films based on them [...].

2010, Aileen Cater-Steel, Women in Engineering, Science and Technology:

In 2006 women in the mining sector earnt an average weekly wage of $1335.40, compared to women working in the retail trade sector, who earnt an average $726.10 per week."

No need to thank me old chap.

Craig,

http://www.whichenglish.com/Better-English-Grammar/usage/earnt-or-earned.html

Because your misspelling coincided with a medieval version of the word convinces no one.

"In modern-day usage the only accepted spelling is earned in all forms of English" http://www.whichenglish.com/Better-English-Grammar/usage/earnt-or-earned.html

I did google you and if you really are

"The "angry white male" who can't find work because he has "only" a school certificate and even basic jobs require ridiculous and meaningless jumping through qualifying hoops has every reason to be angry. The "angry white male" who has to fund his own legal proceedings (or more likely try and fail to self-represent) in divorce, while his ex-wife is fully funded through legal aid has every reason to be angry. The father who watches his son being left behind by an educational system that has over 40 years been tailored to suit girls has every reason to be angry."

Then I forgive you, for you knew not what you were doing.

You're historically challenged as well, old man. 2005 and 2006 are not generally regarded as part of the medieval period. If you have a concern about whether it's correct, then I suggest you take it up with JK Rowling.

I'll leave the rest of your sour grapes for you to tread, I'm not fond of whine...

Craig,

Why would I ask JKR about someone writing about her?

As for your previous articles, whining seems to be your sole skill.

Well now you are both being pissy. I will leave you to it.

What a good idea Steele.

Congratulations, Shadow Minister, you've repulsed another possibly interesting discussion opportunity. You must be so proud...

Oh, just as a parting aside, after analysing your commentary in this thread, you tend to shift between Kohlberg's stage 1 and stage 2, mostly the former.

Feel free to look up what that means, or you can read my article when I write it.