sceen=scene, yes? And I didn't mean confusing to me. I meant to others. It's alwas been clear to me. - Edit 1
Before modification by TaskmasterJack at 27/10/2010 03:12:07 AM
It's just that it can be difficult to explain and expect others to see enough evidence to change their minds. As for laziness, while it is true I did not dig my books out of storage to reference for this discussion, the degree to which I am or am not lazy (and it is quite a bit) has no bearing on my opinion. I've actually participated in this discussion a few times before in my years amongst these web denizens. I must say, it is rare to meet someone who believes balefired objects affect time. Most people accept that the secondary effect of balefire is limited to living things. But you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. It is a difficult thing to declare either way definitively without a direct explanation from the now deceased author himself.
It is stated explicitly that balefire works this way. Also another post has stated Brandon Sanderson has stated that everything has a thread, even inanimate objects.
Actually, your bolded sentence repeats my argument almost word for word. I said "the circumstances result from the threads of the boatmen being burned back combined with the damage to the boat". The damage to the boat simultaneously combined with the boatmen being balefired is what allowed the water to rush in. If Moghedien had missed all the people on the boat, but still cut the boat in half with balefire, time would not have been affected and water would have flowed in at a normal rate. I'm sure you disagree, but that's because you don't perceive the same limits to balefire that I do.
Again, I don't think there's anything I can say to dissuade you from your opinion. We each interpret the "physics" of the boat incident differently. And the same is true of the situation with the archer and the dead man. I don't believe that the boat scene can be used to definitively prove your argument. Our understanding of the science of balefire is just not the same.
She raised her hands, but as the balefire launched itself, something flashed around her and she jerked. Because she had jerked, the balefire she meant to slice through the cabin and passenger instead had sliced diagonally through the middle of the boat, about where the oarsmen had stood, and the bodyguards. Because the rowers had been burned out of the Pattern before the balefire struck, the two halves of the craft were now a good hundred paces back up the river. Then again, perhaps it was not a complete disaster. Because the slice from the boat's center had gone at the same time the boatmen had died, the river had had minutes to rush in. The two parts of the boat sank out of sight in a great froth of bubbles even as her eyes shifted to them, carrying their passenger to the depths.
It is stated explicitly that balefire works this way. Also another post has stated Brandon Sanderson has stated that everything has a thread, even inanimate objects.
Actually, your bolded sentence repeats my argument almost word for word. I said "the circumstances result from the threads of the boatmen being burned back combined with the damage to the boat". The damage to the boat simultaneously combined with the boatmen being balefired is what allowed the water to rush in. If Moghedien had missed all the people on the boat, but still cut the boat in half with balefire, time would not have been affected and water would have flowed in at a normal rate. I'm sure you disagree, but that's because you don't perceive the same limits to balefire that I do.
I believe it would reverse the victims fate, as the quote from the books I gave states, the floor would be gone for minutes before you fired the arrow and the person would fall down in the hole and therefore not be in the path of the arrow. this would hold true for the bow arrow and for the archer as well.
Again, I don't think there's anything I can say to dissuade you from your opinion. We each interpret the "physics" of the boat incident differently. And the same is true of the situation with the archer and the dead man. I don't believe that the boat scene can be used to definitively prove your argument. Our understanding of the science of balefire is just not the same.