Active Users:329 Time:16/04/2025 05:13:02 AM
I don't necessarily think that's true darius_sedai Send a noteboard - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM

View original post
View original post
I think we just see it differently ... I'm not really sure RJ had this clearly mapped out. Especially since it seems like there weren't even side notes on the subject

Well, okay, but I don't see any viable alternative explanation. If you seriously think a buffer-less sa'angreal can allow for unlimited magnification of the OP, Callandor and Vora's wand are obviously more powerful than the CK, which means Lanfear was wrong about Callandor, as are the Glossaries, the BWB, and the Companion!

But it's the only logical conclusion when we consider angreal as a "pool of additive power" ... for me it's easier to understand how a magnifier model could create burnout levels of power when a buffer is missing because there is essentially no cap on access to the power here. Compared to an additive model it just doesn't make sense to me that a lack of a buffer allows access to additional power beyond what the angreal was designed for.

Domani Drag Queen in the White Tower ... Aran'gar watch out!
Reply to message
Angreal, Sa'angreal and Moiraine at 66 - 11/01/2016 08:53:23 AM 2453 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1143 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1295 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 992 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1250 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1104 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1134 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1231 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 1081 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 996 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 1039 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1091 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 901 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1122 Views
There's not much to go on since all the shields except Berowyn's are the same - 21/01/2016 09:55:14 PM 1016 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1109 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 946 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1118 Views
what's dense here is that you keep putting in quotes that don't support your position - 22/01/2016 03:28:16 PM 1277 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1187 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1164 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1145 Views
yup that's my argument. that and you're a dick so I'm done with this - 22/01/2016 06:46:23 PM 961 Views
Re: yup that's my argument. that and you're a dick so I'm done with this - 23/01/2016 02:35:33 PM 1240 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 530 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1206 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1344 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1119 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1395 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1141 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1317 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1107 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing - 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM 1020 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1201 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1385 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 946 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 970 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 1008 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 969 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1088 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 850 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 1078 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 569 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 534 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 972 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 984 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1084 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 1036 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 989 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1136 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 879 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 907 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 830 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 775 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 976 Views

Reply to Message