Active Users:464 Time:01/07/2025 12:30:12 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 2764 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1284 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1415 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 1127 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1515 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1231 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1275 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1359 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 1209 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 1122 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 1169 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1252 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 1026 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1261 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 1152 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1238 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 1066 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1249 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 1416 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1323 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1289 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1269 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 1090 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 1497 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 663 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1460 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1487 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1259 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1566 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1272 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1571 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1243 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing - 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM 1151 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1457 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1507 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 1073 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 1105 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 1134 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 1083 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1206 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 977 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 1218 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 666 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 628 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 1099 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 1111 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1208 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 1166 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 1114 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1265 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 1004 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 1041 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 955 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 899 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 1098 Views

Reply to Message