Active Users:1357 Time:27/09/2026 12:46:21 PM
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 3584 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1603 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1750 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 1469 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1875 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1517 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1592 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1681 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 1527 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 1448 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 1479 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1547 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 1330 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1587 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 1475 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1533 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 1412 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1561 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 1752 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1588 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1585 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1597 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 1395 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 1802 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 827 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1800 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1825 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1573 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1917 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1557 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1857 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1562 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing - 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM 1473 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1801 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1805 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 1412 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 1459 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 1466 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 1382 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1548 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 1328 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 1590 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 840 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 779 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 1405 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 1469 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1532 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 1465 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 1462 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1604 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 1319 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 1314 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 1233 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 1271 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 1408 Views

Reply to Message