Active Users:636 Time:31/03/2026 12:44:59 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 3273 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1488 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1618 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 1349 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1738 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1407 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1469 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1559 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 1407 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 1337 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 1366 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1455 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 1215 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1469 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 1325 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1434 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 1289 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1439 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 1635 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1496 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1463 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1480 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 1271 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 1689 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 751 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1690 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1714 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1467 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1816 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1441 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1758 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1436 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing - 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM 1348 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1692 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1701 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 1282 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 1337 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 1337 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 1266 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1388 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 1193 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 1458 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 770 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 725 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 1277 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 1332 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1394 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 1368 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 1345 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1463 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 1196 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 1220 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 1110 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 1128 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 1275 Views

Reply to Message