Active Users:312 Time:05/04/2025 09:05:35 PM
Not for my purposes. Cannoli Send a noteboard - 10/04/2010 03:42:37 AM
But still, the effect is the same, isn't it?

The gateway stays open.



My point in asking was to determine if permanently tied off gateways could be set up as transportation/communication aids for normal people, and to relieve the pressure on the channelers from having to do all the gateways each time one is needed. Since Rand's method of blocking Aviendha's gateway was failing visibly, it would not suffice for the purpose which I would have used a tied off gateway. I was seeking confirmation that if you wove a gateway and tied it off, it would stay that way indefinitely. I will be posting a thread fairly soon contemplating the possibilities of this weave, and I wanted to see if it was possible or if I was forgetting something in the books that rendered the idea moot.
Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
Reply to message
Can gateways be tied off? - 07/04/2010 11:52:42 PM 1546 Views
hmm - 08/04/2010 12:29:41 AM 710 Views
Re: Can gateways be tied off? - 08/04/2010 12:56:04 AM 773 Views
Good points. - 08/04/2010 02:51:55 AM 720 Views
Sammael - 08/04/2010 01:49:08 AM 766 Views
I'd imagine that it'd be possible. - 08/04/2010 03:46:13 AM 802 Views
Yup they can be.... - 08/04/2010 06:25:28 AM 1035 Views
Interesting - 08/04/2010 11:03:08 AM 792 Views
yes about the warder bond - 08/04/2010 02:13:19 PM 656 Views
I always thought the gateway trick was Brandon's too - 08/04/2010 05:23:52 PM 606 Views
Re: Interesting - 09/04/2010 02:36:43 PM 578 Views
Re: Yup they can be.... - 08/04/2010 03:26:37 PM 644 Views
Re: Yup they can be.... - 08/04/2010 11:20:30 PM 598 Views
Uh, yes. Can't believe you forgot this one. - 08/04/2010 08:36:04 PM 609 Views
Re: Uh, yes. Can't believe you forgot this one. - 08/04/2010 09:03:35 PM 651 Views
Aha! Pie on my face! - 09/04/2010 12:42:47 AM 648 Views
Not for my purposes. - 10/04/2010 03:42:37 AM 610 Views
Re: Not for my purposes. - 10/04/2010 10:38:05 AM 573 Views

Reply to Message