Active Users:1250 Time:23/06/2026 05:53:03 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 3395 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1541 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1670 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 1397 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1798 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 1456 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1529 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1616 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 1464 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 1388 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 1421 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 1497 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 1274 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 1521 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 1396 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 1483 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 1335 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 1488 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 1690 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1533 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1510 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 1548 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 1325 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 1727 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 781 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1743 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1767 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 1518 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1849 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1489 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1803 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 1494 Views
from the very beginning of this conversation I've been saying I'm theorizing - 26/01/2016 04:09:19 PM 1399 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1743 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1745 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 1327 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 1387 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 1391 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 1316 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 1470 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 1251 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 1516 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 797 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 746 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 1326 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 1389 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 1455 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 1416 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 1395 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 1526 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 1246 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 1264 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 1160 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 1180 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 1327 Views

Reply to Message