Active Users:158 Time:20/04/2024 03:31:37 PM
No it doesn't darius_sedai Send a noteboard - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM

View original post
View original post
If someone can draw more than this much above their maximum it would seem odd given how many times we've heard about the dangers of overdrawing.

Why? You can overdraw as massively as you want. The constant thing is that you will either be burned out, or straight out die. The best evidence for this is Lews Therin, who, with no angreal or sa'angreal, overdrew enough to create a mountain taller than Everest.

From there, the rest of your argument collapses...

Gonna miss these discussions. Was fun to lay this to bed.


LTT as the Dragon falls as outside of the "rules" as Rand does. Not to mention he didn't create Dragonmount he created a chain reaction that lead to the creation of DM by calling down a giant bolt of lightning that came crashing down into the earth's core leading to a volcano. This also explains the Breaking in much more realistic terms than thinking every male who went mad was powerful enough for to create massive damage alone ... rather assuming they created localized damage that lead to chain reactions of the earth itself.

I too will miss these discussions

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 2140 Views
Or we can choose to assume Elayne is incorrect - 11/01/2016 03:50:14 PM 1006 Views
Uhhh... - 12/01/2016 12:07:42 AM 1130 Views
Yet there are problems with either - 15/01/2016 08:52:04 PM 819 Views
Re: Yet there are problems with either - 16/01/2016 05:29:11 AM 1081 Views
Would you consider... - 17/01/2016 09:06:59 AM 943 Views
random thought on Shielding - 19/01/2016 07:34:20 PM 1003 Views
You're forgetting the other side, though. - 19/01/2016 08:19:59 PM 1066 Views
yes but it doesn't proactively do this - 19/01/2016 10:06:25 PM 927 Views
Responding to a shield doesn't require proactiveness - 20/01/2016 05:53:24 AM 823 Views
it's a visualization thing really - 20/01/2016 04:39:08 PM 878 Views
Not the crux of the debate... - 21/01/2016 03:37:40 AM 968 Views
Not really though - 21/01/2016 05:00:34 PM 734 Views
I always explained it as - 21/01/2016 09:26:35 PM 972 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 840 Views
That's precisely my point - 21/01/2016 10:09:02 PM 983 Views
now you are speculating based on a lack of evidence - 21/01/2016 10:39:13 PM 803 Views
There's actual evidence: - 22/01/2016 06:25:25 AM 994 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 1113 Views
Whoa.. - 22/01/2016 04:24:19 PM 1062 Views
Not at all - 22/01/2016 05:03:50 PM 1009 Views
Wonderful - 22/01/2016 06:30:35 PM 983 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 801 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 1100 Views
Petty much *NM* - 24/01/2016 02:50:32 PM 443 Views
Hmmm.... - 23/01/2016 03:06:15 PM 1050 Views
Let me clear this up - 25/01/2016 04:19:51 PM 1189 Views
Some more quotes - 25/01/2016 05:10:51 PM 948 Views
none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 25/01/2016 07:19:48 PM 1240 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 03:45:52 AM 1014 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 09:00:55 AM 1157 Views
Re: none of which I've denied or tried to prove otherwise - 26/01/2016 10:39:49 AM 945 Views
Oh well then I agree with you - 26/01/2016 08:50:55 AM 1058 Views
thanks - 26/01/2016 04:26:46 PM 1217 Views
Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 16/01/2016 08:56:15 AM 785 Views
But additive doesn't explain buffers and being able to overdraw - 16/01/2016 03:02:33 PM 818 Views
Don't those two facts explain each other? - 16/01/2016 03:24:44 PM 855 Views
It actually seems counterintuitive to me - 19/01/2016 07:15:37 PM 800 Views
Simple - 19/01/2016 08:21:11 PM 920 Views
Not at all - 19/01/2016 10:17:39 PM 708 Views
Huh? - 20/01/2016 06:01:04 AM 923 Views
agree to disagree I suppose ... I don't see it this way *NM* - 20/01/2016 04:41:16 PM 498 Views
I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. *NM* - 21/01/2016 12:01:16 AM 477 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 02:07:21 AM 826 Views
Re: I didn't sense disagreement so much as confusion over my position. - 21/01/2016 03:32:59 AM 844 Views
I don't necessarily think that's true - 21/01/2016 05:07:40 PM 919 Views
I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:01:17 PM 905 Views
Re: I don't see how magnifiers solve this - 21/01/2016 10:16:16 PM 846 Views
Uhhh... - 22/01/2016 06:51:11 AM 993 Views
Funny, I just saw this post - 17/09/2016 11:13:09 PM 713 Views
The very first chapter (the Prologue) disproves this - 03/10/2016 06:56:28 AM 786 Views
No it doesn't - 05/10/2016 12:47:03 AM 682 Views
Re: Don't those two facts explain each other? - 08/10/2016 05:06:53 AM 582 Views
Re: Yes, but that's not what I'm arguing... - 08/10/2016 04:52:06 AM 799 Views

Reply to Message