Active Users:1081 Time:13/11/2026 12:00:16 PM
there's a slight problem with your theory Jim Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM
While there is nothing in the books to indicate that there is no difference between the way angreal and sa'angreal work, there's also no indication that they work the same way. Considering that BS has RJ's notes, and therefore a huge pile of info we don't, I can't see how you could think that his thoughts are wrong. Not to mention the fact that I would think that the WT raid would have at least been outlined by RJ, likely including Egwene's theft of the sa'angreal, which would mean that RJ would have thought that she would have gotten some benefit from it.
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
Reply to message
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM 1989 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 1169 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 1242 Views
Re: The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 12:37:46 PM 1106 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 1095 Views
Re: The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 02:27:41 PM 1115 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 1119 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 1098 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 1135 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 1196 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 1071 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 1265 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 1136 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 1089 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 1253 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 517 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 560 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 1210 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 1201 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 1105 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 1029 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 468 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 481 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 1098 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 1124 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1349 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 1076 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1633 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 1144 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 507 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 1016 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1496 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 1024 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 1089 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 1002 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 1087 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 1020 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 1048 Views

Reply to Message