Active Users:646 Time:12/08/2026 04:39:15 AM
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 1924 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 1109 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 1176 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 1063 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 1038 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 1057 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 1061 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 1031 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 1063 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 1135 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 1023 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 1210 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 1071 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 1034 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 1194 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 489 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 532 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 1144 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 1129 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 1034 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 978 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 441 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 452 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 1026 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 1061 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1283 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 1016 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1548 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 1062 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 477 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 952 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1399 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 973 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 1036 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 933 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 1019 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 943 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 962 Views

Reply to Message