Active Users:335 Time:17/06/2025 12:44:08 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 1694 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 878 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 938 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 866 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 803 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 841 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 829 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 792 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 821 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 898 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 803 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 980 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 848 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 808 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 947 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 369 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 423 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 886 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 870 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 771 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 751 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 330 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 352 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 790 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 846 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 987 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 780 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1258 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 826 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 361 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 721 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1150 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 758 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 768 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 670 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 773 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 709 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 733 Views

Reply to Message