Active Users:1344 Time:26/09/2026 10:06:06 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 1950 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 1141 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 1206 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 1087 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 1064 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 1081 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 1087 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 1064 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 1094 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 1165 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 1046 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 1233 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 1100 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 1058 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 1220 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 503 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 541 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 1180 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 1156 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 1067 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 1003 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 452 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 467 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 1052 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 1095 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1312 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 1043 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1580 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 1102 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 489 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 978 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1448 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 998 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 1061 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 970 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 1050 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 983 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 1000 Views

Reply to Message